Is abortion better than the alternative?

[Chloe Williams]

I have a question for the people who believe that a "fetus" is just a bunch of tissue (and this is a sincere question), why do people need abortion if their is no baby, just tissue?

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

 

[I AM]

I believe that it is a living thing. This being said I still believe that it is up to the mother of the unborn child to decide.

 

[Chloe Williams]

I have another (sincere) question. Why do some people believe it is still the mother's choice when she has no reason for having an abortion other than it is just inconvient (this is assuming she wasn't raped because I know most people's reaction to that, and is pregnant because she simply wasn't careful)?

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

 

[I AM]

I have another (sincere) question. Why do some people believe it is still the mother's choice when she has no reason for having an abortion other than it is just inconvient (this is assuming she wasn't raped because I know most people's reaction to that, and is pregnant because she simply wasn't careful)?

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

Because after getting pregnant she might realize that she will not be fit to raise a child and since there is already 5 billion people too many on this planet she opts against giving it up for adoption. There are 100 reasons for either side of the argument.

 

[Marek]

I see a lot of arguments that a fetus is not a human being or arguments that a fetus is a human being. Why does this matter?

Maybe we should agree on what makes killing a human being so wrong first and then see if it applies to a fetus (whether or not it is a human being). Maybe that could lead us all to some common ground instead of arguing in circles.

So what is it about killing a human being that is so wrong?

 

[I AM]

I see a lot of arguments that a fetus is not a human being or arguments that a fetus is a human being. Why does this matter?

Maybe we should agree on what makes killing a human being so wrong first and then see if it applies to a fetus (whether or not it is a human being). Maybe that could lead us all to some common ground instead of arguing in circles.

So what is it about killing a human being that is so wrong?

I like the way you think MAREK!

 

[Antoninus Verus]

So you are saying that a featus cannot acknowledge their own existence, therefore do not really have a right to live, or the right is placed on someone else?

I have mentioned this in another post, but around 80% of abortions in the US are due to the fact that it is inconvenient for the mother. So basically the mother has had sex (possibly unprotected) and now feels that this is such an inconvenience so it would be better just to get rid of the thing. So no responsibility for her actions just an easy way out. I can kinda understand certain other reasons, like rape and I can definitely understand if the mother's life is in danger...but this seems to be rare.

I simply said that a human being can acknowleage its own existance whereas we have no proof that a fetus can do the same thing. I drew no conclusions from it it was merely an observation.

And I agree that abortions are given out too liberally these days. I think that one of four circumstances should apply before you can get an abortion
1. You were using protection (Condom AND pill) and they failed
2. You or the baby are in mortal danger if you go through with the birth
3. You were raped
4. If a parent or member of the family would be physically violent with you and possibly the baby if they found out

4 is iffy, but I stand firm on the first three.

Because you define a human being as something else, it doesn't excuse what is happening. This actually is a common tactic in genocide, used by a lot of people in history.

Actually genocide is the systematic anihilation of a specific group of people. And Im defining ALL humans, not just white/black/pink/purple ones. ALL human beings can recognize the fact that they exist and as far as we know, no animals can do that.

I believe that life starts in utero, period. I've seen a video of a fetus reacting to an abortion, how the heart rate jumps and how the unborn baby jumps around trying to avoid the foreign object. I KNOW in my heart and in my soul and my research confirms that life starts in utero.

Why do you hold people in such high regard? Yes an unborn baby will jump around and have an accelerated heartrate, its called the "Fight or flight" reflex and its inherant to any biological non-plant lifeform. Abortion isnt the most favorable of choices, but in some cases, its better than the alternative. I am happy the procedure is around allthough I hope I never have need of it for my wife or girlfriend. But if the doctor comes to me and says "If she has this baby, she wont live" Heigh-ho heigh-ho, its off to the clinic we go.

From another viewpoint, the fetus is capable of life, therefore it is alive. Aborting it is damaging the potential that that little life has. (a pro-choice gave me the argument that the reason why a miscarried baby is mourned is because of its potential, isnt it the same for a baby to be aborted?)

Of course its capable of life, Im not disputing that. Im saying that bringing that life into the world may cause more problems than anything else and that it is the lesser of two evils (SOMETIMES) that that baby not be born. Im not saying this applies to the people who are stupid and dont use protection, if you use protection and it fails...ok you have more liscense than someone who was just careless. If your LIFE is in danger from pregnancy, you DEFINATELY have the right. You can always have annother child, but if giving birth to one kills you and possibly the baby...thats it

Because after getting pregnant she might realize that she will not be fit to raise a child and since there is already 5 billion people too many on this planet she opts against giving it up for adoption. There are 100 reasons for either side of the argument.

I agree. I think its better in the long run for a child. Would you want to be born to a mother who had no idea what she was doing and treated you badly? My friend's mom got pregnant when she was 14 and had my friend, she used to get so mad at my friend because she had to stay home and take care of my friend rather than go out and party. Would you really want a mother like that?

 

[Green Man]

Don't let the word "brain" fool you. Dead is dead. When someone is brain-dead, their heart continues to pump blood and their lungs continue to breathe air, but only because the machines force them to. The consciousness is gone. A brain-dead person is literally nothing but a breathing corpse.

If a fetus dies in a miscarriage, it is mourned because its mother loved it and wanted it. She is mourning its lost potential. This is not always the case.


Having a heartbeat doesn't equal having consciousness. I'm no scientist, and I'm also too tired to go on a hunt for sources, so I'll leave this debate (when is a fetus capable of feeling pain) for later.

If you don't think it's consious,then it's ok to kill it?If you don't think it feels pain,it's ok to kill it?

 

[Green Man]

I simply said that a human being can acknowleage its own existance whereas we have no proof that a fetus can do the same thing. I drew no conclusions from it it was merely an observation.

And I agree that abortions are given out too liberally these days. I think that one of four circumstances should apply before you can get an abortion
1. You were using protection (Condom AND pill) and they failed
2. You or the baby are in mortal danger if you go through with the birth
3. You were raped
4. If a parent or member of the family would be physically violent with you and possibly the baby if they found out

4 is iffy, but I stand firm on the first three.





I can almost back the first one.If you're taking all reasonable precautions and still end up pregnant,then it shows you were being careful.2 and three are not really appropriate examples due to the rarity of those situations.Number 4 is really stretching things a mite.If you are in fear for your safety,then get out and go somewhere else.Guarenteeing one's own safety is in no way a legitimate reason for abortion.

Actually genocide is the systematic anihilation of a specific group of people. And Im defining ALL humans, not just white/black/pink/purple ones. ALL human beings can recognize the fact that they exist and as far as we know, no animals can do that.



Why do you hold people in such high regard? Yes an unborn baby will jump around and have an accelerated heartrate, its called the "Fight or flight" reflex and its inherant to any biological non-plant lifeform. Abortion isnt the most favorable of choices, but in some cases, its better than the alternative. I am happy the procedure is around allthough I hope I never have need of it for my wife or girlfriend. But if the doctor comes to me and says "If she has this baby, she wont live" Heigh-ho heigh-ho, its off to the clinic we go.

Death is better than life?

Of course its capable of life, Im not disputing that. Im saying that bringing that life into the world may cause more problems than anything else and that it is the lesser of two evils (SOMETIMES) that that baby not be born. Im not saying this applies to the people who are stupid and dont use protection, if you use protection and it fails...ok you have more liscense than someone who was just careless. If your LIFE is in danger from pregnancy, you DEFINATELY have the right. You can always have annother child, but if giving birth to one kills you and possibly the baby...thats it
I agree. I think its better in the long run for a child. Would you want to be born to a mother who had no idea what she was doing and treated you badly? My friend's mom got pregnant when she was 14 and had my friend, she used to get so mad at my friend because she had to stay home and take care of my friend rather than go out and party. Would you really want a mother like that?

Would you rather have a bad mother or would you rather be dead.I just love these rhetorical scenarios where nobody has to prove anything.

 

[Lifesaver]

I'm afraid the argument of the OP does not hold much water.

Surely, when abortions are banned, those women who really want it find illegal ways to do it. Rich women get special clinics; poor ones go for dangerous methods, such as drinking strong substances or even using knitting needles.
In short, banning abortions makes it so that, for those who persist in seeking abortions, it is a riskier situations.

But now let's change the act: instead of abortion, murder in the usual sense: killing of a born person.
If all murders were banned, the people who really wanted to commit murder would have to find illegal ways to do it. Rich people could hire professional murderers, with little risk of their own safety, but poor people would have to do it themselves, which is very risky for their own life. Afterall, they might be caught, the victim might defend himself, etc.

So you see that the risk to the person commiting the act should not be taken into account. If the action is wrong and kills a person it ought to be banned, regardless of how hard or risky it may be for those who still want to go through with it.

This is not about comparing the mother's intentions with that of someone who plans and goes through with a murder. Even if the murderer did not regard his victim as a human being, and thus had not an overly malicious intention in his act, it would still be just as wrong, and thus should be forbidden no matter how riskier it gets to the killer.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

I'm afraid the argument of the OP does not hold much water.

Surely, when abortions are banned, those women who really want it find illegal ways to do it. Rich women get special clinics; poor ones go for dangerous methods, such as drinking strong substances or even using knitting needles.
In short, banning abortions makes it so that, for those who persist in seeking abortions, it is a riskier situations.

But now let's change the act: instead of abortion, murder in the usual sense: killing of a born person.
If all murders were banned, the people who really wanted to commit murder would have to find illegal ways to do it. Rich people could hire professional murderers, with little risk of their own safety, but poor people would have to do it themselves, which is very risky for their own life. Afterall, they might be caught, the victim might defend himself, etc.

So you see that the risk to the person commiting the act should not be taken into account. If the action is wrong and kills a person it ought to be banned, regardless of how hard or risky it may be for those who still want to go through with it.

This is not about comparing the mother's intentions with that of someone who plans and goes through with a murder. Even if the murderer did not regard his victim as a human being, and thus had not an overly malicious intention in his act, it would still be just as wrong, and thus should be forbidden no matter how riskier it gets to the killer.

Huh?

 

[kdet]

I'm afraid the argument of the OP does not hold much water.

Surely, when abortions are banned, those women who really want it find illegal ways to do it. Rich women get special clinics; poor ones go for dangerous methods, such as drinking strong substances or even using knitting needles.
In short, banning abortions makes it so that, for those who persist in seeking abortions, it is a riskier situations.

But now let's change the act: instead of abortion, murder in the usual sense: killing of a born person.
If all murders were banned, the people who really wanted to commit murder would have to find illegal ways to do it. Rich people could hire professional murderers, with little risk of their own safety, but poor people would have to do it themselves, which is very risky for their own life. Afterall, they might be caught, the victim might defend himself, etc.

So you see that the risk to the person commiting the act should not be taken into account. If the action is wrong and kills a person it ought to be banned, regardless of how hard or risky it may be for those who still want to go through with it.

This is not about comparing the mother's intentions with that of someone who plans and goes through with a murder. Even if the murderer did not regard his victim as a human being, and thus had not an overly malicious intention in his act, it would still be just as wrong, and thus should be forbidden no matter how riskier it gets to the killer.

Great post, it goes along with the point that I was trying to make, that just because people will continue to do illegal acts even when there are laws against it, is no reason to make those acts legal.

 

[Lokisdottir]

I have a question for the people who believe that a "fetus" is just a bunch of tissue (and this is a sincere question), why do people need abortion if their is no baby, just tissue?

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

Think about it. The reason is because there will be a baby, and when there is, it means hours of excruciating labor followed by 18 years of dependency, sleepless nights, temper tantrums, and all the rest of it. A child is a HUGE responsibility that some people just aren't willing to put up with.

 

[Lokisdottir]

If you don't think it's consious,then it's ok to kill it?If you don't think it feels pain,it's ok to kill it?

In the case of a braindead person, absolutely. Not only are they not conscious, they're never going to be conscious. Ditto pain. It's a moot point, though, because you can't kill someone who's already technically dead.

Now, in regards to feti, allow me to answer your question with a question. Just because something is alive, does that mean it's wrong to kill it? (If that's your opinion, I certainly hope you're a vegetarian.)

 

[Lifesaver]

Huh?

Let me write a simpler version (and hopefully with less errors in grammar):

When abortions are banned, it becomes risky to have an abortion; there is a risk that the woman may die or suffer health problems.

According to you, that is a good reason to make abortions legal; those who seek abortions will run less risks of dying themselves.

But the very same logic could applies to murder in the usual sense:

If all murders are banned (as they are in most countries), then murderers will run more risks, and they may die.
If we are to use the same logic, then we should legalize murder, because then the murderer has a lower risk of getting himself killed or injured.

But this conclusion is absurd. Therefore, the argument does not give a good justification to legalize the action in question (be it abortion, murder, theft, etc)

 

[Chloe Williams]

Not only are they not conscious, they're never going to be conscious. Ditto pain. It's a moot point, though, because you can't kill someone who's already technically dead.

So does that mean if they are going to be concious that they shouldn't be killed? Because "fetuses" do become concious...when depends on what you concider concious.

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

 

[Phred]

When abortions are banned, it becomes risky to have an abortion; there is a risk that the woman may die or suffer health problems.

Yup. In a back alley there is also very little chance anyone is going to talk to them about other options if they wish to change their minds.

According to you, that is a good reason to make abortions legal; those who seek abortions will run less risks of dying themselves.

Yup.

But the very same logic could applies to murder in the usual sense:

No, it doesn't. We don't all agree that a fetus has the same right to live as the mother. Since I don't see abortion as being murder, your logic doesn't apply. If it did apply you could use the current laws to enforce your belief.

.
​

 

[Lokisdottir]

So does that mean if they are going to be concious that they shouldn't be killed? Because "fetuses" do become concious...when depends on what you concider concious.

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

But a fetus (depending on the stage of development) has never been conscious to begin with. The braindead person was, indeed, a person: had a life, a personality, emotions, likes and dislikes. A fetus has the potential to experience all those things, but hasn't yet.

Just to get it out in the open, I don't like abortion. I'm in favor of reducing the number of abortions as much as possible. I don't get some sort of perverse thrill from the thought of killing an embryo. But I do support the right of women to have control over their own bodies. Also, if I somehow end up pregnant after my partner and I both get ourselves sterilized, I will not hesitate to have an abortion myself.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Let me write a simpler version (and hopefully with less errors in grammar):

When abortions are banned, it becomes risky to have an abortion; there is a risk that the woman may die or suffer health problems.

According to you, that is a good reason to make abortions legal; those who seek abortions will run less risks of dying themselves.

But the very same logic could applies to murder in the usual sense:

If all murders are banned (as they are in most countries), then murderers will run more risks, and they may die.
If we are to use the same logic, then we should legalize murder, because then the murderer has a lower risk of getting himself killed or injured.

But this conclusion is absurd. Therefore, the argument does not give a good justification to legalize the action in question (be it abortion, murder, theft, etc)

I disagree that abortion is murder. Yes yes I know all the "Taking the life of a defenseless baby" and that whole song and dance, but murder is, 9 times out of 10, a planned act of destruction that benefits no one. Abortion can save the mother's life so she may eventually bear annother child, spare a child from being raised in an abusive home, spare families extra grief, spare taxpayers extra money, lower the ammount of children in orphanages.

Sparing kids being raised in abusive homes is a strong argument in and of itself. Abusive homes often raise children that cannot cope with the world properly. Many killers through history have been spawned by abusive homes. So instead of stopping one life before it was even fully human, you let someone be born that could one day kill two or five or 10 or 50 people. And yes I know its impossible to determine who will and will not become a murderer, but I think that sparing children from abusive relationships with a parent(s) is still a plus.

 

[kdet]

I disagree that abortion is murder. Yes yes I know all the "Taking the life of a defenseless baby" and that whole song and dance, but murder is, 9 times out of 10, a planned act of destruction that benefits no one. Abortion can save the mother's life so she may eventually bear annother child, spare a child from being raised in an abusive home, spare families extra grief, spare taxpayers extra money, lower the ammount of children in orphanages.

Sparing kids being raised in abusive homes is a strong argument in and of itself. Abusive homes often raise children that cannot cope with the world properly. Many killers through history have been spawned by abusive homes. So instead of stopping one life before it was even fully human, you let someone be born that could one day kill two or five or 10 or 50 people. And yes I know its impossible to determine who will and will not become a murderer, but I think that sparing children from abusive relationships with a parent(s) is still a plus.

None of the reasons you have given are significant enough to excuse away taking a life.