Is abortion better than the alternative?

[Voodoo Gypsy]

they tend to do that you know. ''oh...your kid has downs...i made you an appointment next thursday at 2:00 across the street to terminate the pregnancy''

Give me a break. No doctor on earth worth his salt would schedule an abortion for a patient without checking with her first, unless the abortion was an emergency and the woman was incapasitated. Any doctor who did that would be waving a bon voyage to his license pretty darn fast.

Regardless, if we're speaking of an alternate universe where doctors did that with any sort of regularity, the woman doesn't have to go get the abortion. If the doctor schedules one for her, she doesn't have to go. If she does, then it's because she decided not to continue the pregnancy, not because the doctor forced her to end it.

 

[Voodoo Gypsy]

i am not sure how i feel about etoptic pregnancies to be honest.

To not terminate an etopic pregnancy is to hand a death sentance to the woman. At best, you're ending her reproductive life. If you question under those circumstances if a woman can get an abortion, I don't even know what to tell you.

babies can feel pain, and cry, in the womb. so that is a BIG consideration in abortion. in fact i believe there is a law going through congress or wherever about that. saw it in the newspaper when i was at work

When a fetus can cry and feel pain in the womb is long after the point most abortions are performed. In the first trimester, the fetus can't feel anything, and they certainly don't cry. That's when most abortions are performed.

solution...USE birth control. then there wouldnt be the need for abortion of ''unwanted'' babies and pregnancies.

Birth control doesn't always prevent pregnancy. Most women who're sexually active right now are on a form of birth control, and there are still abortions being done. This year, more than 1 million women of the 10 million on the pill will get pregnant.

for saving mother and baby...i dont think we have the right to choose one of the other. and i say again...doctors need to focus on finding ways to save BOTH.

There are an overwhelming number of situations where the choice isn't saving the mother or saving the fetus. The choice is saving the mother and terminating the pregnancy or not terminating the pregnancy and losing both the mother and the fetus.

and pepper isnt alive. no heartbeat. babies have heartbeats. BIG difference.

Before viability, a fetus doesn't have an independant heartbeat either. A fetus has a heart that beats only because the woman's beats. When the woman's heart stops beating, if the fetus isn't viable, the fetus's heart will stop beating too. In fact, if a woman goes into distress, the fetus will go into distress before the woman does because as a natural function of the woman's body, it will naturally terminate the functions that are compromising the woman's life. Since the fetus isn't supporting itself and any body function it has is because the woman controls it through her body, that's a function that will cease to save the life of the mother.

And that's nature's choice.

 

[Voodoo Gypsy]

seeds dont have heartbeat and brainwaves

and i think eggs are non-fertilized chicken eggs. so of course they're not life...

According to her, the potential for life is life.

And again, a fetus doesn't have an independant heartbeat or brainwaves during the time that most are aborted, just like seeds.

 

[ASLER86]

When a fetus can cry and feel pain in the womb is long after the point most abortions are performed. In the first trimester, the fetus can't feel anything, and they certainly don't cry. That's when most abortions are performed.

There are an overwhelming number of situations where the choice isn't saving the mother or saving the fetus. The choice is saving the mother and terminating the pregnancy or not terminating the pregnancy and losing both the mother and the fetus.

Before viability, a fetus doesn't have an independant heartbeat either. A fetus has a heart that beats only because the woman's beats. When the woman's heart stops beating, if the fetus isn't viable, the fetus's heart will stop beating too. In fact, if a woman goes into distress, the fetus will go into distress before the woman does because as a natural function of the woman's body, it will naturally terminate the functions that are compromising the woman's life. Since the fetus isn't supporting itself and any body function it has is because the woman controls it through her body, that's a function that will cease to save the life of the mother.

And that's nature's choice.

Do you have any sources for your claims? (I have a plenty, but I'm going to wait for you first)

I'm waiting.....

 

[gallykid08]

Give me a break. No doctor on earth worth his salt would schedule an abortion for a patient without checking with her first, unless the abortion was an emergency and the woman was incapasitated. Any doctor who did that would be waving a bon voyage to his license pretty darn fast.

Regardless, if we're speaking of an alternate universe where doctors did that with any sort of regularity, the woman doesn't have to go get the abortion. If the doctor schedules one for her, she doesn't have to go. If she does, then it's because she decided not to continue the pregnancy, not because the doctor forced her to end it.

i've heard of it happening.

and i think that potential to life doesnt equal life...only if its already fertilized.

 

[Phred]

All these arguments are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a fetus/blastocyst/embryo can feel pain. It doesn't matter because if the thing isn't viable it has no rights. Now, viability can be debated. We can certainly discuss when this might be and what technology means to the issue. What is not open for debate is our right to the sanctity of our own bodies.

A woman has a right to decide whether or not she'll carry a pregnancy to term. You can't force another person to donate an organ even if the person who needs it will die. You can't force a person to donate blood, sperm, eggs or anything else if they don't want to. No matter what the consequences are, we have the right to do what we wish with our own bodies.

Would you force a man to donate his kidney to another? How about his heart? Blood? Of course not. Yet you'd force a woman to donate her own body's resources and risk her life. How do you reconcile this? Are you punishing a woman for having sex? Have you chosen between a woman and her unborn child? [sarcasm]You know these women, they're dirty, they've already sinned.[/sarcasm] An unborn child on the other hand... totally innocent. Pristine. So you choose which one you'll care about. Is that it?

Only thing is, it's not your choice. What we do with our own bodies is up to us. Not you, not some deity, not politicians or priests. Yes, the decisions we make do affect others. If I refuse to donate a kidney someone may die. If a woman chooses an abortion that child will never be a child.

Whatever her decision, it's her decision. Maybe someday a woman will simply hand over her fetus to a doctor who will have some technology to take it to term. Then you can argue about who pays for it.

.​

 

[ASLER86]

All these arguments are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a fetus/blastocyst/embryo can feel pain. It doesn't matter because if the thing isn't viable it has no rights. Now, viability can be debated. We can certainly discuss when this might be and what technology means to the issue. What is not open for debate is our right to the sanctity of our own bodies.

A woman has a right to decide whether or not she'll carry a pregnancy to term. You can't force another person to donate an organ even if the person who needs it will die. You can't force a person to donate blood, sperm, eggs or anything else if they don't want to. No matter what the consequences are, we have the right to do what we wish with our own bodies.

Your right, we can't force a person to do something to their body...and according to the law a person has the right to an abortion. Just because the law says so doesn't make it right.
A woman can have an abortion, but it doesn't mean that we can't fight to educate the biological/scientific aspects of what the fetus is capable of in the womb and how it is our responsibility to help protect our children.
The thing is, the fetus in seperate from the mother concerning DNA, and it has its own heartbeat. It has its own organs and brain....it is seperate from the mother.

Yet you'd force a woman to donate her own body's resources and risk her life. How do you reconcile this? Are you punishing a woman for having sex? Have you chosen between a woman and her unborn child? [sarcasm]You know these women, they're dirty, they've already sinned.[/sarcasm] An unborn child on the other hand... totally innocent. Pristine. So you choose which one you'll care about. Is that it?

Only thing is, it's not your choice. What we do with our own bodies is up to us. Not you, not some deity, not politicians or priests. Yes, the decisions we make do affect others. If I refuse to donate a kidney someone may die. If a woman chooses an abortion that child will never be a child.

Whatever her decision, it's her decision. Maybe someday a woman will simply hand over her fetus to a doctor who will have some technology to take it to term. Then you can argue about who pays for it.

I care about the unborn fetus, but I care about the mother too. Our society does not completely educate a young girl or woman who goes in to have an abortion, which may lead to regret or consequences later.

You really shouldn't be arguing about sinners either, how do you know that I didn't have an abortion and that is why I am so pro-life now??

Just something for you to think about.

 

[gallykid08]

All these arguments are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a fetus/blastocyst/embryo can feel pain. It doesn't matter because if the thing isn't viable it has no rights. Now, viability can be debated. We can certainly discuss when this might be and what technology means to the issue. What is not open for debate is our right to the sanctity of our own bodies.

A woman has a right to decide whether or not she'll carry a pregnancy to term. You can't force another person to donate an organ even if the person who needs it will die. You can't force a person to donate blood, sperm, eggs or anything else if they don't want to. No matter what the consequences are, we have the right to do what we wish with our own bodies.

Would you force a man to donate his kidney to another? How about his heart? Blood? Of course not. Yet you'd force a woman to donate her own body's resources and risk her life. How do you reconcile this? Are you punishing a woman for having sex? Have you chosen between a woman and her unborn child? [sarcasm]You know these women, they're dirty, they've already sinned.[/sarcasm] An unborn child on the other hand... totally innocent. Pristine. So you choose which one you'll care about. Is that it?

Only thing is, it's not your choice. What we do with our own bodies is up to us. Not you, not some deity, not politicians or priests. Yes, the decisions we make do affect others. If I refuse to donate a kidney someone may die. If a woman chooses an abortion that child will never be a child.

Whatever her decision, it's her decision. Maybe someday a woman will simply hand over her fetus to a doctor who will have some technology to take it to term. Then you can argue about who pays for it.

.​

pain matters. viability matters. why? because if its viable..its life. if it has a heartbeat, its life, if it has brain waves...its life. and if you take that life away, what is it? dead.

im sorry you seem to think that i think those woman are dirty. i dont think that way at all. i have cousins who have become pregnant before getting married. so what?

them having sex is a choice. all they have to do to prevent pregnancy is use a little birth control. do i agree with it? no. am i going to force my morals on them? no.

abortion is MUCH different then donating organs or giving blood.

there are other options besides killing the baby.

i did NOT come to the pro life decision because i happen to be a christian and believe in God. it was a decision i made after doing research.

please dont put christians in a box, thank you.

 

[Marek]

All these arguments are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a fetus/blastocyst/embryo can feel pain.

You're right about this...

It doesn't matter because if the thing isn't viable it has no rights.

I don't agree with this. Please show why a human that cannot live outside the uterus has no rights.

Now, viability can be debated. We can certainly discuss when this might be and what technology means to the issue. What is not open for debate is our right to the sanctity of our own bodies.

Of course this is open for debate. When we do something to our bodies that either harms society or harms someone else, we don't always have the right to do it. Especially if this act is done out of selfishness.

A woman has a right to decide whether or not she'll carry a pregnancy to term. You can't force another person to donate an organ even if the person who needs it will die. You can't force a person to donate blood, sperm, eggs or anything else if they don't want to. No matter what the consequences are, we have the right to do what we wish with our own bodies.

It's true that you cannot force someone to go out of their way to help another, but when they go out of their way to harm someone, they should be stopped.

Would you force a man to donate his kidney to another? How about his heart? Blood? Of course not. Yet you'd force a woman to donate her own body's resources and risk her life.

How can you say that the very slight risk of harm to the woman outweighs certain death to the fetus? Logically, the murder of a woman and the abortion of a fetus are equally as wrong. When a woman is killed she is deprived of a future of good. When a fetus is killed, she is deprived of a future of good. When the death of a woman and the death of a fetus are on the same level, how can you say that killing the fetus should come before taking a very slight chance of damaging a woman's health?

How do you reconcile this? Are you punishing a woman for having sex?

The woman is not being punished, she is taking responsibility for her actions. It is unfortunate when someone that does not want to gets pregnant, but that is no reason to end a life.

Have you chosen between a woman and her unborn child? [sarcasm]You know these women, they're dirty, they've already sinned.[/sarcasm] An unborn child on the other hand... totally innocent. Pristine. So you choose which one you'll care about. Is that it?

No.

Only thing is, it's not your choice. What we do with our own bodies is up to us. Not you, not some deity, not politicians or priests. Yes, the decisions we make do affect others. If I refuse to donate a kidney someone may die.

The decision is up to us. The role of politicians though, is to form laws that punish people whose decisions harm others. Obviously, abortions harm others.

If a woman chooses an abortion that child will never be a child.

This is exactly what's so wrong about it.

Whatever her decision, it's her decision. Maybe someday a woman will simply hand over her fetus to a doctor who will have some technology to take it to term. Then you can argue about who pays for it.

This would be ideal.

 

[Phred]

pain matters. viability matters. why? because if its viable..its life. if it has a heartbeat, its life, if it has brain waves...its life. and if you take that life away, what is it? dead.

Irrelevant. A cyst is life. A virus is life. A bug is life. You're arguing things that don't matter, appealing to emotion. We have a right to decide what happens to our bodies. When you recognize that we will be able to talk.

im sorry you seem to think that i think those woman are dirty. i dont think that way at all. i have cousins who have become pregnant before getting married. so what?

Wow... I put [sarcasm] tags on it too. But, by the definition of some here, your cousins are loose and easy. Must we accept definitions because others offer them? I think not. The same way I don't accept your definition of life.

Them having sex is a choice. all they have to do to prevent pregnancy is use a little birth control. do i agree with it? no. am i going to force my morals on them? no.

Perhaps they did and it failed. Still, irrelevant to the discussion.

abortion is MUCH different then donating organs or giving blood.

Because you say so? I think not.

there are other options besides killing the baby.

Sure... but it's not your decision.

i did NOT come to the pro life decision because i happen to be a christian and believe in God. it was a decision i made after doing research.

Then don't have an abortion. Otherwise, it's not your decision. The fetus isn't a being with rights. It's not viable and as such the decision is about the woman's body, not the fetus.

please dont put christians in a box, thank you.

I don't believe I used the word "christian" even once. Please read what I post. Thank you.

.
​

 

[ASLER86]

Wow... I put [sarcasm] tags on it too. But, by the definition of some here, your cousins are *****. Must we accept definitions because others offer them? I think not. The same way I don't accept your definition of life.

Not all think that young girls who make mistakes and get pregnant are the "B" word.....including me.

I don't they made a mistake, and now they sadly are living up the circumstances. I have a friend who became pregnant, her child is now four years old. We never condemned her or anything. She recently got married, and she is doing fine. I also have a cousin who became pregnant, we didn't condemn her, she got married two years ago and her first child is now eight.

It doesn't work to condemn...we need to be accepting of them (did you read my other earlier post)

 

[Marek]

Not all think that young girls who make mistakes and get pregnant are the "B" word.....including me.

I don't they made a mistake, and now they sadly are living up the circumstances. I have a friend who became pregnant, her child is now four years old. We never condemned her or anything. She recently got married, and she is doing fine. I also have a cousin who became pregnant, we didn't condemn her, she got married two years ago and her first child is now eight.

It doesn't work to condemn...we need to be accepting of them (did you read my other earlier post)

Wow. He said 'SOME'. Not all.

 

[gallykid08]

by your definition...what is a ''fetus'' aka an unborn child? is it not human then?

yes some things have life...bugs, plants, etc. but if its its human life we're talking about...thats different.

how is abortion different from giving blood or donating organs? i dont see you proving that to me at all.

also...your right abt me saying not to put christians in a box. sorry about that. i shld have said pro-lifers instead.

since i believe the unborn child is human, has life, and has rights...i believe abortion is wrong. i dont see how it can be justified. i've talked with pro-choicers before and they cant seem to give me a convincing arguement.

would you stand by and watch someone get murdered? or try to stop it? that is what abortion is like for me. i cant stand by and watch.

 

[Phred]

Your right, we can't force a person to do something to their body...and according to the law a person has the right to an abortion. Just because the law says so doesn't make it right.

I believe it is right.

A woman can have an abortion, but it doesn't mean that we can't fight to educate the biological/scientific aspects of what the fetus is capable of in the womb and how it is our responsibility to help protect our children. The thing is, the fetus in seperate from the mother concerning DNA, and it has its own heartbeat. It has its own organs and brain....it is seperate from the mother.

Then what is your objection to a woman separating it? If it's separate from the mother she should be able to, at any time she wishes, remove it from her body. When she does, you wish to make that action illegal. So which is it? Separate or dependent? (And please, don't bother with the "all children are dependent" debate. A fetus can't take it's care from just anyone as a child can.)

I care about the unborn fetus, but I care about the mother too. Our society does not completely educate a young girl or woman who goes in to have an abortion, which may lead to regret or consequences later.

You don't wish to educate a woman, you wish to indoctrinate her. Education isn't really your point. If it were, you'd be open to those who were educated going forward with an abortion. No, this is a smokescreen. And... it's irrelevant to our right to do with our bodies as we wish.

You really shouldn't be arguing about sinners either, how do you know that I didn't have an abortion and that is why I am so pro-life now??

I don't know... nor do I really care. I'm not trying to be harsh, just honest. I believe every woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a child to term. I also believe every woman has the right to make a mistake... I don't have to like abortion to argue women have a right to it. Safely and privately.

Just something for you to think about.

Well, thanks.

.
​

 

[Phred]

I don't agree with this. Please show why a human that cannot live outside the uterus has no rights.

Our society does not recognize the unborn. You can't insure a fetus, you can't get a social security number and claim them on your taxes. Until a fetus is born it is not a child. If it can't survive by itself outside the uterus it is not an independent being with a claim to a life.

It's true that you cannot force someone to go out of their way to help another, but when they go out of their way to harm someone, they should be stopped.

Some "one"... that's my point. A fetus that cannot live outside the uterus is not "one." You see it differently. I understand.

How can you say that the very slight risk of harm to the woman outweighs certain death to the fetus? Logically, the murder of a woman and the abortion of a fetus are equally as wrong. When a woman is killed she is deprived of a future of good. When a fetus is killed, she is deprived of a future of good. When the death of a woman and the death of a fetus are on the same level, how can you say that killing the fetus should come before taking a very slight chance of damaging a woman's health?

I"m sorry, this is rhetoric without substance. The future is irrelevant. The kid could be a saint or a sociopath. You don't know and we can't base decisions upon "maybe." A woman's body is hers, no one elses, no matter what the reason. What you're saying is that once conception occurs a woman's body is no longer her own. I disagree.

The woman is not being punished, she is taking responsibility for her actions. It is unfortunate when someone that does not want to gets pregnant, but that is no reason to end a life.

Again, I don't agree it's a life. The "life" begins at birth. But these semantics we keep dragging ourselves into are irrelevant. A woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body.

The decision is up to us. The role of politicians though, is to form laws that punish people whose decisions harm others. Obviously, abortions harm others.

Not obviously. I disagree.

.
​

 

[Zlex]

Then don't have an abortion. Otherwise, it's not your decision. The fetus isn't a being with rights. It's not viable and as such the decision is about the woman's body, not the fetus..

I usually don't touch these arguements, but the issue of rights always interests me.

Musical rights. There are the hypothetical future generations, ie those who could possibly become a zygote and then a human. There are merely concieved, ie a zygote. And then there is us, the humans. Follow my logic here.

1] It's all about the guy and the girl, because the aborted tissue was just a fetus or fetuses, so it/they had no rights whatsoever which had to be considered in the present.

2] The fetus/fetuses were merely conceived.

3] The merely conceived have no rights whatsoever.

4] Before having no rights whatsoever, the recently merely conceived things were merely hypothetical members of some future generation, though, they became less hypothetical and more potentially concrete by becoming merely conceived.

5] There is no member of any future generation that becomes an actual member of a present generation without passing through the state 'merely conceived, with no rights whatsoever.'

6] Hypothetical members of future generations clearly have no rights whatsoever.

Therefore, the underpinnings of most environmental arguments are totally baseless. We have no obligation to respect the rights of merely hypothetical members of future generations, because clearly, all such instances are things which must transist to the present by way of a state in which they have no rights whatsoever.

Conservation of natural resources, long term treatment of nuclear waste, etc., etc., has no basis in rights, at least, rights of entities capable of having rights.

Surely, if future generations are capable of holding rights that are our present obligation to defend, then they do not give up those(and all rights)simply by being conceived?

Or, do they?

If that is true, then future generations have no rights at all.

I mean, it's OK that we 'care' about future generations, and are concerned for them, and all of that, but when it comes to legislation and rights and judicial matters and so on, there is no basis for 'rights' that must consider future generations, because they have not been born, and thus, have no rights.

I'm going to dispose of my nuclear waste using a mechanism that will absolutely last about 200 years, and then most probably completely fall apart. It's either that, or spend ten times as much today to deal with the problem.

Likewise, I'm also going to consume natural resources at a rate that will guarantee that they are all consumed in about 200 years. It's ewither that, or spend ten times as much today to deal with the problem.

Is there any legal problem with any of that, or is there any basis for legislative action, and if so, whose rights would I be violating if I were to behave that way? On whose behalf am I incurring additional cost today if I must consider their rights in the future?


Or, is it just some general 'consideration' that I owe future generations, unlike the consideration that is not owed members of same who are merely conceived?

So, the unborn have no rights...maybe. I'd have to concede that, because it is obviously the case. But, I'd have to quote something in a different context, because it applies:

At the banquet table of Nature, there are no reserved seats. You get what you can take. You keep what you can hold.

Labor leader A. Philip Randolph

Pure Law of the Jungle. In Nature, the strong rule with impunity. In our case, applied temporally; the current generations are sitting at the banquet table, the unborn/future generations are not.

So, the unborn have no legal rights. They have only what we deem are fluid 'moral/ethical' obligations to consider.

That is, the fluidity is directly proportional to how sufficiently convenient it is to be magnanimous. As in, the costs are paid by some vague others for our caring about future generations. When the costs and inconveniences are immediate and personal, 'moral/ethical' issues immediately give way to the Temporal Rule of The Jungle. That couldn't be more clear, and we shouldn't dress it up as some Holy thing.

I asked my son this question last night, and posed it this way:

Suppose our nation had toxic/nuclear waste to render safe, and had two basic options. Option A would last about 200 years. Option B would last 50,000 years, but would inconveniently cost 20 us times as much. Which option should we choose?

He thought B. Most of us, I think, would think that B is the option that we should choose. So, I asked him to think about the 'why' of that; where does that come from?

This is not a 'legal' question, because 'the unborn have no rights.' No, it is a 'moral/ethical' question, and that is how he identified it. I said, "But we and everyone we love will be long gone. The only folks around will be that subset of hypothetical future generations that have actually been conceived and have made it past their own personal family gauntlet to get here, to the Banquet Table. Why should we accept the inconvenience of addition immediate burden on their behalf? What is the source of that moral/ethical obligation to merely potential future life?

It's not a question with a firm answer, because we clearly answer it differently depending, as far as I can see, only on the selfish proximity of the inconvenience/costs involved with the moral/ethical caring.

Because...

We want what we want; carte blanche to treat our sexual selves as recreational beings only, as we wish and when we wish, governed only by our Holy intentions. And, uncomfortable confrontatons with the conflict between the consequences of our actions and the personal inconvenience of dealing with those consequences immediately cause us to squirm and wiggle and rationalize while it is suddenly OK to punt on moral/ethical concern for factual instances of those potential future generations we once cared deeply about, when the costs and inconveniences were far removed/safely over the horizon...

There is yet not even one anecdotal contradiction to the fact that every single possible instance of members of those future generations we claim to have moral/ethical concerns for get here by way of the state of being merely conceived, and yet in that state, we have no consensus ethical/moral concern for them whatsoever.

Instead, at best. incantations about 'group rights as opposed to individual rights,' as if we were all still dressed in skins and dancing around the tribal fire at some volcano.

So, it comes down to this. If, once explicitely invited, factual instances of future generations can survive the scalpal wielding gauntlet governed only by our convenience, they are welcome to fight for a seat at Nature's Banquet table.

That is, and this is a new one, if Mom is willing to feed them in the baby chair.

We want what we want, and are willing to dance every dance imaginable until we get it; a Holy wink and nod from the rest of the tribe when we individually flush an anctual member of the potential future generations down some **** hole, in the name of our convenience.

 

[Phred]

Not all think that young girls who make mistakes and get pregnant are the "B" word.....including me.

Mmmmm... didn't use the "B" word. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it had been censored. I shall edit.

I don't they made a mistake, and now they sadly are living up the circumstances. I have a friend who became pregnant, her child is now four years old. We never condemned her or anything. She recently got married, and she is doing fine. I also have a cousin who became pregnant, we didn't condemn her, she got married two years ago and her first child is now eight.

Whether the pregnancy is a mistake or not is irrelevant. I actually agree that rape isn't a valid excuse for an abortion. If you're going to be anti-abortion you have to realize whatever happens is not the child's fault. You can't abort it for that reason. Either you agree with me that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes or you choose to say that a woman must be a container for a child... even against her wishes.

It doesn't work to condemn...we need to be accepting of them (did you read my other earlier post)

We do. But I don't often see acceptance. It's 2005 and we still have pregnant high school girls being asked to drop out because they're pregnant. This issue is much larger than just abortion. And society doesn't easily change.

.
​

 

[Phred]

by your definition...what is a ''fetus'' aka an unborn child? is it not human then?

A potential human being.

yes some things have life...bugs, plants, etc. but if its its human life we're talking about...thats different.

But "human life" is not a "human being." This is where we diverge. By that definition should I have a cyst removed, it is "human life" even though it is not a "human being." Are they different, certainly. But neither can survive without another human being directly attached to them. As we've already noted... I don't have to give a transfusion if I don't want to. If that means another person will die... that's my decision.

how is abortion different from giving blood or donating organs? i dont see you proving that to me at all.

You're telling a woman that she must, once impregnated, carry the child to term even if she doesn't want to. But you'll also defend a man's right not to give blood to another if he doesn't want to. Why does a fetus deserve more rights than an already born man? A woman must donate her own body as a vessal for the fetus to grow. She must allow the fetus access to her cirulatory system. What's the difference between a needle for a transfusion and a placenta?

also...your right abt me saying not to put christians in a box. sorry about that. i shld have said pro-lifers instead.

Np... I understand. You know, not all pro-lifers are Christian either... and vice-versa.

since i believe the unborn child is human, has life, and has rights...i believe abortion is wrong. i dont see how it can be justified. i've talked with pro-choicers before and they cant seem to give me a convincing arguement.

That doesn't mean their arguments aren't valid, just that you don't find them convincing. At some point you decided the potential life of a child outweighed the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body. I disagree.

would you stand by and watch someone get murdered? or try to stop it? that is what abortion is like for me. i cant stand by and watch.

We're funny we humans. Yes, I'd try to stop it. But you know what? Many of us also sit by and watch as others are killed. We sit here in America and watch as bombs go off in the Middle East killing hundreds if not thousands. But we justify it. We justify watching an execution by telling ourselve the person "had it coming." They deserve the punishment we dole out. But a fetus... now what could it ever do to deserve not getting a chance to live?

But to me, a fetus doesn't get a guaranteed chance at life. Even without intervention most pregnancies don't go full term. To me, the balance between the unborn life and the already-born life tips in toward the person who's already here. That balance tips back the longer the pregnancy goes on. And, of course, I feel that's right.

.
​

 

[ASLER86]

Mmmmm... didn't use the "B" word. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it had been censored. I shall edit.

That's okay Phred. That was my bad misunderstanding...

Whether the pregnancy is a mistake or not is irrelevant. I actually agree that rape isn't a valid excuse for an abortion. If you're going to be anti-abortion you have to realize whatever happens is not the child's fault. You can't abort it for that reason. Either you agree with me that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes or you choose to say that a woman must be a container for a child... even against her wishes.

YAY!! we agree on the rape part lol....

container for the child, well, yes and no. In my eyes, the womb is the protective place for that child to grow until s/he is born.

We do. But I don't often see acceptance. It's 2005 and we still have pregnant high school girls being asked to drop out because they're pregnant. This issue is much larger than just abortion. And society doesn't easily change.

Sadly that is sometimes the case, however with my experience most people have been accepting of others...in church, school, etc.

High school girls being asked to drop out b/c their pregnant....that is an issue however that is not always the case in all high schools, like with my high school one girl was allowed to stay in for a while.
I think just because she made a mistake doesn't mean she should forfeit her education....whether it is by staying in school or having someone come to her house and teach her.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

What happens when YOU or your wife is that "hardly"?This is your justification for abortion?This is the best you can do?

One of my justifications, yes

Whether the pregnancy is a mistake or not is irrelevant. I actually agree that rape isn't a valid excuse for an abortion. If you're going to be anti-abortion you have to realize whatever happens is not the child's fault. You can't abort it for that reason. Either you agree with me that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes or you choose to say that a woman must be a container for a child... even against her wishes.

I disagree to my dying breath with you on this, having actually gone with a close friend to a clinic where she had an abortion for a rape-baby. Plus I think it would be MORE punishment to the child to let it be born. The mother cant look at that child the way other mothers can look at thier children, that child is a reminder of a hellish event. Eventually it would get to the point where she couldnt go near the child and she would neglect it or put it up for adoption. How would you like that news one day "Hey, your father was a rapist and your mother was too scared of you to take care of you." FORCING a woman to have a rape-baby would be cruel and unusual punishment in my opinion. Rape is THE most horrifying event that you can live through, nothing else compares. Death is a weekend in Palm Beach compared to rape. Now your forcing a souviner of that tour through hell on the woman?