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

Chrono Traveler · Sep 29, 2004

For the most part I think it's not really a good thing. But the right to choose is important and it should be herd. If the baby were to affect the helth of the mother, or they can see that the baby would suffer through growth, I see nothing wrong with it at all.

The problem is people try to make it seem like the life of the un born child is more important than that of anyone else. Like these weridos that go and kill abortion doctors....so much for "pro life".

And life it self.. have you ever eaten an egg? an egg is a possible unborn animal!

Have you eaten meat at all(yes I do)? Thats life too, but we don't give the animal a choice. Do we? Do you see yourself as "higher than animals" or what? Is that why it's ok to have meat, but we cant let a baby human go for the well being and health of others?

an7222 · Sep 29, 2004

DoseOFReality said:
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.

Of course a fetus is a life. Even a single cell, a tree or a small plant is a life. But despite being a life, I think abbortion is justifiable in many cases, as is the case o a rape. But I disagree with you when you said that if a fetus is a life, then killing a fetus is the same as killing a 5 years old life. Of course it is not. A fetus is not a concious life. It has no plans for the future and it even doesn't know yet it exists. But a 5 years old boy is a consious life, he knows he exists and he makes plans for the future. Killing him you'll frustrate his expectations and desires, and because of that you should not do that.

Monica02 · Sep 29, 2004

Chrono Traveler said:
For the most part I think it's not really a good thing. But the right to choose is important and it should be herd. If the baby were to affect the helth of the mother, or they can see that the baby would suffer through growth, I see nothing wrong with it at all.

The problem is people try to make it seem like the life of the un born child is more important than that of anyone else. Like these weridos that go and kill abortion doctors....so much for "pro life".

And life it self.. have you ever eaten an egg? an egg is a possible unborn animal!

Have you eaten meat at all(yes I do)? Thats life too, but we don't give the animal a choice. Do we? Do you see yourself as "higher than animals" or what? Is that why it's ok to have meat, but we cant let a baby human go for the well being and health of others?

Health of the mother can mean anything. My back hurts, I am not ready for a baby, ect...

Do you think all people who suffer should be killed? That would include just about everyone.

An unfertilized egg has the potential to become a person. A fertilized egg is already a person.

Of course a humanlife is more valuable than an animal's life. If you consider yourself equal to animals than go feed yourself to some starving dogs. I just bet you do not feel that strongly about the issue!

Archivist · Sep 29, 2004

Monica02 said:
Health of the mother can mean anything. My back hurts, I am not ready for a baby, ect...

Can you offer any specific instance when a woman had an abortion only because her back hurt? That isn't what "health of the mother" means.

Chrono Traveler · Sep 29, 2004

Monica02 said:
Health of the mother can mean anything. My back hurts, I am not ready for a baby, ect...

Do you think all people who suffer should be killed? That would include just about everyone.

An unfertilized egg has the potential to become a person. A fertilized egg is already a person.

Of course a humanlife is more valuable than an animal's life. If you consider yourself equal to animals than go feed yourself to some starving dogs. I just bet you do not feel that strongly about the issue!

You know what I mean by health, don't try and avoid it..

Animals are equal to humans and humans ARE animals... maybe they lack many things that we have, but in the end, they still run on instinct, and they don't mess up the enviroment and move along to a different place just to do the same thing.

anyway, this is off topic...so back to that what is...

Chrono Traveler · Sep 29, 2004

Archivist said:
Can you offer any specific instance when a woman had an abortion only because her back hurt? That isn't what "health of the mother" means.

Thank you...

I hope some of you do know that mothers have died while giving birth, it happened A LOT a long time ago, and it still happens some today..

Vi · Sep 29, 2004

I hate to say this but I feel strongly about it, and if in the situation it might feel as if it would kill me to have to follow through, but if I feel it's wrong to kill a fetus, then to me it would be for any reason - if raped, or if diseased, it would not be right to me, if I stand up and say it is wrong,then it is always wrong. When I suffered through secondary infertility and finally became pregnant, there was a very high risk of my son being mentally ill. When asked if I wanted to take a risky test to find out, I ended up saying no because I knew if he was found to have down syndrome, I would not allow myself to end his life, so the risk of taking the test was not necessary. I knew at that moment that to me (and that doesn't mean to you) wrong was wrong and it was not for me to end a life through choice.

Monica02 · Sep 29, 2004

Archivist said:
Can you offer any specific instance when a woman had an abortion only because her back hurt? That isn't what "health of the mother" means.

What does it mean? Specifically.

Monica02 · Sep 29, 2004

Chrono Traveler said:
Thank you...

I hope some of you do know that mothers have died while giving birth, it happened A LOT a long time ago, and it still happens some today..

A mother dying from childbirth today in this country is rare. Women still die from so called safe and legal abortions and the baby is always killed. How ironic that in the days when childbirth was extremely dangerous, the unborn was considered a human being and was looked upon as a blessing. Now when childbirth is so safe, the unborn is viewed as disposable. How sad we have become.

Chrono Traveler · Sep 29, 2004

but, if the mother might die during child birth, I really feel she has a really good reason to choose an abortion..

Monica02 · Sep 29, 2004

Chrono Traveler said:
but, if the mother might die during child birth, I really feel she has a really good reason to choose an abortion..

What type of abortion? All women MIGHT die during childbirth. All women who abort MIGHT die as well.

Chrono Traveler · Sep 29, 2004

Sigh....in some cases, Im sure they can see if the birth will affect the mother's health. I know abortion can, but chances for both are pretty slim...

You know....Its not even up to me, its up to the mother....so let her choose if she needs to...

Fuzzy · Sep 29, 2004

Monica02 said:
What does it mean? Specifically.

Gestational diabetes, which has all the dangers of regular diabetes

Aggravation of existing medical conditions, such as high blood pressure,
heart problems, or obesity

Mental health. Many mental conditions are treated with drugs that can
cause serious birth defects, such as brain damage, malformed organs, or
fetal death. To achieve a healthy baby, the mother has to be off the drugs,
potentially for years. As a result, whatever mental condition she has is no
longer kept under control.

Regulatory or maintenance medicines can affect fetal development, and thus
have to be cut out, risking the health or life of the mother

holyorders · Sep 30, 2004

Prince Lucianus said:
I just thought the precise opposite
Personally I think people who have had to deal with an abortion have had a much bigger understanding of this subject than Christians who just follow the lead which was written in the bible.

Lucy

So you think its a Christian thing? Roe Vs. Wade (the judgement that approved abortion) was voted by the supreme court. Those who actually voted on it in America make up a very small percentage. So the greatest majority who actually are "pro-choice" never actually "chose" to have the law passed. And I wonder what would happen if there was a real vote on it....

If a fetus is a human life (The baby/fetus is) then we are killing about 3,000 to 4,000 babies a day. That is why Christians and everyone else are really Pro-life.

God Bless,
holyorders

Sors · Sep 30, 2004

I haven't read the thread. I don't need to. All prochoice people are right. All prolife people are right. Arguments exist both ways. Arguments from both sides are good arguments. No one will ever win.

That is all.

Archivist · Sep 30, 2004

Monica02 said:
What does it mean? Specifically.

Answer my question first: can you offer any specific instance where a woman had an abortion because her back hurt.

You made the statement so I presume that you have evidence to back it up.

Prince Lucianus · Sep 30, 2004

holyorders said:
So you think its a Christian thing? Roe Vs. Wade (the judgement that approved abortion) was voted by the supreme court. Those who actually voted on it in America make up a very small percentage. So the greatest majority who actually are "pro-choice" never actually "chose" to have the law passed. And I wonder what would happen if there was a real vote on it....

If a fetus is a human life (The baby/fetus is) then we are killing about 3,000 to 4,000 babies a day. That is why Christians and everyone else are really Pro-life.

God Bless,
holyorders

Well, you can't vote for those things unfortunately.

An early fetus in my mind is a human life in the stadium comparable to an insect. Aborting a 5 month old fetus is not good, but if you do it in the first 2 months, then I have no problems with it.

And, does the fetus go to heaven or not?
Since god has plans with everybody, doesn't this mean that he didn't he have plans with the unborn human?

Lucy

Fuzzy · Sep 30, 2004

holyorders said:
Roe Vs. Wade (the judgement that approved abortion) was voted by the supreme court. Those who actually voted on it in America make up a very small percentage. So the greatest majority who actually are "pro-choice" never actually "chose" to have the law passed. And I wonder what would happen if there was a real vote on it....

I respectfully point out that the judicial branch of the American government
does NOT create laws, they check the legality and constitutional validity
of laws created by the legislative branch. Roe v Wade questioned the validity
of legislation regarding abortion, specifically with regards to the 14th
amendment, which was ratified in 1868, and found abortion laws, as written,
violated the right to privacy. The Supreme Court did what they're supposed
to do: enure the validity of laws that are created and enforced by the other
two branches.

pthalomarie · Sep 30, 2004

holyorders said:
The "pro-choice" viewpoint just a bunch of stubborn people who are willing to kill babies just to look and act rebellious and tough.

I've never anyone on either side of the debate make this claim. Care to elaborate?

So you think its a Christian thing? Roe Vs. Wade (the judgement that approved abortion) was voted by the supreme court. Those who actually voted on it in America make up a very small percentage.

No one "voted on it."

Anyhow, even if you overturned it, you'd still have a very small percentage of the population deciding its legality.

So the greatest majority who actually are "pro-choice" never actually "chose" to have the law passed. And I wonder what would happen if there was a real vote on it.

Every abortion poll since Roe V Wade has pretty much turned out the same results; half the population is pro-choice, half is pro-life.

I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.

If a fetus is a human life (The baby/fetus is) then we are killing about 3,000 to 4,000 babies a day.

Actually, the correct average would be about 2,300 per day.

Monica02 · Sep 30, 2004

Archivist said:
Answer my question first: can you offer any specific instance where a woman had an abortion because her back hurt.

You made the statement so I presume that you have evidence to back it up.

I have known women who have had abortions for much sillier reasons and all of them were quite legal. My point was that a "health of the mother " exception encompasses any health reason and therefore allows for abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any silly reason whatsoever. I have known women who were talked into abortions because they were taking arthritis medication, because they drank a few beers or because they were hypochondriacs. These were all "health reasons". Pro-aborts would have people believe that all abortions are needed because millions of women are going to fall over dead if they dare bring their pregnancy to term. The "health of the mother exception" is just an excuse to keep abortion legal.
Even before Roe V. Wade (Roe-Norma McCorvey is a pro-life activist now) it was legal to have an abortion for serious health risks. My Mother could have legally aborted me because she was so ill. We both survived.

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

Well-Known Member

Rational morality is a must

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

One by Four by Nine

Miserable Pile of Secrets

Still Love This Movie

Senior Veteran

Old Goth

One by Four by Nine

American Aquarium Drinker

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency