Abortion is morally WRONG

reply to post by Xiamara


Just about anywhere in America there is access to free or next to free birth control to people of just about any age. I think the bc companies even give the meds away if you write and ask but either way, how many abortions are performed every year in America?
Way too many for your comment to have merit. For some reason people are choosing a surgical procedure over birth control. That is their choice but since abortion isn't a medical procedure but one of convienence And I believe abortion is morally wrong and I'm upset at being forced to pay for someone else's choice.

Edit to add that
Why in the World should Anyone expct birth control to be free !!??

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


Not always, Condoms are 95% effective when used correctly. There is also condoms breaking, women who cannot be on female birth control using hormones (progesterone/ estrogen), there are Diaphrams but even they aren't effective. There is also rape, your rapist isn't going to wear a condom. There are many reasons.

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
reply to post by Xiamara

 

Just about anywhere in America there is access to free or next to free birth control to people of just about any age. I think the bc companies even give the meds away if you write and ask but either way, how many abortions are performed every year in America?
Way too many for your comment to have merit. For some reason people are choosing a surgical procedure over birth control. That is their choice but since abortion isn't a medical procedure but one of convienence And I believe abortion is morally wrong and I'm upset at being forced to pay for someone else's choice.

Edit to add that
Why in the World should Anyone expct birth control to be free !!??

I suppose you intend to force martyrdom upon a woman if, say, the condom broke, and she had scoliosis or was simply obese? You commit her to death? That's your choice.. condemning her choice? Sounds pretty selfish to me.

And complaining about taxes? Really? "Well, your children are brats and they do not effect me so.... I'll just take that money back that put them through school. Well, I don't like pets, so I'll take all that money back that paid for the dog park to be put in up the road."

I'm sorry if you're one of those red-demonizing folk but paying taxes to provide for what others can't afford or that need to be regulated is the only way to balance out capitalism and make this place inhabitable.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

This debate is not about legal issues surrounding abortions, but moral ones. If we all accepted the laws of the day as morally acceptable, then laws would never change.

Great. There are plenty of immoral laws, indeed. For example specieist laws are immoral, and I believe that some day people will look at current animal-related paradigm with the same disgust as we look at racist laws in the past.

But allowing abortion is not immoral, IMHO.

That's fair enough. But how do you come to that belief ?

As I said, right to protection has to be determined by something other than some racist obscure order of chemicals on a string (genome). I believe the presence of sentience is the best criterion. It not only includes humans, but also higher animals, intelligent aliens, sentient artificial intelligences, and all other entities worty to protect. But embryos, early fetuses, and all other life do not qualify.

Abortion is not ethically justifiable, unless in the case of rape. The law was created to be expedient.

For me it is ethically justifiable, as I have explained above.

My definition is not arbitrary. Fertilisation is the earliest stage of human life.

Again, human life should not be protected, only human (and non-human) persons.

When does a fetus, on average, become tangibly sentient ?

Lower bound is 4-5th month, when the formation of cortex begins and primitive brain waves can be measured. I am against abortion after 5th month.

reply to post by Xiamara


So you are saying that the approximate 1.3 million abortions in the USA during 2009 was due to bad bc and not getting Free birth control, and because of health issues rape and or insest?
The numbers are too big; your statements can't hold water.
I think abortion is moraly wrong and should only be performed under extreme circumstances.
1.3 million doesn't seem extreme except by the sheer number of abortions done in one year.

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


No I'm saying a large portion probably were. There are so many reasons everyone has a reason why they go to get an abortion. Also Sex education is so underfunded and not all know about the methods of birth control I met a 25 year old who had no clue what BC is.

If you want to blame some one and make a difference teach sex education or donate to one of many funds out there that advocate sex education.

reply to post by Brood


which plank- telling people to mind thier own "DAMNED" business on a free public forum? if you say there is no God and your wrong (which I know for a fact-my whole point) would you say your being hated especially knowing we all pass someday? and you forgot that last part about the first stone thrown, and may want to look back and see if there were any stones thrown at the first sight of a story about a certain womans baby being spoken about as a child concieved, through an angel sent by God, you know the same one the rich did'nt want to make out of her womb, persecuted, then murdered-

And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first

Originally posted by Maslo
Great. There are plenty of immoral laws, indeed. For example specieist laws are immoral, and I believe that some day people will look at current animal-related paradigm with the same disgust as we look at racist laws in the past.

I agree with you about speciesism. It seems completely paradoxical that we spend so much time and effort trying to save and protect endangered species around the world, while we continue to treat animals in our countries in such a contemptible manner. But I think that is probably for another discussion !

Originally posted by Maslo
As I said, right to protection has to be determined by something other than some racist obscure order of chemicals on a string (genome). I believe the presence of sentience is the best criterion. It not only includes humans, but also higher animals, intelligent aliens, sentient artificial intelligences, and all other entities worty to protect. But embryos, early fetuses, and all other life do not qualify.

I see two problems with this:

1. Protecting the earliest forms of human life does not negate protecting the lives of other species.

The only thing you can't protect are plants, because it's going to be very difficult to survive without interfering with them, in one way or another !

2. You say that ''right to protection has to be determined by something other than some racist obscure order of chemicals on a string (genome)'', yet you are supportive of the ''racist'' use of labotatory animals to conduct scientific experiments ?

What is that, other than creating an obscure pecking order of species ? ( I assume you wouldn't agree with breeding humans specifically to conduct unpleasant scientific experiments against their wishes ).

Originally posted by Maslo
For me it is ethically justifiable, as I have explained above.

The laws are not based on your definition of when human life starts, though.

Originally posted by Maslo
Again, human life should not be protected, only human (and non-human) persons.

It seems illogical to me that human life, at any stage, could be considered anything other than a ''person''. Although, I know that my views aren't echoed by the law.

Originally posted by Maslo
Lower bound is 4-5th month, when the formation of cortex begins and primitive brain waves can be measured. I am against abortion after 5th month.

And what happens if an unborn baby has developed all the criteria that you believe should prohibit abortion, before 20 weeks ?

Would you accept that as collateral damage ?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Personal opinion, everyone has one here; i'm voicing mine.

Thanks very much, Holmes.

There's a difference between personal opinion and dishonest debating.

Your post fell on the latter of the two, although I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your intent.

Maybe some young mothers just feel like it's their life (being destroyed in various ways) or the baby's, and wouldn't care if it was murder or not, if they felt it was self-defense.

Morals are real important right up until it's morality or survival.

RC

Would you rather have the child grow up in a home it is not welcomed in? That, in a lot of cases, is worse then death.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

1. Protecting the earliest forms of human life does not negate protecting the lives of other species.

OK. I just dont see any reason to protect the earliest forms of human life.

2. You say that ''right to protection has to be determined by something other than some racist obscure order of chemicals on a string (genome)'', yet you are supportive of the ''racist'' use of labotatory animals to conduct scientific experiments ?

I am not supportive, the current law is. Law is always a mix of morals and practicality, so the utilitarian point of view has to be considered, too. For example, taxes are basicaly stealing. But society believes that the pros outweight the cons.

I am an utilitarian, so I havent made up my mind on this issue yet. But if some scientific experiments on animals are to be allowed, it would have to be strictly regulated (there are already quite strict regulations..). For example, no cruel tests (cruel = causing strong pain).

The laws are not based on your definition of when human life starts, though.

Maybe not the US laws, but some indeed are. Abortion is banned in my country after first trimester, and it is largely based on state of nervous system, with one month as a precaution.

And what happens if an unborn baby has developed all the criteria that you believe should prohibit abortion, before 20 weeks ? Would you accept that as collateral damage ?

To clarify, 20th week is when the cortex BEGINS to develop. Lower bound could a little sooner, and with some time for precaution, actual legal limit would be somewhere between 12-17 weeks. Overwhelming majority of abortions happens before this time either way.

Just to add, the state of the brain is the most important criterion to determine death. Isnt it logical that similar criterion should be important to determine beginning of a person?

reply to post by Monts

There should be no debate...
...unless you are the women who is carrying the fetus you have no opinion.

While a fetus is dependant on the pregnant women's body it remain her choice...
...and no-one else has a right to an opinion.

Is a seed a flower?

Is an embryo the same as a fully grown person, can the embro cope on it's own?

If you answered no, then what's the problem here - It's the women's choice - it is attached to her body.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


look at the use of word seed here-
but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.

I have a higher moral objection to lolcats than I do to abortion.

In a perfect ideal world..no one would need to get an abortion..the causes and conditons of the need wouldnt exist. Children would grow up with wise parents, and be whole human beings fully aware and self respecting of their own bodies and everyone elses bodies...sex before union wouldnt be an issue as our sex drives wouldnt have been abused and minds twisted .sex would again be a choice..our minds and emotions would be as maturely developed as our bodies. In an ideal world there would be no need to abort a fetus as each child would be the planned outcome of a desired union..and there would be no dissonance between accountability and responsibility and trust respect and wisdom would rule our actions.


BUT WE DONT LIVE IN THAT IDEAL FANTASY WORLD


and until we do..I support choice..I support personal individal responsibility....and I support the idea that everyone whos not directly involved in the issue on a personal level ought to butt the hell out.


Rosha

reply to post by Rosha


Technically in an ideal world would be hell. If there is no conflict, no drama, no excitement, no movement, what is the point in living? In a Utopia if no one died no one could live our population would grow and grow and never shrink.

As for sex it is natural, It is not a sin to have sex before marriage it is the true union of man and man, woman and woman, or man and woman. If we weren't meant to have sex we wouldn't take pleasure from it.


But all this is kinda another debate...

reply to post by Rustami


Rustami, quit with trying to invoke Christ as a answer to every question, people can see through the BULL