Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

hehe. Something like that passes through my head everyday in line at the student cafeteria...^.^

in all seriousness tho..yes for regulations (reasonable ones), yes on the giving women control over their own bodies!

In my beliefs pretaining to this, I have to be pro-life, because it is a waste of a perfectly good potential human. As many know, I am not religious. But, it is depriving people of their right to live a life, it is not murder persay. But it is still deprivation of a basic human right, the right to live. I do support stem cell research, since it is beneficial to society. Yeah giving women control of their own bodies, they already do. When they do that they are exercising control over someone elses body. And if this is a proper union (marriage, common-law, mongamus relationship) the male should get a say, because if she didnt want the child. Maybe he might want it. Think about the father's right, maybe he wants a child, how many fathers have been reduced to tears when the wife/girlfriend/common-law went ahead and did that. And on the issue of the father forcing the mother to do that, the mother has a choice in that situation.

Allow me to draw a conclusion from the data collected from the poll.

As many of the voters are aspies, I think it is reasonable to assume that we only grasp the issue in intellectual terms. The emotions involved are intense, and it is my belief that we don't feel them as strongly as someone who is NT. Emotion is not our greatest parlance, but reasoning intellectually is a strong suit of ours.

To the person who said this is a practical, not moral issue: If this were in the NCE forum, I would tend to agree. However, since this is in the PPR forum and the topic clearly asks for what you think i.e. your OPINION, I'll have to disagree on that one.

Ok I have read through all of the comments on this tread and I have a few things to say:

(1) I am Pro-life, and somewhat religious. I find it unfair that when someone says that they are so-so religion their credibility on something plummets. I think it racist, stereotypical and immature.

(2) The main argument for Pro-choice is that the fetus isn't alive. Their primary reason for beliveing this is the fact the fetus is incapable of surviving on its own. The ability to survive does not define life. Children under the age of seven are unable to survive on their own, if left alone without food or water readily available. Hell, some adults have difficulty surviving on their own without supplies readily available. The "their just a bunch of cells line" doesn't work on me, we are ALL just a bunch of cells. They are just less complex then you or me.

(3) Another argument is that the fetus is part of the womans body and thus she has full choice over what to do with it. This is true, but, it is an overexaggeration of how much a part of her body it is to say she has the right to remove it at will. Now when such factors as rape or risks to the womans life come into it, they obviously have to be taken into consideration. But just getting one done at the local clinic is not right. Listen, he/she is only in your womb for nine months he/she not doing any harm just have it and see where like takes him/her. If you don't want them then give them up for adoption, its not to hard.

(4) Another argument is that the parent would be unloving or abusive. Now listen here, there is a big difference to not loving what you think is a sack of flesh in your stomach to a baby lokking up at you. A lot of parents may not want the baby but if its born the majority would be willing to take care of him/her. After all before abortion ther was parents who had children they didn't originally want but looked after it and loved it in the end.

(5) There are several other arguments involving world population, crime and the like, but I think they aren't worth the point I have given them.

Well those are my arguments thank you for your time

Your welcome...

(1) It's not racist, it's realistic. And that's the whole truth.
(2) Of course it's alive...it has no brain though, no sense whatsoever, the point is, they're not a 'being' like you or me, they're literally just a bunch of cells. We have got the capability to move, sense, think, whatever, the fetus hasn't.
(3) Another christian thing: instead of abortion, adoption. Chistian ministers here in holland proposed this idea, but doctors from the old days (when adoption actually was the way to do) heavilly disagree. They've seen how horrible it is, how inhuman. And I think the doctors will know better than anybody else.
(4) This argument is actually new to me...and I agree it's a bunch af crap. Because they will love the kid in the end, but is it good for the wellbeing of the rest of the family? And that's another thing.
(5) Totally agree, because that are the arguments given by know-nothings and pathetic creatures.

I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I'm pro-birth control, and pro-not-being-a-whore.

This is a falsehood.

54-56 days post-ovulation.



(source)

10 weeks (61-68 weeks post-ovulation)



(source)

[quote="Pug"]3) Another christian thing: instead of abortion, adoption. Chistian ministers here in holland proposed this idea, but doctors from the old days (when adoption actually was the way to do) heavilly disagree. They've seen how horrible it is, how inhuman. And I think the doctors will know better than anybody else. [/quote]

Ugainius did not make reference to the Bible. I am not a religious person, and I believe in adoption. In my view, it is more humane to give the child up for adoption them to kill the child. Why would doctors know? Weren't many doctors big backers of horribly racist inhumane eugenics programs in the 1920s in the United States? You know who vocally opposed that? The Roman Catholic Church.

What other terms are there?

Not true. It is true that most christians are against abortion, and because they are christian. It is not that I'm pro-abortion because christians are against. It's not prejudiced at all that most christians are against. It is the truth. It would be prejudiced in case I'd say 'you're christian so you're against'. It is uncommon, but it happens.


Ah, good to see someone agrees that within 54 days it has no senses at all.

Why then are you totally against if you yourself state it has nothing until the 54th day? Why don't you want to allow abortion even up until then?

[/quote]
I didn't say he referred to the bible (if he did, there's no point that says abortion is bad not adoption is good) however it's something christians mainly is as a good thing. You apparently too. You have the right to. And it is not killing the 'child'. It's abortion, 'killing' the fetus.

I talked about non-american doctors.

No serious, because in the 20s they did something, you're still angry with them? Dude, doctors have seen what that leads to. A kid being taken away right out of the womb into the orphanage. It puts a big sign onto the kid's life. If you think that's human...
I think it's far more human to remove the bunch of cells before it's grown than to expose it to such evil. Where is a truly loving mother? The kid needs that.

And because the church maybe once did some good, they are good? That's truly generalizing and an insult to the history.

I did not read "no senses" from the statement I quoted.



Because I believe that the taking of innocent human life (even on the theory that it is merely "potential life") is wrong. I believe that to take away that to take away the human experiences that one has, especially from a person with no choice in the matter, is inherently unethical.



I appreciate the qualifier.

When you say that most Christians are Christian "because they are Christian," the question must be asked why are those Christians, including Christian authorities against abortion. The easy question, of course, would be "their religious authorities tells them so." However, speaking as someone who has taken the time intellectual arguments from religious persons against abortion I can affirm it is far more sophisticated then this.

It is also worth noting that not all Christians technically are against abortion. While the Roman Catholic stands on the social right, much of the Protestant churches (in the US, Canada, and Europe) have been, for decades, abandoning their old positions on these issues.



Yes, but why the attempt to associate Christianity with adoption? Was it an attempt to render the argument moot?

I'm sorry, it is killing a child. This is basic biology, a fetus (we aren't even talking about a embryo here) has different DNA then the mother for crying out loud. It is unique creature, it doesn't magically tranform from embryo to fetus to human being. You don't even have to have a position on abortion to understand something like this. It's just that demanding that the unborn child always be called a child is intended to be dehumanizing in the same way that the brutal details of partial-birth abortion and just the technical name of "dilation and extraction" and nothing more.



I do not believe that many doctors, scientists, politicians and corporate leaders have learned the lessons of the past.



Yes, because that is how adoption must be treated. I wasn't aware that adoption was so shameful. We should certainly teach the opposite. It is better then being dead.



What nonsense. This was precisely the argument being made when abortion was legalized in the first place in the United States. It was claimed that it would reduce not only abortions but out of wedlock births and unloved children. But, of course, it completely failed to do this.



Not necessarily, however, we are far better with the Roman Catholic Church in modern times without them. A major religion that openly endorses democracy, and opposes totalitarianism is a major positive. Misguided attempts to think the religion is too "authoritarian" on social issues will find that find their vacuum filled by someone very possibly far less enlightened should they abandon their current doctrine

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I was taught during my classes Biology a brain is quite important to have senses.



So every second I woman isn't pregnant, she doesn't wrong because of not allowing the possible life to live? Because that's essentially the same. In both cases a new life isn't born and no true living thing is killed.



I think it is grounded in their own way what they say. However most christians are against without truly a thought on the subject. They want to illegalize something without a deep thought, that's dumb.
And I think it's a good thing most christians are abandoning their positions there. They'll learn...


Oh now it is a child? So according to you it does jump from the one into the other, from an embryo into a child?
And of course, the women don't like to remove the in-the-future child by abortion. They also see it as removing a possible life and are in deep grief. But see a teenage mother, or a very disabled kid. That really breaks the life of the woman. It's better to abort this one and take another one when the time's better. 'Kill' one possible life, get another later. There you have your life back.
It's not as if abortion is like: 'a this one is a girl, I want a boy, remove it'. The reason must be well-grounded.

As far as I'm concerned the only people that stated adoption is better are christians. But would there be an association between the adoption and christianity? Of course not, purely coincidence!


Why?


If you say so...

I don't. The kid isn't dead, it has never been born! Not truly anyway. It's been prevented to live.


Where did you get those arguments? I didn't state them.

I was saying that on the point of adoption. That's evil.
Because the mother will eventually love the kid, but will it be good? Won't it break the life of the woman and with that that of the kid? It does in some cases and then abortion is absolutely the best to do.

Last edited by Pug on 24 Apr 2007, 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Details of brain development before birth can be found here. To be honest, this is an argument that while I am fairly confident, I am very qualified on (whcih is actually a contradiction now that I think of it)



No, not at all. We are not going to come to agreement. You view the fetus and the embryo as (apparently) of non-entity, a non-life form. I clearly do not. Therefor, I once I belief in maintaining the life of something that I belief is alive. Simply you do not don't believe it is alive, hence you think my thinking makes little sense.

At what, if any point, would you consider a fetus to be a living being. At 8 months? At 9 months (still in the womb)



I would agree in the sense that most people are too busy going about there daily lives, or are frankly not very interested in politics.



I would agree that declining to think of, say, the ethical considerations of any issue (one way or the other) isn't very important.



The technical term for a unborn child beyond a certain point is, in english, an embryo (the cell before that is referred to as an zygote), after that it is referred to as a fetus. I just don't like to use the same words over and over again.



True enough to a significant extend, although there are exceptions. Women in the United States poll more anti-abortion then men do.



I believe here again we are clearly separated philosophically. I believe that a life is involved and you do not. Therefor from a position of ethics my perspective is different from yours.



I cannot agree with such utilitarian logic



Yet, sadly, such is often the case.



I know of pro-life atheists, jews, ect...They may be in the minority of course but they exist.



I would claim no such thing. Rather, that other arguments then religious ones can be made.



Because of many things relating to wars, academia, and many other things. It's a complex subject that we (probably, but perhaps not entirely, you never know) would disagree and my brain is tired. So I won't go over it now.



I was attempting to address the issue of abortion on a more macro (larger, like national) level.

Its called the Hippocratic Oath

The Doctors are breaking an oath that they took to become doctors. They should be fired, because they are breaking an oath.

After 3-4 months I am against abortion, I see it as a living thing then. I don't really know the true biological things (I know the most important things are fulgrown by then) but from then on I'd see it as a true seperate living being. So I do think the time of 5-6 months for abortion is far too long.


In which case they shouldn't be allowed to have power. It undermines democracy. People should know why they have a certain opinion. They shouldn't be against abortion because someone else says they should to be a good person.

(Btw I am 100% certain that if political parties over here called Christan Democratic Appèl would be called Democratic Appèl (for instance, so the whole christian idea is gone), they would never ever receive nearly as many votes as now. People very often vote them because of they're christians without knowing any view.)


Well, I do think it is important to think on certain issues. People should think on them and form their own opinion.


I'd say: if they don't want to use their freedom on abortion, fine, but allow other women to.


I'm afraid you're right.



I indeed do not totally agree with what I said. So:

Remove a bunch of cells, fully create a new, probably healthier, being later.


In which case an abortion should not take place imo. It's bad that it happens. I know it happens and I don't like it. But because of that, I do not think abortion is bad nor should it be banned.


Like?


I see. But the scientists bring forth also very good things. Some bad things, but if we wouldn't allow that risk (too bad, there are bad people always wanting to fight) we would still live in the Stone Age

I don't really care. My mother is like the world's biggest adovate on this. But she gets mad at me when I try to tell her why I don't like orgnations such as the March of Dimes. They save babies so it's okay to sew kittens eyes shut and then kill them with her. Even if it proves absoutley nothing. They CLAIM to save babies. I must be a terrible person because I don't care. They're just preventing more PEOPLE from being born. And personaly I don't like people and never will.