Abortion, lets talk about it

[Orbit]

This is very simple. If you're against abortion, don't have one. And if you're Christian, listen to Jesus, who said "Judge not lest ye be judged".

 

[Polymath257]

The argument is the expectation the fetus "will" become a child not the argument of whether to abort the fetus or not. It's about stopping the process of becoming a child not the present state of the fetus before it becomes a child. Stopping the process of being a life not ending a life that has not been fully developed yet.

The problem is, of course, the humans don't fully develop until they are past their teenage years (at least). Until that point, the brain and body are not yet at their 'developed' state.

Also, there is no question that an embryo or fetus is alive and is of our species. But then, so are all of our organs and, for that matter, the sperm and egg cells. The sperm and egg cells are even 'individuals' and represent the haploid stage of our life cycle: they are genetically distinct.

The question, as far as I can see, it when there is a moral issue at all (and thereby what makes something a moral issue) and when there are competing moral issues that take precedence.

 

[Irate State]

This isn't an argument but an accusation of thoughts. What is your point relating to the debate topic not my choice in words?

My point is that you choose how the topic should be boarded, and that's not how it works there's more to it than just our personal dimension of thought.
It really baffles me how you make an appeal to the principle of charity in a discussion for your terms to be accepted no matter how biased they are.
My stance is this: limiting autonomy is a form power exertion.
Punishing a woman for having sex is form of shaming.
Pretending a woman or girl carrying a pregnancy product of rape to terms is incomprehensible and an aberration that has nothing to do with the woman in question, but with the unnecessary meddling of third parties.

 

[Starlight]

IMO:

1) Every woman should be free to choose for herself whether or not she wants to abort
2) A man should not even think about telling a woman "she should not abort"
2) (First walk a mile in another's shoes the saying goes ... man should first get pregnant)
3) The Pope should not even tell women "you should not abort"
4) My Master should not even tell women "you should not abort"
5) God should not even tell women "you should not abort"
2) (IF Bible is true THEN God has done lots of killings, hence should not criticize us)

So your logic is since you believe God of the bible killed people (something God has never done, many passages in the bible is man made) then you can kill people too? What a strange logic

 

[Dave Watchman]

I think abortion is almost always wrong to do. Have you ever seen a picture of a aborted child? You clearly see it is a baby. I believe life is sacred. All humans is God's childs. And all babies in the womb has a soul. I believe humans get a soul at the conception. No one has the right to take the life of another.

If a woman is pregnant i believe she has responsibility not just for herself anymore but also for the baby in her womb. When a woman is pregnant I believe she has her body and the baby's body, not just her body anymore.

And the closer to birth the abortion is the more the baby will suffer. Late abortion is worst I think..

In many reasons for taking abortion a better opinion, in many cases, a less shelfish opinion (I believe) is to give birth to the child and adopt the child away to a family who wants a child.

But if a child is victim of rape and therefore pregnant then it is a compleately different matter. Or if the mother is ill with death treatening diseases. Then the chooice with smallest damage is the chooise humans chould take.


What do you think about abortion?

I agree that it's the wrong thing to do.

I did seek out the methods and saw the pictures.

I'm not sure about the soul part of it.

Or I'd rather not say what I'm thinking right now.

Maybe tomorrow.

You said: "All humans is God's childs."

Do you think all babies, even those still in the womb, will go to heaven?

Jesus said: "woe to pregnant women."

I think I might know why.

And I think the Devil knows it too.

Some of those aborted souls were supposed to be our brothers and our fellow servants.

Via the mass production of the abortion industry, Satan might have been able to buy for himself a bit more time, and delay the event that the Christians call the rapture.

Some will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

When the stratosphere is illuminated with billions of resurrected saints, all the tribes of the earth that remain will mourn, especially the pregnant women and those nursing infants.

Weeping and....

Dreadful sorry Clementine.

 

[stvdv]

So your logic is since you believe God of the bible killed people (something God has never done, many passages in the bible is man made) then you can kill people too? What a strange logic

I did not say that at all, you misread what I said. You jump to conclusions that I not even contemplated (read careful)

 

[Starlight]

Scientists? Odd analogy. I had to read this a couple of times..

If someone got rapped and got pregnant without conscious decision on their part?



I don't believe the choice of having a healthy baby is dependent on what happens to the mother.

I would disagree with their decision. That doesn't mean I don't understand it.

I wouldn't try to convince them. That's not my place. My opinion is that having the child doesn't mean legally they have to take care of it. Many states in the US the mother can decide whether or not she wants to keep the child within the first couple of weeks of giving birth. Legally, I understand it. Ethically, I disagree.



I couldn't follow the scientist analogy so I made my best guess. My disagreement with abortion is an ethical issue. Legally, women can do what they want. I lean more towards abortion (legally) if the child would not survive anyway. But a healthy child from a rape victim shouldn't be deprived of life because of what happened to his mother.

I think it maybe depends on the person who is victim of rape. If the person is very mentaly ill or have a very serious down syndrom then to force the person to going trough the pregnanty and give birth is wrong?

 

[Koldo]

I think the determining fact is that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is *inside of a person*.

That person has the right to bodily integrity and to remove *anyone or anything* that is inside of the body and unwanted.

I see no moral issue at all before the fetus has the neural connections allowing for the sensation of pain. That happens around the 24th week of pregnancy, with further development later.

After that point, I *do* see a moral dimension to abortion, but the bodily integrity of the woman still takes precedence. She has the right to have the fetus removed. If it is *possible* to remove it in such a way that it lives, that should be done. If it is NOT possible, then it is regrettable, but the woman in whose body this is happening still has the final say.

As much as I mostly agree with you, the biggest problem is: How do we reach the conclusion that someone has this right to this extent?
I don't see how we can reach such a conclusion without considering as a premise a certain given set of values, and if others don't share them they simply won't reach the same conclusion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My point is that you choose how the topic should be boarded, and that's not how it works there's more to it than just our personal dimension of thought.
It really baffles me how you make an appeal to the principle of charity in a discussion for your terms to be accepted no matter how biased they are.
My stance is this: limiting autonomy is a form power exertion.

Too many "you's". Abortion is usually an ethical debate not a legal one. So that's how many people come about it whether they are for or against it.

Are you talking to the right person? Principle of charity? Limiting autonomy?

Form your argument much clearer because it sounds like you're arguing with anti-abortionist as a group and their common arguments, not what I said personally.

Punishing a woman for having sex is form of shaming.
Pretending a woman or girl carrying a pregnancy product of rape to terms is incomprehensible and an aberration that has nothing to do with the woman in question, but with the unnecessary meddling of third parties.

Punishing people?
What on earth are you talking about?

Sounds like you're taking this personally. What I said was I don't see rape as a determinate to abort a healthy child. The closest I can agree to abortion is if the child would not survive if the mother had it. I also mentioned to a couple of people many US States say you can give the child up a few weeks after pregnancy's if legally and resourcefully (etc) they don't want to be that child's legal guardian.

As for forcing women and all that, do you mean by law?

I said I see this from an ethical issue not a legal one.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it maybe depends on the person who is victim of rape. If the person is very very mentaly ill or have a very serious down syndrom then maybe to force the person to have the child is wrong?

The idea is that the child's life is more important than the choice to have it. Once one has a child, the government lets the parent give up legal rights to take care of it. So, I don't know if I'd consider it forcing the mother to have the child. It sounds like the doctor/patient's decision if she wants to have a baby she chooses not to be the legal guardian of.

I think if the person is mentally ill, someone would probably talk for that person. I forgot what it's called-but you can give someone else the rights to make medical decisions for you. Medical directive, I think it is or something similar.

Most of the time, the rape victim probably would need someone to help her out given the trauma of the situation. What if the victim wanted the child but wouldn't get over her trauma short enough period to make that decision?

 

[Starlight]

I agree that it's the wrong thing to do.

I did seek out the methods and saw the pictures.

I'm not sure about the soul part of it.

Or I'd rather not say what I'm thinking right now.

Maybe tomorrow.

You said: "All humans is God's childs."

Do you think all babies, even those still in the womb, will go to heaven?

Jesus said: "woe to pregnant women."

I think I might know why.

And I think the Devil knows it too.

Some of those aborted souls were supposed to be our brothers and our fellow servants.

Via the mass production of the abortion industry, Satan might have been able to buy for himself a bit more time, and delay the event that the Christians call the rapture.

Some will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

When the stratosphere is illuminated with billions of resurrected saints, all the tribes of the earth that remain will mourn, especially the pregnant women and those nursing infants.

Weeping and....

Dreadful sorry Clementine.

Yes i think all babies and unborn babies in the womb who die go to heaven

 

[Starlight]

.

 

[blü 2]

If a woman is pregnant i believe she has responsibility not just for herself anymore but also for the baby in her womb. When a woman is pregnant I believe she has her body and the baby's body, not just her body anymore.

I'm a male who has had in his life a grandmother, a mother, sisters, a wife, a daughter and a granddaughter.

I agree with the formulation of Roe v Wade as a sensible balanced approach.

In the first trimester of pregnancy, the fetus is not sentient, simply an unfolding process of cell growth. Whether the mother should carry this to term is for the mother to decide, not for anyone else to dictate.

The alternative is that women are no different to breeding cattle, a view that I strongly object to and oppose.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think abortion is almost always wrong to do. Have you ever seen a picture of a aborted child? You clearly see it is a baby. I believe life is sacred. All humans is God's childs. And all babies in the womb has a soul. I believe humans get a soul at the conception. No one has the right to take the life of another.

If a woman is pregnant i believe she has responsibility not just for herself anymore but also for the baby in her womb. When a woman is pregnant I believe she has her body and the baby's body, not just her body anymore.

And the closer to birth the abortion is the more the baby will suffer. Late abortion is worst I think..

In many reasons for taking abortion a better opinion, in many cases, a less shelfish opinion (I believe) is to give birth to the child and adopt the child away to a family who wants a child.

But if a child is victim of rape and therefore pregnant then it is a compleately different matter. Or if the mother is ill with death treatening diseases. Then the chooice with smallest damage is the chooise humans chould take.


What do you think about abortion?

I find it decidedly telling that pretty much all pro life peeps always make sure to add the caveat of rape babies being the exception. I thought you valued life? I thought all life is sacred? But suddenly because of trauma that baby loses its chance to live?
Two wrongs cancelling each other out?

Maybe there is a twinge of doubt there.
That being there is always a third party that is ultimately the one with the power. The one pro life positions try to kick out of the equation. Until it makes them look bad.
The pregnant person in question.

I’m firmly pro choice. Late term abortions are among the most medically necessary, just FYI

 

[Polymath257]

As much as I mostly agree with you, the biggest problem is: How do we reach the conclusion that someone has this right to this extent?
I don't see how we can reach such a conclusion without considering as a premise a certain given set of values, and if others don't share them they simply won't reach the same conclusion.

And that is the case for *all* moral discussions. Which is one of the reasons I took it to the issue of bodily integrity, which is easily understood and readily seen as desirable. Whether it is the controlling issue depends on other values.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Scientists? Odd analogy. I had to read this a couple of times..

If someone got rapped and got pregnant without conscious decision on their part?

Seemed fairly straighforward to me. Someone (the scientist part was of little consequence, but you seem to have gotten stuck on it) kidnaps women while they are sleeping, somehow keeps them asleep, and during that sleep, impregnates them turkey-baster style. When this comes out, the women are then faced with both a pregnancy and possible baby that they had zero involvement in, decision-wise.

I don't believe the choice of having a healthy baby is dependent on what happens to the mother.

But what happens to the "mother" (let's remember we're talking specifically about women who did not sign up to be one in these cases) is entirely dependent on having the baby. She faces all sorts of physical, mental and hormonal consequences during and after a pregnancy. To simply feel that these changes to her life should be accepted, when none of the entry into such conditions is any fault of her own, and she has an option otherwise, is pretty preposterous. It should be her decision to move forward with all of those consequences.

I wouldn't try to convince them. That's not my place. My opinion is that having the child doesn't mean legally they have to take care of it. Many states in the US the mother can decide whether or not she wants to keep the child within the first couple of weeks of giving birth. Legally, I understand it. Ethically, I disagree.

I understand your ethical take, however to expect the woman to accept all of the changes that come with a pregnancy that has been literally forced upon her without consent is an unethical position to hold also, in my opinion. Even to just expect it is unethical. It's not only not your place to say what decision should be made, but it is also not your place to say that anyone at all is better off if the woman just takes her licks and gives birth to the baby. You can't even say that for the baby, honestly. Not with the state of the systems that are in place to handle all these unwanted children. It'd be a crap-shoot at best. And from what I have seen, it is one in which you specifically bet all your money on 35 black.

 

[Irate State]

Too many "you's". Abortion is usually an ethical debate not a legal one. So that's how many people come about it whether they are for or against it.

Are you talking to the right person? Principle of charity? Limiting autonomy?

Form your argument much clearer because it sounds like you're arguing with anti-abortionist as a group and their common arguments, not what I said personally.



Punishing people?
What on earth are you talking about?

Sounds like you're taking this personally. What I said was I don't see rape as a determinate to abort a healthy child. The closest I can agree to abortion is if the child would not survive if the mother had it. I also mentioned to a couple of people many US States say you can give the child up a few weeks after pregnancy's if legally and resourcefully (etc) they don't want to be that child's legal guardian.

As for forcing women and all that, do you mean by law?

I said I see this from an ethical issue not a legal one.

Of course, it's you I'm talking to, you and what you've stated so far. Sorry if addressing to the person I'm talking to is considered inappropriate.
Biology was out of the question, now law is out of the question. Ethics is were it's at, then. But I fail to see how abortion is a compartmentalized subject, truly that's new to me.
Sorry for wasting your time.

 

[Koldo]

And that is the case for *all* moral discussions. Which is one of the reasons I took it to the issue of bodily integrity, which is easily understood and readily seen as desirable. Whether it is the controlling issue depends on other values.

Sure. I was talking about how it doesn't function much as an argument, and it is, as such, much more of a statement.
After all, rights are not absolute since they often clash with one another, and once the dust settles down we always end up with exceptions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seemed fairly straighforward to me. Someone (the scientist part was of little consequence, but you seem to have gotten stuck on it) kidnaps women while they are sleeping, somehow keeps them asleep, and during that sleep, impregnates them turkey-baster style. When this comes out, the women are then faced with both a pregnancy and possible baby that they had zero involvement in, decision-wise.

Change it to a real life example. I'm asking for clarification.

... and what is your point?

But what happens to the "mother" (let's remember we're talking specifically about women who did not sign up to be one in these cases) is entirely dependent on having the baby. She faces all sorts of physical, mental and hormonal consequences during and after a pregnancy. To simply feel that these changes to her life should be accepted, when none of the entry into such conditions is any fault of her own, and she has an option otherwise, is pretty preposterous.

It should be her decision to move forward with all of those consequences.

Legally I understand it. Ethically, I disagree. She doesn't need to take care of the child she has. Whether she is raped or not if you have a healthy child, to me I believe that child should live.

I don't know about acceptance. Everyone has their opinions. No one is asking anyone to agree with them.

I understand your ethical take, however to expect the woman to accept all of the changes that come with a pregnancy that has been literally forced upon her without consent is an unethical position to hold also, in my opinion.

Even to just expect it is unethical. It's not only not your place to say what decision should be made, but it is also not your place to say that anyone at all is better off if the woman just takes her licks and gives birth to the baby. You can't even say that for the baby, honestly. Not with the state of the systems that are in place to handle all these unwanted children. It'd be a crap-shoot at best. And from what I have seen, it is one in which you specifically bet all your money on 35 black.

I only see it as forced if the government says she "must" have the baby against her will. Usually, in hospitals doctors work with the mother to see what's best for the mother and child. The thing is, though. A rape victim would probably be too traumatize to make immediate decisions (though I'm not sure how the process goes). So, there are so many factors involved than just "it wasn't her choice."

The rest I have no clue what you're referring to. 35 black?

Sounds like you're taking this personal. I'm trying to figure what you're saying beyond the "yous".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course, it's you I'm talking to, you and what you've stated so far. Sorry if addressing to the person I'm talking to is considered inappropriate.
Biology was out of the question, now law is out of the question. Ethics is were it's at, then. But I fail to see how abortion is a compartmentalized subject, truly that's new to me.
Sorry for wasting your time.

You can be used as an accusation or insult "you did this-you should have done that." It takes the context off the topic of the conversation and makes it about the person instead.

Biology was never in the question. I answered the OP from an ethical one.

1. I understand why legally a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own child. I don't believe in forcing people to do anything.

2. I ethically believe the child should live despite what the mother has gone through.

3. I'm not a scientist or medical physician so if you want to talk about the difference between zygotes etc, yes-with that, you got the wrong person.