Abortion - your views.

[Davey Gaga]

That's the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Horrendous to bring a child into the world? Seriously?

Without the consent or wishes of 50% of its own genetic make-up, yeah. Why on Earth would you prefer that an unwanted child be brought in to the world, simply to avoid abortion, over a child who is wanted and will be loved by both of its parents? Speaking from a personal point of view, if I was to get a bit hot under the covers one night with a woman (I'm speaking hypothetically, here, before any of you wise-guys start cracking jokes over impossibility ) and she told me that she was pregnant, and KEEPING the child, I'd just die on the spot. There's absolutely no way I'd want that child in this world - I wouldn't be able to handle the responsibility (my current age is irrelevant), neither physically nor financially. Emotionally, I couldn't handle not being part of my child's life, either, so I'd feel trapped. I've not planned that child, I don't want it, I'm not ready for it, I didn't MEAN for it to be created in the first place, so why the hell should I have to give the rest of my life up for the sake of a rather selfish woman? It's entrapment imo and if she was any kind of good person she'd have her child with someone who wanted it...and if that means getting an abortion, I'd be supporting it 100%.

I sense a rather dismissive "don't have sex, then" response, to which I won't reply because that's a completely different debate. :dave:

EDIT: I suppose, in a way, I've just changed my opinion to say that, as long as ONE parent doesn't want the potential child, it shouldn't be allowed to come in to the world.

 

[bitteroldman]

and I noticed at no point in your arguments did you quote a word of anything I said?

Is it because you are the Over-Zealous Church goer that refuses to accept things that they dont understand?

Or is it simply because your too damn ignorant to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe you might be actually wrong on this one?

Like I already stated before, theres debating opinions and theres forcing opinions, from what I can see of your style of arguing your no better than one of those brainwashed Taliban maniacs that have been involved in suicide bombing.

We live in a free world and everyone is entitled to an opinion, so stop trying to force yours down peoples throats, there are some that agree with you, there are others that will never agree with you, just accept that fact and move on.....nuff said.

No Jill, I did not address your post because I found nothing worth replying to. Mostly it seemed more an attempt to bash me and other Christians here, along with our beliefs. Frankly, I agree that the Roman Catholic Church is outdated; however the Bible is alive and well, and I have only seen bad things come from ignoring/distorting it. However, as I believe I've said in this thread before, if you want to discuss religion with me, either start a thread focused on that, or invite me to an existing thread. I have no problem discussing the Bible or religion or the impacts of such things on society, but I can only see it as a derail to this thread, so I am not going to play your game.
As to me "forcing my opinions" upon others, I cry foul. You see, I have tried to make some pretty big concessions to add to this conversation. For instance, I think abortion is deplorable and should be illegal in any case in which the mother is not in immediate danger. However, I've been willing to accommodate and contribute to a bit of the conversation that dealt with how it could better be handled as a part of society that I don't see going away. I think that's a pretty big concession for someone that sees it as a step away from genocide. I also did not criticize or judge some who have come on here saying they have had/would have abortions.
However, you come on here, pointing fingers and dogging me for things unrelated to this conversation, and only function to bring the thread to a more base level of head-bashing for its own sake because I disagree with your stance on this subject, and you accuse me of forcing my opinions on others? You compare me to the Taliban and suicide bombers because I disagree with you, and go about trying to debase my character in ways that have nothing directly in common with this specific conversation? Define hypocrite, and read your posts vs. my posts again, then get back to me. I think you would have to be pretty set on arguing for the sake of argument to come to this, and if that's what you want this conversation to be, I will just ignore more of your posts.
Whippersnapper.

Without the consent or wishes of 50% of its own genetic make-up, yeah. Why on Earth would you prefer that an unwanted child be brought in to the world, simply to avoid abortion, over a child who is wanted and will be loved by both of its parents? Speaking from a personal point of view, if I was to get a bit hot under the covers one night with a woman (I'm speaking hypothetically, here, before any of you wise-guys start cracking jokes over impossibility ) and she told me that she was pregnant, and KEEPING the child, I'd just die on the spot. There's absolutely no way I'd want that child in this world - I wouldn't be able to handle the responsibility (my current age is irrelevant), neither physically nor financially. Emotionally, I couldn't handle not being part of my child's life, either, so I'd feel trapped. I've not planned that child, I don't want it, I'm not ready for it, I didn't MEAN for it to be created in the first place, so why the hell should I have to give the rest of my life up for the sake of a rather selfish woman? It's entrapment imo and if she was any kind of good person she'd have her child with someone who wanted it...and if that means getting an abortion, I'd be supporting it 100%.

I sense a rather dismissive "don't have sex, then" response, to which I won't reply because that's a completely different debate. :dave:

EDIT: I suppose, in a way, I've just changed my opinion to say that, as long as ONE parent doesn't want the potential child, it shouldn't be allowed to come in to the world.

You don't have to give your life up. The woman already said she would. If you want so badly to not be in the equation, she has already figured you out of it. If you think you have a reason to feel guilty, I'd say you have a good conscience. That's a good thing, IF you can follow up on it. That's the danger in knocking boots, youngster; if you want so badly to not have the baby, then do the sacrificial thing and don't do it. Otherwise, there's that chance she will get prego, and the chance she will want it. 50/50 works both ways, and the default should not be abortion. Think of what that would do to the girl, if nothing else. Your selfishness should not override her selflessness. And the more you think you know the right thing to do and refuse to do it, the more torn up you will be in life. It's good to realize that making a baby entitles you to responsibility. But running away from that only makes the world worse. As an uncommitted man whom a woman gives herself to for a night, there must be an understanding of the risks involved, else you are ignorant. To go about thinking you can force someone to give up something they want is arrogance at best, criminal at worst (when you act on it). THAT takes away the liberty of others. In the end, if you feel you should be a part of the baby's life, good on you. If not, that gives you no right to take it from someone else's.
And if you give your kid an honest chance, it will win you over.

 

[Shrouded]

Semantics.

It isn't a life, it will be but currently isn't.
Since it isn't yet a life, there's not much of a difference between an abortion and any other prophylactic.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium

Paramecium, it's a single celled organism considered by the scientific community as a living specimen. Since it's only made up of one single cell, it's safe to say that its physiology is much more simple than that of the multi celled human embryo. Why then do we deny that one fact to our own species?

A human embryo is alive, this is a stage in our human development. We don't start being human when we get out of mother's womb. It's starts when we get our own genetic code.

 

[Zen]

Anyone ever entertain the notion that maybe abortion is a necessary evil regardless of whether an embryo or a fetus is alive or has a soul or whatever else you want to interject?

 

[Mehaha]

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium

Paramecium, it's a single celled organism considered by the scientific community as a living specimen. Since it's only made up of one single cell, it's safe to say that its physiology is much more simple than that of the multi celled human embryo. Why then do we deny that one fact to our own species?

A human embryo is alive, this is a stage in our human development. We don't start being human when we get out of mother's womb. It's starts when we get our own genetic code.

Evil or not Abortion is a choice. And it should be up to the individual. And such we should not interfere.

Also by your reasoning any women who has had a period is a serial killer. I believe you are human when you begin to process complex thought. So yes around time of birth when you are learning all types of different things. You seem to view it as "OK it has my genes so it's human" while I disagree. I believe that what make a human a human is thought and reasoning. Not just your genetics. Thus if your unable to think with some complexity you are not fully human.

 

[Shrouded]

Evil or not Abortion is a choice. And it should be up to the individual. And such we should not interfere.

You have every right to choose in regards to your own life. What about another individual's life? Life of an unborn child?

Also by your reasoning any women who has had a period is a serial killer.

The egg belongs to the mother, the semen belongs to the father. It's a part of you, and you have every right to choose what you want to do with it. But once fertilization starts, the unborn child will have its own genetic code. It becomes an individual. It's a life on it's own.

Who does it belongs to now? Can you truly decide to take life away from someone else?

I believe you are human when you begin to process complex thought. So yes around time of birth when you are learning all types of different things. You seem to view it as "OK it has my genes so it's human" while I disagree. I believe that what make a human a human is thought and reasoning. Not just your genetics. Thus if your unable to think with some complexity you are not fully human.

I believe that it's not that easy to draw a line on who is human and who is not. By your reasoning, it's ok to kill a baby because it still lacks the basic function we adults have. Is that all it takes to be human? Lacking certain functions? What do you say to the blind? To the crippled? To those who are autistic(complex thoughts and reasoning?)? Is it alright to kill them because they lack certain human function?

 

[Shrouded]

The 'child' I'd be carrying/feeding/ keeping alive with MY body HAS no human rights. That's just the way it is

...and that's the real crux of this argument. It's either you or the unborn child. In my opinion however, it's no different than a newlyborn trying to live off of his parents.

MY body my right to CHOOSE

You're right, it just sucks that the child doesn't get to have that same choice you're all fighting for. But what happens when they do get a voice in this matter?

Gianna Jessen

Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.


I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.
My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.

I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy. Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19 years.

I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.

I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.

 

[Shrouded]

It's not the same at all, that child can ONLY survive in the mothers womb until it's born, then anyone can keep it alive.

The newlyborn cannot survive without a suitable environment. In this case, someone taking care of him/her. The child in the womb would still die if you don't take care of it.

It's whether the woman is willing to put her body through a pregnancy she doesn't want just to give the baby up for adoption. I certainly wouldn't be willing to put my body through it.

The unborn child is asking for nine months, will you at least give him/her that much? Is that really too much over someone's life?

Edit:

Nice story, but I won't change my opinion on it

I know you won't, but believe it or not, I used to be in your position. I know exactly what to say when I get into these types of debate. But when I met someone just like that person who wrote that letter.....I really have no idea how to justify my position to her. In the end, my morality won over my objectivity.

you really trying to tell me that an 8 week old 'baby' would survive to tell the tale?

Well aside from the fact that the girl did testify in front of a judiciary committee. And that same girl is now speaking in a parliament house in Australia as seen in this video:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

I'm pretty sure it's possible. She'll be in legal trouble if she's lying.

 

[Bambi]

The unborn child is asking for nine months, will you at least give him/her that much? Is that really too much over someone's life?

It's a hell of a long time for something you don't want, I've HAD a child (beleive it or not, I know how selfish my views are) and I'm NOT willing to put my body through that again

 

[Shrouded]

...and so in your view, 9 months > a person's life. Objectively you're right, morally I disagree.

 

[Mehaha]

You have every right to choose in regards to your own life. What about another individual's life? Life of an unborn child?

Not human yet in my opinion though some may hate me for saying it.

The egg belongs to the mother, the semen belongs to the father. It's a part of you, and you have every right to choose what you want to do with it. But once fertilization starts, the unborn child will have its own genetic code. It becomes an individual. It's a life on it's own.

But yet still not human... It lacks thought and emotion and reasoning. It is in some respect only a quarter human at best if that seeing as how emotion, thought, reasoning make of 75% of what it is to be human.

Who does it belongs to now? Can you truly decide to take life away from someone else?

Yes I can and if it be best for me I will. If it won't be loved it shouldn't be there.

believe that it's not that easy to draw a line on who is human and who is not. By your reasoning, it's ok to kill a baby because it still lacks the basic function we adults have. Is that all it takes to be human? Lacking certain functions? What do you say to the blind? To the crippled? To those who are autistic(complex thoughts and reasoning?)? Is it alright to kill them because they lack certain human function?

Yes the line is rather clear. But stop trying to paint over it.

I said around the time of birth say 7-9 months they are considered human. Why? They have HUMAN functions. Maybe not like an adult but still human. Now for the cases you brought up they have all the ingredients to be human. The DNA and the blind can think and reason thus human. The crippled can think and reason thus human.The Autistic can think and reason [Not as well] thus human.

You ignored most of my post so I answered all of yours. Your point which was made on mine but in a distorted fashion in no longer even valid now.

 

[Shrouded]

Yes the line is rather clear. But stop trying to paint over it.

I said around the time of birth say 7-9 months they are considered human. Why? They have HUMAN functions. Maybe not like an adult but still human. Now for the cases you brought up they have all the ingredients to be human. The DNA and the blind can think and reason thus human. The crippled can think and reason thus human.The Autistic can think and reason [Not as well] thus human.

You ignored most of my post so I answered all of yours. Your point which was made on mine but in a distorted fashion in no longer even valid now.

Your main post basically consist of this single strict view that something cannot be human simply because they lack the basic function of complex thinking and reasoning. In your last post you stated and I quote:

I believe you are human when you begin to process complex thought.---You

You believe one is human when they begin to process complex thought and yet here you are deciding that an autistic is considered "human" because they too can think, "only not as well." Even deciding that a baby is human because what? They can process "complex" thoughts as well?

Is this just you changing your standards for convenience sake? Because that's not how it works in real life, it's not easy to take a life and make/change excuses just so you can justify your actions. You live up to it, you own up to it.

Now instead of complaining, why don't you tell me the post that I ignored so that I could address it. But like I said, your main simply consist of you having a very strict view of what a human should be.

 

[Mehaha]

No... You are just being a selective reader. Anyone who can read can see my point. Yes an Autistic is capable of complex thought in my opinion [Which includes processing it duh...] and yes a baby is capable of complex thought. That is my opinion but yes they are.

I have met an Autistic and one has even hit me with a brick for joking around. That seems like complex thinking.

A baby though they show no signs it has been proven they are capable of complex thought. In fact I remember tunes which my mother played while I was in the womb [Beethoven's flight of the bumble bee 8 1/2 months] now I haven't remembered it perfectly. And I have had to hear it continually since in the womb but it is still there. But by her accounts I have been humming Beethoven's ode to joy since I was old enough to hum.

 

[Shrouded]

You might wanna provide some source, as far as I know autism is still a mystery to science and does anyone really know what's going on in a newborn's mind?

Back to my point though, you believe one is not human because they lack certain functions? In your case, cognitive thoughts and reasoning?

 

[Mehaha]

Yes... That is my belief. Because a human is more than material. Otherwise I would classify everything that was warm as fire.

 

[Shrouded]

Well ok, in my belief, a fetus is more than just material. Relying on one's belief without making sure it's really true or not is very risky especially when you take a person's life.

Here's my source btw. Sorry it took me awhile:

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1925&posts=1

Human Life Bill HR.227

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

Not sure if it's approve yet though...Here's a better source:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: "Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."​

Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 2-18.​

​

 

[Mehaha]

That is how the law defines human... Not me... At one point slavery was legal...

 

[bitteroldman]

That is how the law defines human... Not me... At one point slavery was legal...

Well, then, let's all set aside our petty laws and such to go by your definitions and standards.
This is not a good way to debate, putting yourself above the whole. I'm not asking you to put aside your individualism or opinions, but you just derailed this thread for two pages by placing your personal standards as a burden on others. You could have easily avoided this by saying, "That's not what I think; I think a human is thus".

At any rate, your way of dehumanizing others who lack specific traits is exactly what enabled slavery in America. Africans weren't considered human because of a specific "defect". Handicapped people lived in wretched conditions for centuries (and still do, in some parts of the world) because they weren't considered human. Genocide, almost as a prerequisite, begins by dehumanizing the victim culture.
In fact, by saying that one becomes "human" via the ability to think and reason, not only do you imply that those who lack these abilities (my handicapped seventeen-year-old nephew, for example, has not proven in a while that he has these abilities beyond what an infant can demonstrate), you also imply that those who excel in these criteria are better, higher, or more human than the average person. Thinking and reasoning are not the high standard of what it is to be a human, and by saying so, you open the doors for someone else to dehumanize you for one of your own failings.

Perhaps you should consider your story of humming Beethoven, because that, to my mind, is an example of complex mental activity, coming from the womb.

Why, with my senility slowly overcoming my poor old bones, someone might come along and call me less than human. Can I crash at yer place?

 

[Bambi]

I'm pretty sure it's possible. She'll be in legal trouble if she's lying.

Youre little story said the mother was over 7 months pregnant, i never denied a child could live at that stage, i was merely saying the majority of women tend to find out around the 6 week mark, there is no WAY on this EARTH a 'baby' would survive outside the womb at that stage of pregnacy

 

[Caedus]

I recant my previous entry. I didn't put enough thought into it.

The fact of the matter is, there are some things in this world that are what I like to call "dark truths." One of these dark truths are the lack of acceptance in the controversy of abortion. "To abort, or not to abort, that is the question." No, actually. This isn't always the case. Though people catalyze the existence of life, regardless if the method is intentional, desired, or kosher for that matter, we as empathic humans subconsciously strive to first procreate, and to second, survive. Humanity isn't a perfect race, and we are the only race with knowledge of good and evil. Do you see a lion randomly attacking an antelope when it's not hungry or provoked? No, you don't. Getting to my point, this is where we implement the concept of this dark truth: People die, and people kill. We all know it's tragic when either one happens, and the age that it occurs increases the shock and sorrow value. But the dark truth is that people will make decisions that are in their best interest, regardless if it's conscious, or subconscious. If they believe a child in their life will hinder their existence to an unacceptable extent, their will is broken, and rash decisions are made. Some result in adoption, some result in sacrifice. It is up to the mother, in my opinion, 100% to keep the baby, fetus, zygote, whatever it is, or to not keep it, and the methods of ridding herself from it are hers as well. She is the keeper of it from conception, into the trimesters of development. It is her bond to make, take, or break when the time comes to decide. Either she will accept it and take care of it as efficiently as she can, if she has/ can gain the resources to do so, or she will not accept it. Either way, the responsibility of having to make that decision should be horrendous enough to face without the world coming down on her for arbitrating the results of the conception. People can be judgmental over the stupidest thing, but when there's controversy over it, that's the cue to jump on it with all your rantiful savvy and speech skills to validate your opinion and have people join you in your quest for mass agreement and acceptance. This thread has too many arguments to make and too many potential digressions. If everyone doesn't accept this dark truth as the "necessary evil" and I quote from Janus, this circus act will never, ever end. And that is my piece.