Abortion is morally WRONG

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by Monts

 

Yes, but we know that most mentally challenged people are conscious. Depending on the stage of birth, there are points where an embryo definitely doesn't feel pain, definitely can't think consciously, etc.

You can't equate an embryo with a conscious, independent person on these grounds.

What about someone who is in a vegetative state being supported by machines. They will most likely recover, probably within 9 months... but they are completely without consciousness, and don't feel pain.

Are they without rights?

reply to post by Monts


Hey Montos,
I just had a rather eye-opening thought. WHy don't the women and men, who are for abortions, go have themselves spayed. That way they never have to worry about getting pregnant again, they won't have to kill anymore unwanted children. Isn't that what we do with animals. We have them spayed and neutered so we daon't have to worry with unwanted puppies or kittens, etc. I mean it's a thought.

reply to post by Monts


Then you would probably wait for recovery, like with a coma. However, if a person is brain dead, which is irreversible, you can honestly consider them dead. Usually this is dealt with by a Living Will.

reply to post by christian39


Women don't need to spay themselves. We have contraceptives.

reply to post by jennybee35


SCITTEM GIRL!!

reply to post by PieKeeper


What stage fetus are you speaking of? Have you seen any videos of abortions? Seen the baby fight to avoid being dismembered and suctioned out of the womb? If you can watch just one of those and still look at abortion the same, I will be shocked.

reply to post by Monts

Morality is not the way to win an argument or come up with a solution on the topic of dealing with an issue that carries a social opinion and divides such as abortion. The abortion debate has been around for a long time, the original case, was bound to come about, as it was a case dealing with the Right of Privacy, and the privilege of the doctor/patient relationship. We can neither condone that nor should it be so intrusive to such. If you look at what was going on, before it was where it should have been a private act between a doctor and a woman, it was horrid. Many women who desired to have an abortion, would either go across the border to Mexico to do such, or the back alley. Women who did ask and try such a procedure, took a chance of having to bear the social stigma of such in a town.
The main proponents of the argument would say that life starts at conception, yet the actions of a few of the more radical members are either offensive to the common decency of all, or are violent, as the rash of shooting and killings of the doctors, by those who profess to be of a moral high ground. Murder is murder.
All people, including women should be informed of all of the options medical wise, and non of it should be forbidden. The law must be blind and equally applied to all. The solutions for such, are neither popular or convenient, but have to be done. You can not ban one treatment on the argument of morality, as that could open a door to ban treatments for other things, on the same grounds, nor should the government try to regulate behavior down to the decisions of choices of the citizens. We have the right to make those decisions, for better or for worse. Now some of the issues that are often not spoken of in this argument is the responsibility of the man who got the woman pregnant, should he not also be held accountable for the new born child, and the ramifications of an abortion? Many times the focus is on the woman, yet never on the man. And sex education, many times the education is never there for people, as parents won’t do it, and many put up a stink when it is presented in the schools. These are the kinds of issues that many do not discuss, nor do they discuss ultimately about the very lives that they are wanting to save. What do you do with a child that is neither desired or wanted by the mother or the parents? Children are costly, would you be willing to adopt 10, 20, 50, 100 children, to raise all on your dime, or would it be left up to society at large? Is that fair and moral, to force the whole of society to pay for the mistakes of 2 people for having unprotected sex?

reply to post by jennybee35


I'm referring to early-development. I don't agree with all abortion, like if the fetus is viable, though I do see specific cases where I find it to be acceptable.

I've seen the pictures, we get the protesters on campus once or twice a year. I've seen a video or two, but I'm not sure how much of that is reactionary or not.

reply to post by PieKeeper


If it were reactionary, wouldn't that argue for more nervous system development?

reply to post by Monts


Especially not a mentally retarded fetus.

reply to post by christian39


Careful, or you'll be accused of approving of "forced sterilization"!!!

I guess the preferred method is just to do what feels good and worry about consequences at some point in the future. Not taking responsibility for actions, and not being prudent seems to be the trend anymore. I think that is why abortion has become so prevalent, and to me more abhorrent.

Originally posted by christian39
reply to post by Monts

 

Hey Montos,
I just had a rather eye-opening thought.

WHy don't the women and men, who are for abortions, go have themselves spayed. That way they never have to worry about getting pregnant again, they won't have to kill anymore unwanted children. Isn't that what we do with animals. We have them spayed and neutered so we daon't have to worry with unwanted puppies or kittens, etc. I mean it's a thought.

edit on 24/11/10 by christian39 because: add men

derp, de derp derp derp derpety derp, herp de derp, Men: Vasectomy, Women: Tubal Ligation? What's that men and women have the choice to get "spayed". Lets call it "spayed" so it makes it look as though it's on the same level as animals even though we are animals derp de herpety derp derp de derp.

Originally posted by jennybee35I think that is why abortion has become so prevalent...

Abortion has always been prevalent. It was just never so publicized.

Native American women did it, women used to go to butchers to have it done, some used coat hangers, etc.

reply to post by PieKeeper


If by prevalent you mean a few thousand women a year snuck off to a doctor, witch or otherwise, and aborted a baby, then yes....it has always been prevalent. I cannot imagine a time in history until the present when 1.3 MILLION babies were murdered in one year.

Do you really believe that's a coincidence, or did legalization and free care for low-income patients have a little something to do with it?!

Originally posted by Slih_09
So I guess it's morally right to conceive a human being that's going to be unloved and treated like trash, and who is gonna end up tossed around like some thing someone needs to take care of?

Some people just aren't meant to be parents. And it's better to realize that before having a baby than after you ruined their life.

This is exactly how I feel. People should start taking the child's possible future into account when deciding whether abortion is a better choice. When the parents are forced to keep a child that they don't want, its highly likely that the child will be neglected and possibly abused.

reply to post by milocrab


No one is FORCING parents to keep a child they don't want. That is not even possible. Just as they have the choice to abort that life or not, they can give that life to someone who will love and cherish it. There are even "safe place" signs in all hospitals and other government facilities. No questions asked if the baby is healthy and 1 month oldor younger. Surely in the space of 30 days parents could decide if they want a baby or not.

There are a lot of alternatives to abortion or child abuse. To say otherwise shows a lack of sensibility.

Well, Monts, I'm sorry. Apparently I am now a thread killer.

reply to post by jennybee35

Seen the baby fight to avoid being dismembered and suctioned out of the womb?

That video has been debunked.

Link

reply to post by Monts

becoming a human being from the point of conception, because the genes are all there, and it will keep those genes as it grows over time from present to future; from 1 cell to an old person dying in their bed.

Death of a person is medically defined as an irreversible end of all brain activity, not the breakdown of DNA. It is logical to have similar criterion as a beginning of a person.

reply to post by milocrab


Thankyou, finally someone talking some sense in here instead of getting all butthurt.

Originally posted by milocrab

Originally posted by Slih_09
So I guess it's morally right to conceive a human being that's going to be unloved and treated like trash, and who is gonna end up tossed around like some thing someone needs to take care of?

Some people just aren't meant to be parents. And it's better to realize that before having a baby than after you ruined their life.

This is exactly how I feel. People should start taking the child's possible future into account when deciding whether abortion is a better choice. When the parents are forced to keep a child that they don't want, its highly likely that the child will be neglected and possibly abused.

Ok... so does that mean we should go giving out flyers to parents of children 0-12 yeas old who are in abusive households... telling them to kill their children because its better to die than to have a "ruined" life?

Claiming that a child having an abusive and neglectful life is warrant enough to end its life is a failure of a statement.
How do YOU know that the child will have an abusive and neglectful, "awful" life from start to finish?
Can you see into the future?
Or are you basing this on a calculation using probability and chance?

If you went and asked any adult who had a so called "abusive" and "neglectful" life if they would have rather been killed than live it... how many would say "yes"?

And once again, how come the child has to pay with its life for consequences that are totally out of its control?
What did it ever do to deserve death?
Come into existence?

Shouldn't we be focusing on fixing the cause of the problem (i.e., abusive households) rather than the consequence?

If we were to kill every single unborn child whom we deemed would have an "awful" life, then it would be eugenic genocide.
Period.