Abortion is morally WRONG

reply to post by intrepid

Are you saying that abortion because of rape is an everyday thing? Most abortions are performed because of this? I highly doubt it

I posted an answer to this. Here it is again.

For all those who will cry "But what about rape and incest!?" here is a statistic for ya', one I've noticed no one has bothered to post thus far:

Indeed, in a 1987 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in which abortion patients were asked why they were having an abortion, only 1 percent of the 1,900 women questioned named rape or incest. And 95 percent of those who mentioned rape or incest named other reasons as well for deciding to abort, the institute said

I am assuming I must be on everyone's ignore list, as my questions have been thoroughly ignored. It couldn't be just that not one pro-choice person has any answers, surely? Is there no one who wants to answer?

ETA: I'm posting my questions again, dang it. Maybe someone will have enough moxy to answer me!

I have a question for pro-choice individuals: medical science has advanced to the point where "fetuses" as premature as 27 weeks gestation can be delivered, survive outside the womb and lead a normal life. Are these same "fetuses" still just a "mass of cells" until they reach that magical number of 40 weeks gestation, albeit outside the womb?

Would it be considered murder or just the mother's choice if she were to decide to end the life processes of that "fetus" delivered prematurely?

What is the difference between the rights of a fetus of 27 weeks in the womb and one delivered prematurely?

Wouldn't the same principals apply in each situation?

If an unborn "fetus" is only a parasitic mass of cells, how is a "mass of cells" prematurely delivered any more deserving of rights that aren't afforded to the fetus in the womb?

Originally posted by Xiamara
what is this logic? that you can tell kids to do something responsible and its all a woman's fault if she gets pregnant?

*sighs*

If it's the womans right to choose, as has been determined by the Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade, that puts the onus on the woman to be responsible before the sex act. Not after as a form of convenient birth control. Use that first and there is no issue.

Yes there are anomalies such as rape but we're dealing with the bigger picture here, not the issues that are, not small, just not as relevant to the issue at hand. Like I said earlier, do most abortions come to pass because of rape? No.

THAT'S the logic.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by thecinic

 

Yeah man, we're sick us liberals, we're sick caring about birth-rates and it's relation to a stable society. So what if there's not enough food to go around for people, they can starve right?

Cool story bro, cool story.

There is no problematic shortage of ressources bro.

Simply a problematic distribution problem.

The US alone wastes enough food in one day to feed the entire world.

Birth-rates, bro, are below 2 per parent in North-America.

Even so, population increase isn't happening exponentially because people are having more children- they are increasing because people child-mortality rates have gone down, and because people are living to be older.

Once the generation that was born with the life-expectancy of 80 years lives to be 80 years old, then population growth will level out... assuming it doesn't keep increasing.

reply to post by jennybee35


One, your study is from 87 thats over 20 years old and only looked at 1900 women out of countless this is also the women who came forward about their rapes. The study is confounded just at face value.

reply to post by intrepid


Well my logic is that every woman has a reason. And just because the government says its my fault it doesn't mean it is. The government doesn't sanction gay marriage in all states but Canada says its okay. So how is that logical?

reply to post by Monts

Someone comes up to me, and says that all they need is for me to be hooked up to a machine for 1 minute in order for them to live. It will take me 1 minute to do, and there is 0% risk of any harm occurring to me. I refuse, and they die. According to your logic, I am not doing anything wrong, and am in the moral right as its my body, my choice. You could even maximize that, and say that the lives of 25 people rest on you donating your blood. Your body, your choice, so you say "no", and the 25 people die. According to the right of choice, then you are perfectly in the moral righteousness. Something seems a bit wrong with that, doesn't it?

Quoted for truth. Right to life of a baby being is definitely more important than a few months of discomfort for a parent. If you want to argue in favor of abortion, at least do it properly, not this "my body, my choice" selfish absurdity. The body of a pregnant woman obviously belongs both to her and to the child, it is no longer only her body.

Lack of logic

Originally posted by Xiamara
Well my logic is that every woman has a reason. And just because the government says its my fault it doesn't mean it is.

The Supreme Court has said the opposite. Read up on Roe vs Wade.

The government doesn't sanction gay marriage in all states but Canada says its okay. So how is that logical?

Um, 2 different countries?

reply to post by Xiamara


I have not found more recent statistics for rape/incest. Apparently no one bothers to ask the question anymore.
Do you believe that there are significantly more rapes and cases of incest occuring now as opposed to 1987?
Do you really believe that there are significantly more women being abused and raped now and are more afraid to report it?

Originally posted by Jack Squat
reply to post by Monts

 

I would never kill a baby. A fetus isn't a baby. What's your stance on the morning after pill? Does that fall under the umbrella of killing a baby?

As i've said, as soon as conception occurs, then I believe it to be morally wrong for any kind of termination of the life.

Those ball cells are genetically human, and within 9 months will become something that people wouldn't think twice about killing. That ball of cells has a human future, and by killing it, you are unjustly ending that future.

And if i'll play the "fetus-human" game... when does a fetus become a human?
As soon as it pops out of the mother?
According to law, as soon as a baby is birthed, it is a human being and it is murder. That is why when aborted, the baby must be killed inside the uterus. If it accidentally comes out alive, it's a human being and it's murder.
If so, then only a few seconds separate murder from non-murder.

Jenniebe35 says: “I think these women should be spayed, as well. They have no more morals than an alley cat.”

****So you are in favor of forced sterilization?
When do you propose is the best time for this and how would you chooze the subjects for the procedure?

I’m against late term abortions. It seems like such a complicated process. Why not just induce labor?

RisingPhoenix33
Your arguments are merely your opinions.
Why exactly do you chooze to give more rights to a clump of cells than you do the host woman. You would take away the rights of the already born for the unborn. Why exactly do you do this?
Are you willing to adopt these children that you so adamantly feel should be born?
If not why not?
You seem to want to impose 20 years of hard labor upon the unwilling mother.
Why would you do this?
Adoption..If you aren’t willing to adopt who is?
Are you aware that at least half of these unborn are from Black mothers?
Are you aware that there is no demand for black babies, and therefore the child has little or no chance of any quality of life?

You didn’t explain how it is that God decress death to children and infants, as well as ripping open bellies and dashing the unborn upon the rocks. Does God have different laws for different people?

gnosticquasar, Why should any woman seeking an abortion have to give a reason other than that she wants an abortion? She doesn’t owe anyone an explanation.

People who are against abortion are Control Freaks.
Not one of them can explain how the termination of pregnancy of complete strangers affects their life. The birth of an unwanted however likely will affect their life - added taxes to pay welfare benefits.

Monts says: “Do I need "common sense" and "rationality" for me to be fine with ending someone's life? “
****It isn’t a “someone”. Do you make as much of a fuss over our soldiers who are being killed and maimed everyday? They are the one’s you should be concerned about.
How about the children that our soldiers are killing? What do you have to say about that?
If you think about it, your job of stopping murder is getting bigger and bigger, isn’t it?

Monts, Amniotic dysentery is a sickness pregnant women can get.

And then you say: “And it makes more sense to me that "the Right to Not be Used as an incubator by another entity" should relate to the consent given upon opening up one's body to sex.”

****Aha, so it comes down to that what you really want is to control our sex lives.
Maybe you should talk to those who have been promoting this sexual freedom thing about that. All TV shows, movies and advertisement has been influencing our young people to practice this sort of life. If you would stop that, you can nip this thing in the bud. You see, you are working on the wrong end of the problem.

Monte asks: “Does the right to choose what one wants to with one's own body override the right to life?”
****The right to chooze includes the right of the woman doing the choosing to chooze her own right to life. The zygote or embryo or fetus has no rights other than those the host woman confers upon it. Your insistence that it has any rights is simply your OPINION. There are no valid arguments to support rights for this clump of cells over the rights of the woman host..

As to your choice to save 25 people - that is still your choice, and you are under no obligation to give up any part of yourself for them.

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by Monts

 

How is that a flaw? If I can change something about whats going on I will. I can choose to get a heart transplant, I can choose to do all sorts of things to improve my health. And since pregnancy is an option, I can choose not to get pregnant death is not an option. Key factor, pregnancy is OPTIONAL death isn't as a well educated person I would assume you would realize that. Do not say its a woman's job to give birth it isn't.

Of course pregnancy is optional.

If you play that card, your option comes when you decide whether or not to decide to give consent and engage in sexual intercourse.
Nobody in their right mind can argue that by agreeing to having sex, you are agreeing to the risk of becoming pregnant.
But agreeing to that risk means that you are agreeing to the possibility of an innocent human being becoming dependent on you for that decision.

To make it clear as crystal...

You could take a bottle of medication that says you have a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of developing a deadly condition from that medication.
As soon as you start taking that medication, you are agreeing to that risk, and therefore, cannot sue the pharmaceutical company for damages.

The "contract" for pregnancy is signed in such a way. By giving consent, you are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy. That is where the "choice" lies.
Just as you can't sue the company for accepting that risk and doing it anyways, you can't sue nature. Except instead of trying to sue for cash, you are suing for the life of an innocent.

Originally posted by Maslo
If abortion is the same as killing a human life, how can it be justified in the case of rape? Can we also kill babies that are conceived from rape and born?

Either abortion is murder, then you CANNOT justify it, not even in cases of rape and incest since you cannot murder the child for being conceived from rape, or it is not murder, and then why limit it to only those cases?

I find the position of people who are prolife but prochoice in cases of rape and incest highly illogical and internally inconnsistent (hypocritical).

You are right.

As i've said, I see abortion as murder, and believe it to be immoral in any case.

There is no reason on earth that an innocent should pay with their life for the consequences of someone else, no matter the case.

But also keep in mind that just as their are varying degrees of murder, so would their be varying degrees of abortion.

Someone who kills another person and is not in their sane mind is not going to receive the same kind of punishment as someone who commits 1st degree murder in their right mind.
It is still murder, still morally wrong, but the circumstances can alter the consequences.

Monts says: "As i've said, as soon as conception occurs, then I believe it to be morally wrong for any kind of termination of the life."

Your belief.
Your opinion.
Your idea of what is moral.
That's it.
All yours.
Keep it that way.
Don't try to force it on the rest of us who disagree with you.
Because that is wrong.

reply to post by jennybee35


Your data and sample size are in question and just some of the factors that goes against the integrity of your argument, women can't be expected to be willing to answer, or at least answer truthfully to these questions on such a sensitive matter.

This isn't our sole argument, and we arn't saying abortion should be exclusively for rape/incestual cases.

The point is the woman has the choice, and we advocate a ethical approach to abortion and we can only educate our future generations with this approach of reason and circumstance. Contraceptive methods are always encouraged before such extreme messures, besides does the women really want the pain of abortion?, surely she would choose contraceptive if offered sooner than having a baby. In conclusion, we think abortion is a last resort and that a sensitive ethical attitude should be applied; women should not be denied the choice, but educated from a young age to show women this should not be the prime means to preventing un-wanted children, or children that would have otherwise had an awful life.

reply to post by Monts

0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of developing a deadly condition from that medication. As soon as you start taking that medication, you are agreeing to that risk, and therefore, cannot sue the pharmaceutical company for damages.

Of course you cannot. But if you found a cure for your condition (abortion), you can use it.

The "contract" for pregnancy is signed in such a way. By giving consent, you are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy.

Risk of pregnancy. Not risk of birthing a baby.

Edit: noticed your other post.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Monts

 

Someone comes up to me, and says that all they need is for me to be hooked up to a machine for 1 minute in order for them to live. It will take me 1 minute to do, and there is 0% risk of any harm occurring to me. I refuse, and they die. According to your logic, I am not doing anything wrong, and am in the moral right as its my body, my choice. You could even maximize that, and say that the lives of 25 people rest on you donating your blood. Your body, your choice, so you say "no", and the 25 people die. According to the right of choice, then you are perfectly in the moral righteousness. Something seems a bit wrong with that, doesn't it?

Quoted for truth. Right to life of a baby being is definitely more important than a few months of discomfort for a parent. If you want to argue in favor of abortion, at least do it properly, not this "my body, my choice" selfish absurdity. The body of a pregnant woman obviously belongs both to her and to the child, it is no longer only her body.

I know that the "my body, my choice" is an absurd argument... and I aruged that because someone challenged me to do so. As I said in an earlier post, no pro-abortionist who has researched the debate is ever going to use the "my body, my choice" as their argument. It is fatally flawed.

The real debate should never be about "pro-choice", but should be about what makes a human being a human being, what murder constitutes, the concept of sentience, ect.

reply to post by Monts



Heh... "ball cell"


Anyways, when it comes down to it, abortion is clearly not a black and white issue. I just think we need not be such pussies when it comes to killing a post-sperm.


edit: Sorry, I forgot to answer your question of when a fetus becomes human. I don't really know... when its fully developed in the womb I guess... but there's stages in between, you can't just jump from fetus to person. As I said before, abortions should be done in the first trimester.

reply to post by Jack Squat


In the words of Christopher Hitchens:

if we regard a collections of cells as life then we are committing genocide everytime a male gets a handjob.

Poor sperm. All those lives that could have been

reply to post by Monts

The real debate should never be about "pro-choice", but should be about what makes a human being a human being, what murder constitutes, the concept of sentience, ect.

Exactly. The only difference between prolife and prochoice is an opinion when human person starts. That should be determined using science.

If human person exists, killing it by refusing to share resources needed for survival (in case of pregnancy, a body) while being able to do so is a murder. Thats why I am against abortion after third month, no matter the reason. But I am prochoice till third month, again no matter the reason, since there is surely no person in that stage.

I should add that I think the REAL debate should be over what point in a pregnancy is too late to abort, not whether or not we allow it to happen at all.