Abortion is morally WRONG

Originally posted by sensible thought
reply to post by stellify

 

"If you are jumping on the morality bandwagon, how does a human life differ from an animal life?

I believe in abortion. I find it abhorrent, just as I find slaughterhouses abhorrent.

But I still eat meat...and I would have an abortion if I felt I could not continue with the pregnancy.

Think your thread will just turn into a repetition of every other abortion thread.

Good luck and good night. "



Here is a perfect example of what I can't stand with abortion debates. Lets replace words like pregnancy with what it is, my Baby.
REPLAY - I would have an abortion if I felt I could not continue with the Baby.

Those that chose to kill their babies never refer to them as human, children,babies.....

Maybe you would have a miscarriage or the child could die before being born, but if you CHOSE to kill it, it is deffinately dead.

Abortion is the killing of a baby. I don't see how you can rationalize it any other way. If you didn't kill it, it would be talking to you in a couple of years.

Call it choice if you want, and I can chose to go home get my gun and go kill someone, but does that CHOICE not come with a penalty?

edit on 2-2-2011 by sensible thought because: minor gramar issue

Yep - I agree. If you choose to kill something...then it is definitely dead.

A very sensible thought.

Well done.

reply to post by stellify


It's not a choice. Although certain laws allow too much choice. A woman is sooner going to choose contraception (if available) than go through a horific procedure like abortion as a last resort to prevent an unwanted child.

Even most Atheists condemn offering abortion as service of choice - It should be used as a last resort with a certain ammount of limitation and medical advice.

I'm glad we have the technology in particular situations where the host is in danger or something goes wrong, at that stage, i don't believe anybody would opt to save the child as opposed to the adult.

Education and a abortion system that is designed to deter using abortion as a prime means of unwanted baby prevention. THat is designed as medical aid, or in extreme situations where contraception has failed.

reply to post by Slih_09


I agree completely. If the mother herself doesn't even believe in her own capability to raise a child, and does not desire to have one, couldn't you say it is also morally wrong to bring a child into a situation where it is unwanted and in the hands of an unprepared person? Don't we already have enough orphans in the world? Why bring an innocent unsuspecting creature into a situation that right from the start has a high potential to cause it grief and misery for many years of it's life. To force a women to endure 9 months and 18 years of parenting against her will is also wrong in my opinion. How can mother or child be happy in this situation?
If you would like to use the argument "well just put it up for adoption" then let me say this, you would sooner bring another orphan into the world who could potentially never find a good home instead of aborting a fetus or embryo which DOES NOT have a personality, and can not think yet? Why not do the morally right thing here and help a needy already living child find a home. If you are really "pro-life" than go out there and do something to help the young lives who need someone to care for and love them, and stop worrying so much about what happens to a few cells inside another person's body.

reply to post by 22ndsecond



Well said...star for that. And the other issue with adoption is that to force a woman to endure 9 months of pregnancy if she does not want the child is unfair as well, as it will have major implications on her life, e.g. having to give up work, the emotional and physical strain, that may in fact endanger her and the unborn's lifes. And of course if a woman does not want to be pregnant, will she take care of herself properly, leading potentially to damage to the fetus, which in turn could reduce the baby's chance of adoption. And like you say, who would know if the baby would be adopted into a good home, have a good upbringing etc

reply to post by Monts


So what is it to you if you are not personally affected by a woman getting an abortion? Leave it alone. It's a woman's choice, her body, her decision. Not yours.

reply to post by Xiamara


Don't even listen to them. God didn't have respect for women or children throughout the OT. He murdered many.

reply to post by Monts


A fetus is not a living human being with a soul until it takes it's first breath. That, even according to the Bible. Even the US Constitution doesn't consider person hood until natural birth has taken place. In the Bible, abortion is not considered a capital offense, read in Exodus 21, where if a man causes a woman to miscarry he is only fined, but if the woman dies, he will be put to death.You can't kill something that has not been born and taken a breath.

reply to post by exnavyvp


A fetus does not have a "soul" until it is born and takes it's first breath. You can't kill what isn't alive.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by exnavyvp

 

A fetus does not have a "soul" until it is born and takes it's first breath. You can't kill what isn't alive.

What exactly do you mean by "soul"? Some immaterial spirit? I dont think basing such decisions on some religious BS is wise.

Souls do not exist.

reply to post by Maslo


Soul: principle of life, feeling, thought and actions in humans. Not religious BS. I am not religious.

The term "Pro-life" is such a horrible euphemism. As if anyone out there is Anti-life (suicidalists not included). Anyone who is alive is Pro-life. On top of that, hardcore Pro-lifers don't give a shyit about people dying, they care about non-people not getting a chance to live.

I think the opposing sides of the debate should be known as "Pro-choice" and "Anti-Abortion".


Also, my earliest memory is shortly before I started Jr. Kindergarten, meaning I could have been aborted within a few years AFTER being born and I would literally have been none the wiser.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Maslo

 

Soul: principle of life, feeling, thought and actions in humans. Not religious BS. I am not religious.

Foetus is alive, has feelings and actions even before birth. There is little difference in these things before and after birth, and nothing special happens except the baby passing through the birth canal during birth.

reply to post by aero56


An unborn child is very much alive in utero. As a mother of 3 I can assure you than even in utero all three of my children had very distinct personalities. Have you every seen videos of dr.s operating on an infant or the surrounding area while it was still in the womb? I have. I have seen a video of a baby who has not taking its first breath, removed from the mother while still attached to the umbilical cord so the doctors could operate, and it was very alert and aware. If the soul exists, this baby had one. It was placed back in its mother to continue out the pregnancy.

I am not religious at all, my views on abortion are based on my premature daughter, whom I was given the option of abortion or premature delivery. They are also based on medical fact. At 9 weeks an unborn child is fully, nothing less than a baby. Anything before that is up for debate. Anything after that is not.

reply to post by calstorm

At 9 weeks an unborn child is fully, nothing less than a baby.

I agree with the rest of your post, but why specificaly at 9 weeks? I believe it happens later, brain is the last system to develop.

I guess there can be exceptional cases in which abortion might make more sense than having the baby. Whats much more disturbing are the hoards of liberals going around actively promoting abortion. Of the millions of things they could campaign for they campaign for abortion...the depravity of that is beyond belief.

Originally posted by Monts
No matter what side of the debate you are on... abortion is morally wrong; and not for the reasons you may believe.

What determines whether any action is moral or not is not so much determined by the consequences of our actions as it is determined by the motivation behind them. (For more information on this idea and the concepts around it... just look up Kantian Philosophy) This is what I see as being almost totally overlooked in the abortion debate, from both sides.

So the "motivation", as claimed by pro-choicers, is that every woman has the right to make the choice about what happens to her body; which translates to the right to choose whether or not to abort.

But this is NOT the motivation behind why women "choose" to have abortions.

As valiant as the pro-choice option sounds... no woman is going into a clinic and getting an abortion because "it's my body so it's my choice".

The motivation behind all abortions (except those where the woman's body is mortally threatened by a pregnancy, or the pregnancy is a result of a traumatic experience such as rape), is simple: Women choose abortion because they don't want the responsibility that comes with carrying and having a child

Responsibilities include...
- Being pregnant
- Having to put up with all the social stigmas that come with being pregnant (i.e. teen pregnancy)
- Having to physically have the child
- Having to care for and look after the child
- Having to deal with giving the child up for abortion

So, with those responsibilities in mind... women are motivated to abort unborn children because they want the "easy way out".

So lets take that ideal of "taking the easy way out" and maximize it.

If everyone in the world where to "take the easy way out" all the time.... what kind of world would we live in? The idea of every single person living their lives by this philosophy is absurd and falls into paradoxical meaninglessness.

Do we let convicted killers go free because the legal system costs too much money... it's too much work... too hard on the families... ect?

Do we not go to school and tell our children to slack off because it's easier than working?

Do we encourage people who have tough lives to commit suicide because it's the easy way out of responsibility?

Of course not!

So why should abortion be any different?

I'm not saying that pregnancy is an easy thing to deal with- in fact I know that pregnancy is one of the most difficult roads in life one can take. But that is no excuse for "taking the easy way out".... especially when it involves the termination of life. It doesn't matter how old the fetus is; that fetus... regardless of whether or not it will feel pain... is a living human being from the moment of conception; all the genes and DNA are there.

As soon as both parties consensually agree to intercourse, they are consensually agreeing to the responsibility that comes with their actions. A denial of responsibility of one of the most basic, natural responsibilities is simply lethargic, apathetic, and lazy.

Do I believe in pro-choice?

I'm on the fence... but if there is an option to abort a fetus... no person should ever in their morally right minds make that decision.

I think your thread reveals the truth. cowardice is easier than bravery.
In fact your OP should be read by as many human beings as possible....your last line nails the truth.

Pro Choice because its your body can extend to murder, rape,arson ect if we are in the same frame of insanity.

Women choose abortion because they don't want the responsibility that comes with carrying and having a child " no.. where did you get this idea? every women have different situation why they chooses abortion. Most common one is money and unready.

So lets take that ideal of "taking the easy way out" and maximize it.

If everyone in the world where to "take the easy way out" all the time.... what kind of world would we live in? The idea of every single person living their lives by this philosophy is absurd and falls into paradoxical meaninglessness."

do we force people to give up their bodies to preserve a life? no.. so why would we force a womens body to preserve the fetus life?


So why should abortion be any different? "
what any different from person choosing to use their bodies to preserve a life?

As soon as both parties consensually agree to intercourse, they are consensually agreeing to the responsibility that comes with their actions. A denial of responsibility of one of the most basic, natural responsibilities is simply lethargic, apathetic, and lazy."
having sex is not deny responsibilities to a infant. Abortion is the consquence of unwant pregnacies and it way of dealing with it.
-----
what morally wrong is based on the indivudual.
i find it morally wrong to force a women body to preserve a life without choice of the mother. Its a women choice because it's her body to preserve a life regardless of their choices.

abortion should be an option.

we don't force people to give up part of their bodies to preserve a life.. why should we force women to give up their bodies to preserve a life?

know one has a right to say to do with there own bodies.