Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

[FlyersKJM]

First of all, I believe life begins right away when the sperm and egg meet. I have never seen something "without life" just start growing.

i actually debated this in my ethics class today, and one point was brought up by another guy who shared my views. He stated "why is it not ok for a convicted murderer to be chopped up but it's ok for an unborn defenseless baby to be?"

Do you guys know the methods of abortion? Most of them are extremely disgusting. Almost 1.5 million unborn babies are being killed annually... ANNUALLY. These "pro-choice" people are wiping out an entire city a year.

And you know what the funny thing is (not that this topic is funny), but I bet you "pro-choice" people are happy your parents didnt make a decision that you support.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

I believe Sperm and an Eggcell are alive as well. So, jerking of is murder to. Not getting your eggs impregnated is murder to. Didn't Augustine say that women who don't get as many babies as possible are committing murder? Is periodic abstinence indirect killing?

Now, we know that their are not enough people willing to adopt babies. at least not 1.500.000 a year. So, adoption is not the solution.
So, a lot of fetusses are being removed because parents/mothers/potential fathers/families/ have reasons for not having it.

If you want to make a difference, save people who are starving or have miserable lives, but do not promote adoptions, when this ain't the solution. Try to help people who are actually worth your attention a lot more than focussing on people who remove a fetus who's less conscious then a field mice.

Lucy

 

[jesusfreak3786]

I have found that most of the replys to this tread have been carnial. I speak to christians when I say this. WE ARE FIGHTING SATAN. Not overpopulation, or the down fall of the economy, or for the conveniance or benifits of any human, even the unborn babys. Those things come as a result to satans power to overcome the spirits of people. The answer to this is downright simple abortion is a sin! The only way to truly and effectivly fight the sin of this world is by the grace, power, mercy and diety of the one and only God! If you don't trust your Father to lead you thru the dark (pregnant and dying or not!) YOU WILL FALL INTO THE PIT. Stop thinking about the riches of the world and keep your eyes on Jesus! PLEASE for your sake stop! love.

 

[Blackmarch]

Howdy fellow citizens! Whether you are for or against Abortion, I would like to ask everyone for your honest and sound inputs on the following idea.

Abortion is/has been one of the top world-wide issue. I would like to take a moment to briefly analyze the definition of "life," and perhaps see it from a different angle. Also, I humbly ask to be excused from my flaws or any of my assumptions as I am still a student in philosophy. I also ask that you read this as a piece of treat without a critical mind analyzing my mistakes as I am only trying to better understand this subject. Thankyou.

Firstly, I have heard and am aware of the mother's right to choose. There are many exceptional cases in abortion. Some women conceive a child through rape, incest, or simply by a mistake. and for both the sake of mother and the "thing" inside the womb, it is understood that the following action of "abortion" is tolerated.

Do we, as human beings, recognize the "thing" inside the womb as life?
When does a human being become recognized as person? and during what process of pregnancy do we define this blob of blood as life?

Because the way I see it, the issue isn't the mother's right to choose. I think the real issue is the definition of life. Because if the fetus inside the womb is by definition life, then it rightfully assumes the basic human rights which includes the right to live. The mother no longer has jurisdiction over the life of the baby if infact whats inside is life.

So does the "mother's right to choose" over-rule the fetus' human rights?(assuming the fetus is a life)
Which is greater?

Consider this, though it may sound awfully silly. Does a mother have a choice to "abort" a 5 year old boy? If the fetus is infact life, does it not have the same right as would a 5 year old boy? If so, then the difference between the 5 year old boy and the fetus would be the location. One being inside the womb and one out in the field.

Is it not agreeable that the real issue of abortion is definition of life rather than mother's right to choose? Thanks for bearing with me and I hope for many interesting inputs.

My belief on abortion is this:
Abortion is wrong for several reasons 1) it's the killing of life that 2)is the result of the choice of two people to have sex, and must live with consequences-(e.g. abortion is used to get away from the consequences of sex, thus further promoting that ceertain sin).
3) What is god known for? creating all things, creating life. He has given us the power to also create life and that is very sacred and important. Abuse of it will bring consequences.

The only time, I believe, when a mother can chose an abortion is when the child is concieved from rape, or if it can be ascertained that the Mother or the child will die during childbirth.

 

[levi501]

Although it's a human life at the earliest stages of gestation.... abortion should always be legal because the child's life is always in conflict with the mothers rights.

- Does a parent have the responsibility to share their biological resources with their child?
I mean a mother most definitely sustains a child with her resources in her womb. Should she be forced to do that? That's her blood/nourishment she passively chooses to share with her child. If we can force a woman to do that… can we then force a parent later on to share an organ or give a blood transfusion? As far as I know, even though many people can spare a kidney, we don’t force them to donate one if their child is in need. If we are forced to support our children biologically, where does this responsibility end and why? What about other human beings? Your child's life wouldn't be more important to society then another humans. So wouldn't this biological responsibility extend to others? For instance... should we have mandatory blood donations because it also saves lives? Shouldn’t we be forced to share whatever biological resources we can with one another? Giving blood isn’t nearly as life threatening as giving birth. If women can be forced to share her blood and other biological resources with another human shouldn’t we all be forced to do less dramatic things to save lives? Organ donor cards are most definitely not needed then. You’re dead… the cells in your organs are dieing… it should be immoral and illegal for you or your family to deny someone those organs. It should be criminal to cremate a body before any useful biological tissue has been harvested...

- Should a person be forced to risk their life to save the life of another?
Even if it is their child, should they be forced to risk their life to save it?
Although with technology mortality rates have dropped with pregnant women, bringing a child to term is still very stressful and in some cases life threatening. Do we want to start forcing people to put their lives on the line for others?

 

[Blackmarch]

As to that a mother should have to share her resources with her child; yes, if you have had sex, children is a result. easiest way to not have a kid is not to go sleeping around with people. Marriage and family are for raising kids (which are also a source of happiness) not for pleasure (pleasure is the icing on the cake, not the cake, if that's why someone got married, they're very likely to divorce.)
now if the child's ot the mother's life is serieously threatened by the childbirth, then yes, abortion is an acceptable choice.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

As to that a mother should have to share her resources with her child; yes, if you have had sex, children is a result. easiest way to not have a kid is not to go sleeping around with people.

Why do people associate abortion with sleeping around? Are we, as society, not yet able to look past the social stigmas of yesterday which dictate that unwed mothers and women who have abortions are "loose women"? Statistically, the majority of women who have abortions are in a committed, monogamous relationship. There are many women who "sleep around", get pregnant and opt not to terminate just as there are many women who are married and have abortions. Let's try and look past the stereotypes for a change.

Marriage and family are for raising kids

So people who do not wish to have children should not get married or have sex?

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Although it's a human life at the earliest stages of gestation.... abortion should always be legal because the child's life is always in conflict with the mothers rights.

- Does a parent have the responsibility to share their biological resources with their child?
I mean a mother most definitely sustains a child with her resources in her womb. Should she be forced to do that? That's her blood/nourishment she passively chooses to share with her child. If we can force a woman to do that… can we then force a parent later on to share an organ or give a blood transfusion? As far as I know, even though many people can spare a kidney, we don’t force them to donate one if their child is in need. If we are forced to support our children biologically, where does this responsibility end and why? What about other human beings? Your child's life wouldn't be more important to society then another humans. So wouldn't this biological responsibility extend to others? For instance... should we have mandatory blood donations because it also saves lives? Shouldn’t we be forced to share whatever biological resources we can with one another? Giving blood isn’t nearly as life threatening as giving birth. If women can be forced to share her blood and other biological resources with another human shouldn’t we all be forced to do less dramatic things to save lives? Organ donor cards are most definitely not needed then. You’re dead… the cells in your organs are dieing… it should be immoral and illegal for you or your family to deny someone those organs. It should be criminal to cremate a body before any useful biological tissue has been harvested...

- Should a person be forced to risk their life to save the life of another?
Even if it is their child, should they be forced to risk their life to save it?
Although with technology mortality rates have dropped with pregnant women, bringing a child to term is still very stressful and in some cases life threatening. Do we want to start forcing people to put their lives on the line for others?

This next statement doesn't apply to rape victims.(which by the way is a tiny pecentige of the abortions conducted.) FORCE?!? That woman who had sex knowing that she could get pregnant(becuase that indeed is how you get pregnant) who forced her to do that? Action and reaction. Deal with the consiqunces or kill a sacred human child which do you choose?

 

[Fuzzy]

Marriage and family are for raising kids

So...Post-menopausal women can't be married? Infertile people can't
be married? People who just plain don't WANT kids can't be married?

Just wondering.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

That woman who had sex knowing that she could get pregnant(becuase that indeed is how you get pregnant) who forced her to do that?

The choices don't end when you choose to have sex. Consenting to sex is not consenting to have a child. Abortion is one way of dealing with the consequences, only that isn't acceptable to those who wish to make forced pregnancy and motherhood a punishment for having sex.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

The choices don't end when you choose to have sex. Consenting to sex is not consenting to have a child. Abortion is one way of dealing with the consequences, only that isn't acceptable to those who wish to make forced pregnancy and motherhood a punishment for having sex.

That is an action taken to an action. Not a consequece accepted.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

That is an action taken to an action. Not a consequece accepted.

And that is your opinion. In my opinion, regardless of how the woman handles an unplanned pregnancy she is taking actions to accept her consequences. With everything there is cause and effect. You engage in a specific action, it renders consequences (either positive or negative), and then you take action once again to rectify the situation.

For example, someone smokes cigarettes. Yes, we all know smoking can cause cancer. Does that mean if someone chooses to smoke and later on down the road they get cancer they should be denied medical treatment because they chose to smoke, therefore chemotherapy would be ditching responsibility?

 

[Blackmarch]

Why do people associate abortion with sleeping around? Are we, as society, not yet able to look past the social stigmas of yesterday which dictate that unwed mothers and women who have abortions are "loose women"? Statistically, the majority of women who have abortions are in a committed, monogamous relationship. There are many women who "sleep around", get pregnant and opt not to terminate just as there are many women who are married and have abortions. Let's try and look past the stereotypes for a change.

So people who do not wish to have children should not get married or have sex?

1st reply; because the majority of abortions performed are for those who've consented to sleep with another, usually with someone they are not married to.

2nd: please post the rest of the sentence of mine that you quoted...
Those who wish to not to have kids do not know what they are missing, if they are getting married for the pleasure or the money, it is very likely they will end up divorced as neither leads to a fulfilling relationship (more rather a selfish one). If that's why they are getting married then they shouldn't bring children into such a relationship, however that is no excuse for terminating life.


as for those who can't have children physically, they can adopt, have faith in god, etc... But as for the argument whether that means they can have sex outside of marriage is for a different thread, as they can't have children and therefore no need to worry about aborting a child.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

because the majority of abortions performed are for those who've consented to sleep with another, usually with someone they are not married to.

Yes, most abortions are performed on unmarried women; however, that does not mean they are "sleeping around". Sleeping around means you go from random partner to random partner. If the man and woman are unwed, but have a serious relationship and have been together for say two years, that doesn't mean they are "sleeping around".

Those who wish to not to have kids do not know what they are missing

That's a brazen assumption. I understand that to someone who has always harbored the desire to have children and a family, the notion that some of us never want children is inconceivable. But for those of us who have always known we never want children, it's insulting for people to make baseless comments and throw around assumptions that we are all destined for marital failure and that we're all heartless and selfish people. I grew up in a large family. My mother loves having children and babies and all that comes along with it. I don't ever see myself in that capacity. I know what I'm missing out on and I honestly have no regrets.

if they are getting married for the pleasure or the money, it is very likely they will end up divorced as neither leads to a fulfilling relationship (more rather a selfish one).

Even people who want children can marry for selfish reasons. Why do people always assume that individuals who do not want children are greedy and selfish and put themselves before everyone else? It's not about selfishness. It's about not having the desire to spawn offspring. And here's a newsflash...some people get married for intimacy and companionship. People who want children do not hold the monopoly on those types of relationship wants and needs.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

And that is your opinion. In my opinion, regardless of how the woman handles an unplanned pregnancy she is taking actions to accept her consequences. With everything there is cause and effect. You engage in a specific action, it renders consequences (either positive or negative), and then you take action once again to rectify the situation.

For example, someone smokes cigarettes. Yes, we all know smoking can cause cancer. Does that mean if someone chooses to smoke and later on down the road they get cancer they should be denied medical treatment because they chose to smoke, therefore chemotherapy would be ditching responsibility?

Smoking is taking your own life in your hands not a child. And treatment for cancer is for prolonging the life, not abrubtly ending it.

 

[Outspoken]

" If the man and woman are unwed, but have a serious relationship and have been together for say two years, that doesn't mean they are "sleeping around"."

I'm curious if you have any stats to back up your assertion here.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Smoking is taking your own life in your hands not a child. And treatment for cancer is for prolonging the life, not abrubtly ending it.

For some women abortion is prolonging their life.

I'm curious if you have any stats to back up your assertion here.

Stats to back up what assertion, pray tell? Stats to back up the assertion that if two consenting adults are in a long-term, monogamous relationship they are not technically "sleeping around" with each other? I'm confused as to what you're asking me here.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

For some women abortion is prolonging their life.

i was talking about life in genral. Killing a child is not premoting life.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Killing a child is not premoting life.

True, but I am not trying to promote life. I'm trying to promote choice.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

True, but I am not trying to promote life. I'm trying to promote choice.

That is a shame, and somwhat disturbing!