Abortion debate topic

darkaniken2

Guest
I already asked the mod, and he said it was cool as long as we keep it civil. So keep it civil or else.

The religious debate thread went without any serious fights breaking out, so I'd like to put another question to the W42 community. What are your thoughts about abortion? Do you support it? Condemn it? Why? Please, intelligent posters only. If you can't contribute more that 'Abortion is bad' or 'Abortion is good', then don't post please.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Abortion is good. :icon_razz:




Basically, my opinion comes down to this, until a baby is born, it is not a living, breathing, human being, it is a part of the mother's body. Therefore, it is the mother's choice what she wants to do with part of her body.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Fetuses can feel pain.

But then again it will feel a hell of a lot more being born into a disadvantaged state of health/society.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
FirstlyFi[FONT=&quot]Firstly, I'd like to point out that, like most arguments we've had so far, the facts favor neither side.

Michael Tooley believes neonate abortion's should be legal.
Pyker, believes a fetus is not a living, breathing human being.
To me a fertilized egg deserves every right to life that a baby or adult possesses.

There is no fact's to support either one.

I can simply state my opinion, and from the fact that I believe a fertilized egg is entitled to every single right a baby or an adult would have, you can figure out my opinion on abortion. Sadly, that's the only basis for my opinion on abortion, which is why I don't bother arguing about it.
[/FONT]
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Agreed, there isn't many intricacies and nuances to a topic such as this as there is in, say, a religious debate. lol

I will say this, I do agree with the cut off that is currently used in America, which is, I believe the end of the first Trimester, if I'm not mistaken. Since it is possible for fetuses in the third trimester to live(albeit, usually with extreme help) outside the mother's womb, abortions at this time for non medical emergency reasons should not be performed.

But, while there is ample evidence to suggest life during the first trimester (heartbeat, and all that stuff) it is a given that a fetus at that age could not possibly survive outside of the womb, which is why I consider it to still be a part of the mother's body.


Now, if you don't mind me hijacking the thread a little bit, there has been a lot of advances recently in the human genome project that make it possible to identify certain genetically disorders before a baby is carried to term. Do you also think that it is wrong to terminate such births, even knowing full well that the babies life could never be lived resembling anything close to a normal manner?
 

darkaniken2

Guest
I'd rather they found a way to correct the defect. But if that's not an option, it falls into two categories: If they have a chance to live life in a semi-standard way, then do not abort. However, if the baby will suffer for its entire life, just to die a painful death, then abort and save the child the pain.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well, obviously we don't have the cures yet (which brings up a whole other issue to debate, the modification of DNA). lol

Would you consider a person with, say, Down Syndrome to ever be capable of living a "semi-normal" life? I don't. People that will have to be cared for for their entire lives can't possibly be considered as having a semi-normal life.
 

darkaniken2

Guest
I would agree. And many of those children are abandoned or put up for adoption, which makes life even worse for them.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It really gets down into a gray zone that bothers me and has bothered me for about three months now.

For me, a lot of it comes down to my faith. However, the Bible doesn't really touch on abortion, and the best method of the times would not have been able to calculate risk to the mother or risk to the child. Thus, I can see why it would have been 100% banned back in Jesus time or earlier.

For me, the question would be the same as Euthanasia (I think that's the right word). Should we be allowed to kill a child who would have a low chance for life, or who is putting the mother at risk?

Personally, I know a few people with down syndrome (No, not me), and I would not abort a baby with Down Syndrome. Especially since that test is relatively inaccurate.

However, for the numerous other life threatening diseases that can harm the mother or the child or both, I really could not say. Is it worth saving a baby with a 2% chance of life and a 0% chance at normal life to save the mother who would have a 50% chance to live. Right now I would have to say I'd lean towards an abortion, the key factor being that I'd probably love my wife/gf more than the unborn fetus. Looking not in hindsight, I'm already questioning whether my decision would be for the right reasons.

In the end though, I believe that a fertilized egg is a human being with the right to life. I go as far as to say an IED or a Plan B type of birth control should be considered abortion (Plan B destroys a zygote, IED's prevent Fertilized Eggs from implanting to wall). Other birth control is fine, I'm not as extreme as Catholics, but between timing, the pill, rings, condoms, spermicide and abstinence, I feel like you should have tried one of those instead.

Also, another main point I would argue, is that government standards should be much more lax than my own moral standards. There are a lot of situations out there that are difficult to make a legal decision, and having to search through pages of legal code to find your answer probably isn't the best option. Plus, Obama said (And I can't believe I'm quoting him), the woman will make the best decision. I don't agree that the woman can make the best decision. There is a lot of hormonal balances and personal fears that go along with a pregnancy, but people close to the situation should be able to come to a reasonable solution.

BTW, I used to be really super anti-abortion, but then I was educated on the topic by a few real life stories told on a few different news sites. Goes to show that these debates can amount to something, no matter how small.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Pearberr, you forgot the pull-out method. :lol:

Yes, it is a very grey area, and a lot of it falls under the category of are we playing God, and/or should we be playing God.

One thing that you said that caught my eye was this:
Pearberr said:
Also, another main point I would argue, is that government standards should be much more lax than my own moral standards.
Click to expand...

What I take that to mean is that you agree that it isn't the governments right to make such a decision, but up to the mother, or did I just totally read you wrong?

If so, you would actually agree with Pro-choice, even if you don't personally agree with abortion itself. If that is the case, I commend you for being able to put aside your own beliefs and, instead, being able to understand that people should have the right to make the choices that are the best for them. It is a huge misconception that people who are personally against abortion must therefore be pro-life, and not pro-choice. (Personally, I think pro-life is a misnomer designed to sway minds, as anyone who isn't pro-life must therefore be pro-death. Of course, I realize that calling it pro-no choice would have pretty much the same effect, only the other way around. lol)

Now, on to Euthanasia(which according to Chrome's spell check, you are correct, I'm a horrible speller). I agree with it. I have watched loved ones die in deep pain due to terminal illness, and watch my grandmother degenerate from the vibrant lady so full of life to a mindless zombie because of dementia. In all of those cases, we all knew they were going to die, including those that were dying. The only exception was my grandmother, who thought my dad, who has been married to my mom for 40 years, was a man my mom had met and married just a couple years before, and who thought my ex-wife was her actual grandchild, not me.

It is hard to watch people suffer like that for no good reason other than their bodies haven't given up even though the fight is futile. It is not easy. I believe people should be able to die with dignity, and Euthanasia can provide that for them.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
pyker42 said:
Yes, it is a very grey area, and a lot of it falls under the category of are we playing God, and/or should we be playing God.
Click to expand...

This is the biggest question for me. No matter what the odds are, miracles happen and who am I to say the human baby/fetus/zygote has no right to that miracle.

What I take that to mean is that you agree that it isn't the governments right to make such a decision, but up to the mother, or did I just totally read you wrong?
Click to expand...

A little thing I came up with is that as long as the government is not commanding what is not allowed or not allowing what is commanded, then its up to the government to decide. In my opinion, the best government is the government that governs least (I stole a quote from somebody right there, don't know who though). Different topic, but similar to my stance on abortion, I also don't think the government should regulate marriage at all, its simply inflammatory. The church can keep track of marriages, the government can keep track of households and families. I don't agree with gay marriage, but that doesn't mean my church has to recognize a gay marriage. However, they can go down the street to the Universalist Church and get their marriage recognized.

If so, you would actually agree with Pro-choice, even if you don't personally agree with abortion itself. If that is the case, I commend you for being able to put aside your own beliefs and, instead, being able to understand that people should have the right to make the choices that are the best for them. It is a huge misconception that people who are personally against abortion must therefore be pro-life, and not pro-choice. (Personally, I think pro-life is a misnomer designed to sway minds, as anyone who isn't pro-life must therefore be pro-death. Of course, I realize that calling it pro-no choice would have pretty much the same effect, only the other way around. lol)
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't identify myself either way, because I really don't know where I stand at the moment. My biggest problem is that I don't know enough about the pregnancy process or about the abortion to say where I would stand. The lack of knowledge had George Bush and Republican Congress ban Partial-Birth abortions, something I agreed with whole-heartedly. However, there is an abortion procedure I read about where a baby in the second trimester gets aborted and it is considered by a technicality a Partial-Birth abortion. If there wasn't a waiver, the mother in question would have had a 50% chance to inherit the disease that left her child a 2% chance to live and .000000001% chance to live a normal life.

Now, on to Euthanasia(which according to Chrome's spell check, you are correct, I'm a horrible speller). I agree with it. I have watched loved ones die in deep pain due to terminal illness, and watch my grandmother degenerate from the vibrant lady so full of life to a mindless zombie because of dementia. In all of those cases, we all knew they were going to die, including those that were dying. The only exception was my grandmother, who thought my dad, who has been married to my mom for 40 years, was a man my mom had met and married just a couple years before, and who thought my ex-wife was her actual grandchild, not me.

It is hard to watch people suffer like that for no good reason other than their bodies haven't given up even though the fight is futile. It is not easy. I believe people should be able to die with dignity, and Euthanasia can provide that for them.
Click to expand...

I would say that there need to be a few factors for Euthanasia.

1. What does the living will say, and/or, what does the patient say?
2. Who's paying for it? Sounds cruel, but considering money allows the world to spin, I don't think the government should spend money to take care of vegetables end of life care. It is extraordinarily expensive and it should not be prioritized over other things like paying off debt so that the Western World currencies don't crash causing world-wide chaos.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Pearberr said:
This is the biggest question for me. No matter what the odds are, miracles happen and who am I to say the human baby/fetus/zygote has no right to that miracle.
Click to expand...
In an absence of of prior knowledge, you have to default to the wishes of the parents, at least in my opinion, but I tend to take a very pragmatic view on things.

Pearberr said:
A little thing I came up with is that as long as the government is not commanding what is not allowed or not allowing what is commanded, then its up to the government to decide. In my opinion, the best government is the government that governs least (I stole a quote from somebody right there, don't know who though). Different topic, but similar to my stance on abortion, I also don't think the government should regulate marriage at all, its simply inflammatory. The church can keep track of marriages, the government can keep track of households and families. I don't agree with gay marriage, but that doesn't mean my church has to recognize a gay marriage. However, they can go down the street to the Universalist Church and get their marriage recognized.
Click to expand...
Possibly Jefferson? It sounds like something he would say, and something that, for the most part, I agree with. The few exceptions I have would be public services, like education, law enforcement, and *prepares for posts calling my a commy* healthcare. Other than that, the government shouldn't be telling us how to live our lives.

Pearberr said:
I probably wouldn't identify myself either way, because I really don't know where I stand at the moment. My biggest problem is that I don't know enough about the pregnancy process or about the abortion to say where I would stand. The lack of knowledge had George Bush and Republican Congress ban Partial-Birth abortions, something I agreed with whole-heartedly. However, there is an abortion procedure I read about where a baby in the second trimester gets aborted and it is considered by a technicality a Partial-Birth abortion. If there wasn't a waiver, the mother in question would have had a 50% chance to inherit the disease that left her child a 2% chance to live and .000000001% chance to live a normal life.
Click to expand...
So, you are in the soul searching phase, then, I assume?

Pearberr said:
I would say that there need to be a few factors for Euthanasia.

1. What does the living will say, and/or, what does the patient say?
2. Who's paying for it? Sounds cruel, but considering money allows the world to spin, I don't think the government should spend money to take care of vegetables end of life care. It is extraordinarily expensive and it should not be prioritized over other things like paying off debt so that the Western World currencies don't crash causing world-wide chaos.
Click to expand...

I would agree that there would need to be strict protocols. But if you are able to issue a DNR, what is the difference between that and Euthanasia? A DNR basically prevents medical personnel from doing everything they can to prevent the death and sustain the living, the logical next step is to bring about a merciful death in cases where there is no hope for a proper recovery.
 

DeletedUser52584

Guest
I think the real question is what are we going to do with all these aborted fetuses. I mean hiding them in popcorn shrimp just isn't cutting it anymore.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
gutterweasel said:
I think the real question is what are we going to do with all these aborted fetuses. I mean hiding them in popcorn shrimp just isn't cutting it anymore.
Click to expand...

Is that what makes KFC so good???

As for my own views politically, I'm very Jeffersonian... Give everybody equal opportunity and let them earn the results.

Sadly, I don't think America will ever get back to those glory days in the early 1800's. So, I would actually support an insanely slimmed down public non-option that would cover some very basic and fundamental defensive/preventative medicine as well as emergency care... nothing else though. This is very much against my personal idealogy, but for the current moment in USA, it would save a lot of money (If done correctly which current bill is not).
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It could defintely help the food situation in places like Africa. :icon_eek:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I am going to take this to yet another branch on this tree.

What of the women who get pregnant on purpose for the sake of another welfare check they shamelessly spend on their drug habit instead of the child? And, should that child actually have a chance to grow up, I have seen many instances where they EXPECT a monetary handout from the government because that is what Mommy was getting. It breeds, no pun intended, laziness and makes bearing a child a means to a paycheck in their eyes.

As for the overall abortion issue. I have been raised and schooled Roman Catholic. I do not NORMALLY agree with aborting a fetus unless it endangers the life of the Mother, which is actually frowned upon by the Catholic church. Why? I have no idea. Baby is born...Mother dies...what next? It almost sounds male chauvinistic. I like to think we are in the era of emancipation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser26129

Guest
Well, im biased considering im from holland, where pretty much everything is legal...

But i have no problem with abortion, i think its for everyone themselves to decide...

And i was raised katholic... but seriously, i have NO problem with it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Interesting topic..

My status on abortion is purely with the person's decision's beliefs and motives. The main reason why there i such a hatred to abortion is the fact you are killing a living thing and then another one is you are taking a life from God.

I am annoyed when I see people protesting about abortion. It is not the decision of an entire community to decide who wants to give birth to a child. You know nothing of said person's life's happenings, you know nothing of their beliefs and you know nothing of how they became pregnant. I feel that if you want to get an abortion, go for it. It is your sole decision. Whether you feel horrible about taking a life or whether you think you even are all depends on who you are

basically.. it is everyone's own decision in my eyes, not a communities. This is where I feel you have to draw the line of religion from the religionists arguments. You have to come to the realization that some people just dont believe. And telling them you are killing god's child is something you should think about before saying because you believe in something that others do not. =]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top