The abortion debate

Post Reply New Topic

Except that

y'know


the populations that are actually growing in the world - not so much the ones getting abortions.

I vote abortion -> population control fail. We need something better.

But I don't consider the fetus to be human life.

He went a bit overboard in the News forum and got a bit of a slapping. I checked his posts and he has not posted since Feb 22. Maybe he is on holiday, if he is licking his wounds I hope he is okay.

Or maybe Big Brother has taken him away?


BTW I wish you bloody Americans would learn how to spell. fetus sounds like some weird foot disease. If care nothing about etymology and insist upon phonetic spelling then at least use a double ee

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 08 Mar 2009, 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

I believe that it's wrong for a mother to terminate its fetus past the first trimester. However, I would never force a woman (even my own wife, if I had one) to make a decision either way, and I could never conceive of making it law to disallow it -- you gotta be pretty f*****g pathetic to restrict other peoples' lives to that degree. Aren't they gonna be dealt with in hell anyway?

Anyway, I'm Pro-Life personally, but Pro-Choice legally.

Why not? Is it not a living creature with unique DNA completely different from the mother and is human in species? Sounds like a human life as valid as any other to me.

No because like heaven; hell does not exist either.

Of course it doesn't I'm speaking to the dogmatic Christians who are bent on enforcing the will of their holy book on the world when it's obvious that the holy book itself says that God would deal with them. Besides, wouldn't the Christian thing to do turn the other cheek and let god's will be done, at least up until to the point that it affects you or your family or even community? I'm pretty certain the Christian thing to do is not to go prancing around with your stick flagellating everyone that does what you think they shouldn't do.

Using your logic a sperm and an unfertilized egg are also human life which, like a fetus merely needs proper development to become a full fledged human. Total conservation of sperm or unfertilized eggs is obviously insane impracticality. Full fledged humans are daily tossed away by the thousands with little protest from anti-abortionists who are so concerned about a few cells.

it's impossible to tell whether it's human, rabbit or lizard just by looking at it, up until some 8 weeks of development. it can't live on it's own and it has 50% chance of being spontaneously removed from the mothers organism.

it's a bit hasty to call it "a living human being" at that stage.

Since it's somewhat related:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jlDUCNvtd4[/youtube]

Discuss.

In some circumstances, like rape or unwanted / endangered (health or whatnot) babies, i would accept abhortion, otherwise i think it's time people need to freaking... take their responsibilities and not have sex so much and oops, a baby? Get an abhortion. That kind of behavior pisses me off, as it shows how very little people value life as a whole. -.- (I am NOT pro-life, but i do see that people should think a little bit more when they copulate).

I'm not one to tell anyone else what to do to their body. Is a fetus a human? Maybe, maybe not. But, the woman owns the body and make choose freely to do with it what she will. Perhaps its like evicting a tenant who doesn't pay rent.

T

To create a human being requires not only a batch of cells that form themselves into an independent organism but years and years of care and indoctrination, a form of willing slavery and heavy financial commitment by the parents. People who are unwilling or incapable for this long and difficult process should not be subject to it unwillingly as the result is usually disastrous for all concerned.
It should be stopped before the batch of cells is an independent organism.

Here is my position, its just a bunch of cells, not viable yet to support life. The nervous systems and brain are not fully formed so who cares. My main concern is the welfare of the woman involved.

You Pro-lifers really annoy me because in general you are a bunch of bloody bible bashing conservatives who go on and on about morality then support your governments when they want to invade and kill. Yes it is a broad pen that I am using but looking at the people that get onto the TV to spout there message of hate what other conclusion can I come too.

Get over it the damn foetus is unaware. So what if one of you has friends that were the result of a rape and were adopted out, if they had been aborted they and you would no nothing about it, they only feel lucky because they are able to. Same with me I was an unwanted pregnancy, and was nearly aborted, knowing this does not make me shudder and go feeew that was a close call, because had I been aborted I wouldn't know about it and therefore wouldn't have cared.

It is foolish to debate the end conclusions you are coming to without looking at the premises and definitions you are using. You will find that pro-lifers and pro-choicers operate on very different assumptions.

From the pro-life perspective, you are viewing an unborn child as an independent living human, which thus deserves the same rights as any other. Therefore abortion clearly becomes murder, in all cases. A possible exception could be made if there was a serious threat to the mother's health.

From the pro-choice perspective, a foetus (spelling this way to please the leftist pragmatist) is not a human being but a collection of cells with the potential to become life. Now, from here some might still attempt to debate pro-life, but it is rather difficult to do so and the demands of the mother's situation certainly override.

As you can see, each side's conclusion follows quite easily from their assumptions. You should not be arguing over the conclusion, but instead over whose definitions are correct. Too often I see these debates and neither side will address the foundation of the disagreement, preferring a shouting match of old, tired arguments.

For myself, I certainly see the pro-lifer's point. And like most people, I do feel uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. I certainly don't think it's a good thing. However, there are some situations where there is no better option. To look at young women who have found themselves in an incredibly difficult and painful situation and to make it that much harder on them by passing judgment is incredibly callous. Place me in the "pro compassion" camp.

I'm pleased to have raised the etymologic understanding of at least one uncouth yank. Careful with the LP accusation; the party does not have a sense of humour and I might get kicked out

yes all well and good but shouting is so much fun. I doubt that either side will ever agree on a correct definition, manly because we are right and they are wrong



Who gets to decide ? We either have legal abortion or we don't. If we don't then back street abortions will go through the roof with all the accompanying problems.

I agree that prevention is better than cure, so it does make sense to promote safe sexual practices, and by this I do not mean those bloody ridiculous celibacy vows that seem to be in vogue. For starters, that idiot in the white robes who sits on his mountain of wealth could pontificate that his underlings fornicate with condoms and other forms of birth control, instead of relying upon the rhythm method.