Is simply not wanting a baby a good enough reason for having an abortion?In my opinion if you're old enough to go around having kids than you're old enough to raise them.Why do people abort babies even though the babies are clearly alive and moving long before they are born?If you were not wanted would you have wanted to be aborted?This is a very contreversial issue and I realize there are special situations.But why are we aborting thousands of kids all the time if we ourselves would have wanted to live if we were in that same situation?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion:murder or good for society
- Thread starter gtrsgrls
- Start date
Fatmop
Active Member
That last sentence is quite an interesting question. Don't think that most abortions happen simply because of a facetious desire to have more sex and less child-rearing. There is a lot that goes in to those decisions, including:
Does the fetus have obvious genetic or developmental defects? If the child is going to be stillborn or severely retarded, is the pregnancy worth it?
Is the pregnancy a result of rape?
How old is the woman in question - 27 or 14?
Does the fetus have obvious genetic or developmental defects? If the child is going to be stillborn or severely retarded, is the pregnancy worth it?
Is the pregnancy a result of rape?
How old is the woman in question - 27 or 14?
Flappycat
Well-Known Member
Yeah.gtrsgrls said:
Twelve year olds are old enough to raise kids, then?
I think it's kind of sick to harm something that might have feelings, this including dogs, but being merely "alive and moving" isn't enough to evoke any sympathy in me.
Well, yeah. Well, I wouldn't have wanted anything at the time because my brain wouldn't have been far enough along in development to have any awareness of the matter. I really never would have known the difference unless the abortion was delayed until near the end of the pregnancy, then just barely.
Yes, there are special circumstances that you are incapable of predicting. This is why, instead of trying to keep people from getting abortions, you should be out there doing things to keep people from wanting to abort a pregnancy in the first place, such as supporting sex ed, promoting safe sex and carefully planned parenthood.
I wasn't aware of the distinction between living and non-living at the time and never would have known the difference, so this is an invalid assumption. A second trimester fetus isn't quite capable of wanting much of anything. A third trimester fetus might have the capacity of registering thoughts that follow the lines of "I'm uncomfortable and wish to move into a more comfortable position," though not nearly as sophisticated as that.
I think that you miss the point of morality.
Darkdale
World Leader Pretend
gtrsgrls said:
Abortion is evil, it's murder, it's legal, it works. There comes a time when you have to allow something terrible to be legal in order to prevent even more terrible things from happening. I have no respect for the practice or the people who choose to have this done, BUT I'll defend their right to do it. I don't want the government involved in this issue anymore than they already are.
The Black Whirlwind
Well-Known Member
i second that darkdale, abortion is evil, and it is pure murder, but many more would die getting backdoor abortions if it was illegal. The thing is though, i heard this on the radio this morning, is that if rowe was overturned, it would be up to the the states to make their own laws, instead of a federal law imposed everywhere. It wouldn't necessarily become illegal, it would be the voters choice.
Like the Jim Crow laws.Darkdale said:
Darkdale
World Leader Pretend
Jayhawker Soule said:
The Jim Crow Laws were designed to subjugate the rights of African Americans. If anything, abortion is the subjugation of the rights of children; but I'm willing to allow women to usurp those rights on behalf of social stability (if not necessity). Following confederate and libertarian philosophies, I have little problem with a majority of our laws being the privilege and power of the State, as opposed to the federal government. So long as those laws are not clearly unconstitutional (such as the Jim Crow Laws), I've got no real issue there.
Faint
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I would hate to see our country start going backwards, which is exactly what people who want to do away with abortion rights are advocating. Later we can get rid of women's right to choose their partners. Hell, let's just take all their rights away! If you're going to give an unborn fetus who has not even walked the earth yet more rights than it's mother, I think you need to seriously reconsider your position.Jayhawker Soule said:
I'm with flappycat on this, girls can get pregnant at age twelve, sometimes younger--do you really think they could successfully raise a child?gtrsgrls said:
A woman can have an abortion within the first month of pregnancy. The fetus is not "moving" at this point. Far from it in fact. I've also heard that the "soul" (if you believe in such a thing) does not even enter the baby until 40 days after conception. (but I forget if this is from the talmud or what--maybe someone here has heard similar?)gtrsgrls said:
Flappycat
Well-Known Member
And I once met a man who proudly boasts that he's murdered twelve different people, with various justifications (including a fellow who was cheating on one of his cousins). Being proud of an act doesn't make it right. Feeling an act to be justified doesn't make it right. Voting against abortion may make you feel good, but that leaves you feeling good about an act that destroys the lives of innocent, young women, all because you and others like you are too myopic to have any understanding of morality beyond the pitiful artifice of supposed absolutes and haven't even a child's understanding of what truly makes an act moral or immoral.Victor said:
Faint
Well-Known Member
Did you just ignore the rest of my comment or is this a joke? Obviously I'm talking about social issues not technology. We've come a long way since our ancestors started fumbling around with laws (and we still have a ways to go), but what y'all are advocating is a loss of women's rights--it's backstepping into immorality.Victor said:Wouldn't want our TV screens getting any smaller would we?
~Victor
Faint
Well-Known Member
A fetus is a potential child Dark. By this reasoning the use of a condom is also murder because it stops a potential pregnancy which is a potential fetus which is a potential child. If we go back even further, my decision not to have intercourse with a woman is also murder because I'm not allowing a potential pregnancy/fetus/child.Darkdale said:
Stopping a potential life is not murder, and that's all this is. Within the first trimester do you think the fetus can support itself as an independent entity? No--it is still a part of the mother, and thus part of her body to do with as she chooses.
Ryan2065
Well-Known Member
Learn your fallacy's, this is not a slippery slope fallacy.Darkdale said:
What is the difference between say a feterilized egg and a fetus? Time. One will turn into the other (given nothing unexpected happens.)
So are those of you against abortion also against the morning after pill? Seeing as the only difference between the two is time...