563 replies to this topic

[kabuzzle]

Hmm. Saying that abortion makes it easier to have unprotected sex because you know you can always have one? Not exactly true. Abortions aren't exactly easy options!

[Ladida]

Hmm. Saying that abortion makes it easier to have unprotected sex because you know you can always have one? Not exactly true. Abortions aren't exactly easy options!

Yeah, for some reason, some people believe that having an abortion is as simple as breathing. It's not. People wouldn't have abortions if they didn't have to. Unless they wanted to bring some kid into the world to be adopted by some freak family, who'll starve 'em and make 'em live in a box. Before saying nice kind people are ready and willing to adopt, read the news. Yeah, that probably was some kid whose mom decided to give birth to her, and she was savagely treated and brutally killed. Makes you think a bit. Why take that risk?

[mlv]

Abortion shouldn't be permitted. Because of:
1) I think it's just like a homiside, you're killing a person, with the difference that this person isn't born yet. Anyway, it's the same, without caring about the period of pregnancy, STILL A LIFE.
2) If you don't want your baby because you just can't take care of it, you just put it for adoption, I think is the best choice.
You had the oportunity to live, give the oportunity to live to that baby please!!

[jonahfinn]

yes but only when it's still in the early stages,
any later than i'd consider it to be alive/human...
even though it's already alive during the early stages...=/

Basically, abortion before any physical development would be ideal

Edited by jonahfinn, 12 March 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[Ladida]

yes but only when it's still in the early stages,
any later than i'd consider it to be alive/human...
even though it's already alive during the early stages...=/

Basically, abortion before any physical development would be ideal

I agree with this.

But I'd go a bit further. The developing baby pretty much fits the definition of a parasite. Sucking up your nutrients and contributing nothing in return. Sure people will have an emotional attachment to the organism that's developing in there, that's inevitable. But, if the "baby" cannot live on its own at any stage, I don't see why it's considered homicide. It's physically incapable of life if you take away the host. What people are trying to do is force the host (woman) to carry the parasite (developing baby) until it is ready to sustain itself on its own by making her believe that she MUST be used as a host. You can either choose to live with a leech sucking your blood, or you can have it taken off. You'd kill the leech, but you wouldn't care now would you?

And for people screaming about homicide, I'll have you know you're snuffing out the lives of thousands of organisms every day. It's homicide when butcher kills that pig and you get to eat yummy yummy bacon. It's homicide every time you wash your hands. However, humans have this strange idea that they're above all other creatures. Reality check - you're not. We're all murderers.

[Narna]

I agree with this.

But I'd go a bit further. The developing baby pretty much fits the definition of a parasite. Sucking up your nutrients and contributing nothing in return. Sure people will have an emotional attachment to the organism that's developing in there, that's inevitable. But, if the "baby" cannot live on its own at any stage, I don't see why it's considered homicide. It's physically incapable of life if you take away the host. What people are trying to do is force the host (woman) to carry the parasite (developing baby) until it is ready to sustain itself on its own by making her believe that she MUST be used as a host. You can either choose to live with a leech sucking your blood, or you can have it taken off. You'd kill the leech, but you wouldn't care now would you?

And for people screaming about homicide, I'll have you know you're snuffing out the lives of thousands of organisms every day. It's homicide when butcher kills that pig and you get to eat yummy yummy bacon. It's homicide every time you wash your hands. However, humans have this strange idea that they're above all other creatures. Reality check - you're not. We're all murderers.

Last paragraph I don't agree with. We humans are above the animals, we have tamed them, taught them, murdered them, everything. Smarter, etc. etc. yawn yawn rabble rabble rabble (Okay?)

But I do agree with the abortion is not homicide. People crying over killing something which cannot live on it's own, seems strange...

[mlv]

A baby isn't a parasit, is a stage on human life where you can't live by your own, that's pretty much longer than this stage on animals. As soon as an animal born it can live by it's own, but when a baby born it can't. Of course a human isn't going to be created by developing without a host, that's ridiculous, every little living thing needs to develop first, by "sucking up" nutrients from another living thing until it can live on it's own. You can also choose to have a baby inside of you or not: if you don't get pregnant you don't live with a baby inside, if you get pregnant you live with a baby inside, at least until the baby is born and you can put in on adoption, you DON'T ABORT, you decide this before you get pregnant. Those are the differences between a parasit and a baby, two things COMPLETELY different.
A baby can't live on it's own, what doesn't mean a baby doesn't have a life.

Edited by mlv, 13 March 2011 - 03:24 PM.

[Tarabyte]

A baby isn't a parasit, is a stage on human life where you can't live by your own, that's pretty much longer than this stage on animals. As soon as an animal born it can live by it's own, but when a baby born it can't. Of course a human isn't going to be created by developing without a host, that's ridiculous, every little living thing needs to develop first, by "sucking up" nutrients from another living thing until it can live on it's own. You can also choose to have a baby inside of you or not: if you don't get pregnant you don't live with a baby inside, if you get pregnant you live with a baby inside, at least until the baby is born and you can put in on adoption, you DON'T ABORT, you decide this before you get pregnant. Those are the differences between a parasit and a baby, two things COMPLETELY different.
A baby can't live on it's own, what doesn't mean a baby doesn't have a life.

This is what I read:
"They need to do way instain mother> who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who had kill her three kids. they are taking the three babby back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his children ; i am truley sorry for your lots"

[Sweeney]

A baby isn't a parasit, is a stage on human life where you can't live by your own, that's pretty much longer than this stage on animals. As soon as an animal born it can live by it's own, but when a baby born it can't. Of course a human isn't going to be created by developing without a host, that's ridiculous, every little living thing needs to develop first, by "sucking up" nutrients from another living thing until it can live on it's own. You can also choose to have a baby inside of you or not: if you don't get pregnant you don't live with a baby inside, if you get pregnant you live with a baby inside, at least until the baby is born and you can put in on adoption, you DON'T ABORT, you decide this before you get pregnant. Those are the differences between a parasit and a baby, two things COMPLETELY different.
A baby can't live on it's own, what doesn't mean a baby doesn't have a life.

There are literally hundreds of animals that care for their young post-natally (including humans, because we are animals), as well as a good few that have gestation periods far longer than a human.
There are also thousands of living creatures that don't have any kind of dependant developmental period at all.

Not all pregnancies are voluntary, not all of them can realistically be carried to term, and not all adoptions result in a productive, or even pleasant, life for the child.

Every single "point" you've made is utterly irrelevant.

Removing an unwanted baby at an early stage of development is biologically no different from removing an infected tonsil, or an inflamed appendix.
Sorry if that sounds callous, but it's the truth, and your hyper-emotional line of "reasoning" does nothing to help anyone.

[mlv]

Well I said what I had to say, what I think about abortion, and that's all. If you don't like it it's OK

[Sweeney]

Well I said what I had to say, what I think about abortion, and that's all. If you don't like it it's OK

I think you've missed the point of a debate.

If you genuinely can't back up the (frankly, shit) things that you believe, perhaps it might be time to reconsider their validity?

[Brennon]

I believe that there are circumstances that permit abortion being acceptable.
Although I think it is wrong when people rely on it as birth control.
"Aren't you gonna use a condom? Nah. We can just get a abortion"
I know a few people like this >_>.
Best birth control? Pulling out.

[Chloee]

No. I don't think it should be. Because if you view it this way: As soon as the egg is made, a life is made no matter if the baby can feel it or not...If you take an abortion you are in a way killing a life. So I don't think it's acceptable in any way, shape or form...

Plus you should only be making the baby if you love the person and want to have one. If it happened against your will, I can understand why but I still would never want to abort a baby just because of something that happened.


Lol, my views must be pretty strong compared to others xD

Edited by Victini, 14 March 2011 - 11:27 AM.

[Ladida]

"Aren't you gonna use a condom? Nah. We can just get a abortion"
I know a few people like this >_>.

I just can't follow the logic there, it's utterly ridiculous. Abortions can lead to complications, it's a form of surgery after all. http://emedicine.med...795001-overview

Best birth control: Get both sets of tubes tied

As soon as the egg is made, a life is made no matter if the baby can feel it or not

I'm quite sure you didn't do Biology, because if you did, you'd know that girls are born with their lifetime's supply of eggs.

In which case, you're saying women should get pregnant every 9 months, so that they don't "kill" a life by not having it fertilized and thus ejected during the menstrual cycle. Your statement would also imply that girls should start getting pregnant as soon as they hit puberty.

As well, an egg has only half the DNA necessary. The other half comes from a single sperm that fertilizes it. I'm probably getting technical, but I doubt you can call half a set of DNA a life.

Edited by Ladida, 14 March 2011 - 11:39 AM.

[Chloee]

I'm quite sure you didn't do Biology, because if you did, you'd know that girls are born with their lifetime's supply of eggs.

In which case, you're saying women should get pregnant every 9 months, so that they don't "kill" a life by not having it fertilized and thus ejected during the menstrual cycle. Your statement would also imply that girls should start getting pregnant as soon as they hit puberty.

As well, an egg has only half the DNA necessary. The other half comes from a single sperm that fertilizes it. I'm probably getting technical, but I doubt you can call half a set of DNA a life.

Hi! Sorry I meant that as soon as the baby was made it's a real life. At the time, I didn't know how quite to say it. But yeah as soon as the baby is made. Otherwise the worlds population would really go up!

[Brennon]

I was a about to clarify that you probably meant when the egg was fertilized. lol

[Blackout]

I'm a yes.
It justs depends on why.
If it's a mother who does drugs, no stable home, etc then yes if the kid will barely last through childhood.
If it's someone who is stable in the family who wants to adopt it I find no reason to say no.

No. I don't think it should be. Because if you view it this way: As soon as the egg is made, a life is made no matter if the baby can feel it or not...If you take an abortion you are in a way killing a life. So I don't think it's acceptable in any way, shape or form...

Plus you should only be making the baby if you love the person and want to have one. If it happened against your will, I can understand why but I still would never want to abort a baby just because of something that happened.


Lol, my views must be pretty strong compared to others xD

But what if the baby had a disease he would have for life and he couldn't even go to a regular school, or barely go in Public? And he ALWAYS had to be in a hospital.
I believe if the child wouldn't wanna go through that for life abortion is an option.

[Sweeney]

Hi! Sorry I meant that as soon as the baby was made it's a real life. At the time, I didn't know how quite to say it. But yeah as soon as the baby is made. Otherwise the worlds population would really go up!

A single-celled gamete is no more an independant organism than one of the hundreds of cells flushed out of your digestive system every day.

Even a first-trimester foetus is comparable to an appendix, which is routinely extracted and destroyed.

As I have said before in this topic, the "sanctity of life" is not the point.

[mlv]

I believe that there are circumstances that permit abortion being acceptable.
Although I think it is wrong when people rely on it as birth control.
"Aren't you gonna use a condom? Nah. We can just get a abortion"
I know a few people like this >_>.
Best birth control? Pulling out.

That's one of my my points, I mean, many people just wouldn't use protection to abort later, because abortion is permitted or abortion is much easy (wich is not); or they would see it like an option, that I don't believe is a good think.

[Sweeney]

That's one of my my points, I mean, many people just wouldn't use protection to abort later, because abortion is permitted or abortion is much easy (wich is not); or they would see it like an option, that I don't believe is a good think.

Only eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control.
Of those, a third refused to do so on medical grounds, another third percieved themselves to be at low risk of pregnancy.

The solution is better education, not the banning of a socially and medically beneficial operation.

[Chloee]

But what if the baby had a disease he would have for life and he couldn't even go to a regular school, or barely go in Public? And he ALWAYS had to be in a hospital.
I believe if the child wouldn't wanna go through that for life abortion is an option.

Internet -- I see where you're coming from. But I know people and children who have diseases and those kind of things and when they are out of hospital they are happy because of the family & treatment they have. And they would still have a life to enjoy even if they can't do some things that others can. They can still think and have most of their senses to live life like everybody can even if they have an illness.


Oh and Sweeney -- those are just the views I have, that if you've had had the sperm fertilise the egg then a life is made even if it's just a few days old. To me it's still there and already developing.
Everyone has a different opinion and can believe in them so those are just mine.

[Dayzee]

Only eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control.
Of those, a third refused to do so on medical grounds, another third percieved themselves to be at low risk of pregnancy.

The solution is better education, not the banning of a socially and medically beneficial operation.

That depends on how available birth control is - in the USSR abortion is the primary form of birth control In 2006, there were 1.1 million more abortions in Russia than live births.

Removing an unwanted baby at an early stage of development is biologically no different from removing an infected tonsil, or an inflamed appendix.
Sorry if that sounds callous, but it's the truth, and your hyper-emotional line of "reasoning" does nothing to help anyone.

This is a bad analogy. An infected tonsil or inflamed appendix indicates something is wrong with the organ. You did not specify the removal of an unhealthy fetus, therefore, in the event the fetus is healthy, it would be more comparable to removing an unwanted, yet healthy organ. Possibly like removing healthy tonsils to avoid contracting tonsillitis?

[Sweeney]

Oh and Sweeney -- those are just the views I have, that if you've had had the sperm fertilise the egg then a life is made even if it's just a few days old. To me it's still there and already developing.
Everyone has a different opinion and can believe in them so those are just mine.

Few things piss me off more than the absurd notion that an opinion is a sacred thing that should be respected. Your opinion is factually moronic, and believing it makes you a moron.

That depends on how available birth control is - in the USSR abortion is the primary form of birth control In 2006, there were 1.1 million more abortions in Russia than live births.

Irrelevant. If no other forms of birth control are available, then abortions will increase.
This bears no relevance to the morality or ethics of abortions.

This is a bad analogy. An infected tonsil or inflamed appendix indicates something is wrong with the organ. You did not specify the removal of an unhealthy fetus, therefore, in the event the fetus is healthy, it would be more comparable to removing an unwanted, yet healthy organ. Possibly like removing healthy tonsils to avoid contracting tonsillitis?

The main point that I was getting at is that a bundle of cells that cannot survive independantly cannot be considered as an independant organism.
Simply that.

[Dayzee]

I think abortion is a complex topic, and did not vote as there are always gray areas to be considered. Personally, I am against abortion. And I was even the grand prize winner of an unwanted pregnancy. My reasons are primarily ethical in nature, and I apply them primarily to me, personally. I detest abortion as a primary means of birth control. There are many safe, inexpensive, pro-active forms of birth control available to most people who live in economically established societies. I am not an advocate of abortion due to lack of planning or laziness, regardless of "the heat of the moment" of any other such nonsense. Abortion in this case is the result of gross irresponsibility and immaturity. Accidents can and do happen, and though I am personally against abortion, I view this circumstance much differently when it is apparent that the couple was being proactive AGAINST conception. Rape almost never results in conception, but in the rare case it does, I would frown upon anyone who would judge the woman who considered abortion as an option. Other circumstances such as an unhealthy fetus, health of the mother, etc, I see as unique and individual cases every time. I am totally against late-term and partial birth abortions.

The main point that I was getting at is that a bundle of cells that cannot survive independantly cannot be considered as an independant organism.
Simply that.

I can't think of any mammal that can survive "independEntly" even after birth. Because mammals need milk, among other things, they all need the care of their mother (or foster mother) even after they are fully formed, regardless of how many cells are involved. So what would you consider an independEnt organism?

[Sweeney]

I think abortion is a complex topic, and did not vote as there are always gray areas to be considered. Personally, I am against abortion. And I was even the grand prize winner of an unwanted pregnancy. My reasons are primarily ethical in nature, and I apply them primarily to me, personally. I detest abortion as a primary means of birth control. There are many safe, inexpensive, pro-active forms of birth control available to most people who live in economically established societies. I am not an advocate of abortion due to lack of planning or laziness, regardless of "the heat of the moment" of any other such nonsense. Abortion in this case is the result of gross irresponsibility and immaturity. Accidents can and do happen, and though I am personally against abortion, I view this circumstance much differently when it is apparent that the couple was being proactive AGAINST conception. Rape almost never results in conception, but in the rare case it does, I would frown upon anyone who would judge the woman who considered abortion as an option. Other circumstances such as an unhealthy fetus, health of the mother, etc, I see as unique and individual cases every time. I am totally against late-term and partial birth abortions.

I do agree that abortion is a complex topic, but I do not think that the question framed in the poll is a difficult one.

Do you believe that anyone has the right to force any mother in any circumstance to keep any child? If not, then you agree that abortion should be allowed.