Abortion - your views.

[Davey Gaga]

What do you view on Abortion? Do you follow a religion that causes you to believe what you do?

(Members should already know this, but no flaming towards others OR their religion, or any other aspect for that matter)

 

[Shadowfaith]

I have no beliefes. But I would agree with abortion if it is not too late to have one. If it was a mistake then yes I agree with it. But if it was just due to carlessness then its the parents that are to blame for not taking the precautions and then I would disagree with having it. I don't know much about the stages of development inside the whomb so I couldn't tell when a baby is classed as properly alive, but with enough warning (if the baby was a mistake or problems could arise) then I see no problem with it.

 

[Vradica]

My religion teaches me that abortion is a way of "murdering an unborn child." With that said, I have since been disenchanted with that one-sided view, as I have come to respect the other factor in this matter:

The right to choose.

I do not declare myself pro-choice. I just simply believe a woman has a right to choose, but I do not in any way support it.

 

[Jaxiem]

Religion is a waste of time and is dying...in about 20-30 there will be no religion except the die hard religion fanatics, which i have nothing agaisnt.

On-Topic: Abortion is ok, as long as you have a good reason such as not having enough money to provide for well enough for it to be happy and nourished properly. Or if the woman got pregnant via sexual abuse or something, then again its fine. But if you have enough money and caring and all even if you didnt want a child you should still let it be born. They could then give it to an adoption center. And for these beliefs i follow no religion, just my senses

 

[Staines]

We're revising abortion in school

On topic: Yes, i agree with abortion. I think that the parents have the right to have the abortion for whatever reason they might have, as long as they HAVE a reason.

 

[Kajie]

I am a believer. And our religion says that abortion is a sin.




But..if ever I don't believe in any GOD. I will never go support abortion. Abortion is an act of murder.


Abortion=Murder Killing=Murder Abortion=Killing Killing=Sin

Then, Abortion is a sin. It's very logical, right?
And abortion is an act of stealing too. You are stealing a life that is not yours. You are stealing the child's right to live.




I can't think of any reasons why I should agree to abortion except for one. And I think the only reason I will agree to abortion is when it's really needed or it's the only option. Like when both the mother and the child in her womb is in grave danger, and only one life must be saved. And if you want to save the mother then you'll have to abort the child.
It's a very valid reason on aborting the child. You may still have sinned, yet you have save someone's life.


You may still not want to abort the child, but you have no choice. It's a good reason compared to other stupid reasons. Just like aborting a child just because he/she is unwanted. Unwanted because of an "accident" or you were raped that time. But..for me..so what? Why abort the child? It's not the child's fault. If you want revenge take it not on the child, but to the person who caused it. The child got nothing to do with it. He/she is innocent. So, why should he/she pay for something she didn't cause in the first place? Why not bore him instead annd leave him on an adoption center, like Jaxiem said? It's better than killing him/her.


But still it's your decision to make. No one can tell you what to do. Still..whatever you decision is..the word CONSCIENCE..will be with you..

 

[Zombiex22]

Abortion im for it
see my view is that simply if you dont want do have an abortion dont have sex, if you want to have kids then you dont have to worry about it.

 

[Empra]

Well in this day and age people should have the choice...but personally i could never agree with it...there is adoption now...many wannabe parents out there that jst cant so why waste a life? Then there is the constant regret or at least wonder of what the child would have turned out like....I just cant see why people would make that decision now...and im not religious

 

[Althalus Kirvar]

I believe that it should be the choice of the people involved. In the end they have to live with the consequences of thier actions.

 

[Judge Ghis]

I am a believer. And our religion says that abortion is a sin.




But..if ever I don't believe in any GOD. I will never go support abortion. Abortion is an act of murder.


Abortion=Murder Killing=Murder Abortion=Killing Killing=Sin

Then, Abortion is a sin. It's very logical, right?
And abortion is an act of stealing too. You are stealing a life that is not yours. You are stealing the child's right to live.




I can't think of any reasons why I should agree to abortion except for one. And I think the only reason I will agree to abortion is when it's really needed or it's the only option. Like when both the mother and the child in her womb is in grave danger, and only one life must be saved. And if you want to save the mother then you'll have to abort the child.
It's a very valid reason on aborting the child. You may still have sinned, yet you have save someone's life.


You may still not want to abort the child, but you have no choice. It's a good reason compared to other stupid reasons. Just like aborting a child just because he/she is unwanted. Unwanted because of an "accident" or you were raped that time. But..for me..so what? Why abort the child? It's not the child's fault. If you want revenge take it not on the child, but to the person who caused it. The child got nothing to do with it. He/she is innocent. So, why should he/she pay for something she didn't cause in the first place? Why not bore him instead annd leave him on an adoption center, like Jaxiem said? It's better than killing him/her.


But still it's your decision to make. No one can tell you what to do. Still..whatever you decision is..the word CONSCIENCE..will be with you..

I wouldn't expect any woman to be forced to keep a child from a rape, sure the child didn't ask to be born, but the woman didn't asked to be raped either, so she has the right to do what she wants, without having a guilty feeling inside her.

Women shouldn't have to wait 9 months to give birth to an unwanted child. If they did, and they put it up for adoption, when that child finds out that they were a mistake which happened from a horrible attack, what's it going to do them mentally? It'd mess my mind up I know.

I'm for it, to a certain extent, just don't use abortion if you had sex without protection, because then you are just being pathetic.

 

[Joroumii]

I belive it's necessary as a last resort and nothing else. Abortion should be the last thing you should be thinking about when you have a baby. Correction: Abortion and giving your child up for research. In my opinion.

 

[Kajie]

I wouldn't expect any woman to be forced to keep a child from a rape, sure the child didn't ask to be born, but the woman didn't asked to be raped either, so she has the right to do what she wants, without having a guilty feeling inside her.

Women shouldn't have to wait 9 months to give birth to an unwanted child. If they did, and they put it up for adoption, when that child finds out that they were a mistake which happened from a horrible attack, what's it going to do them mentally? It'd mess my mind up I know.

I'm for it, to a certain extent, just don't use abortion if you had sex without protection, because then you are just being pathetic.

Of course. Anyone has the right to do anything, whether be right or wrong. I don't know about other women, but I for one would feel guilty doing it to my own child. She may be unwanted, but still the child is a part of you. He/she came from you..wanted or not, you should be responsible for them.

Putting them to an adoption center is not good, I agree with that. But it's a hell lot better than aborting the child. Yes, it will affcet the child's way of thinking, but still it may vary from every child.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Good grief, I forgot about this thread entirely.

I am a believer. And our religion says that abortion is a sin.

If you don't mind my asking, what is your religion?

But..if ever I don't believe in any GOD. I will never go support abortion. Abortion is an act of murder.

Abortion=Murder Killing=Murder Abortion=Killing Killing=Sin

Then, Abortion is a sin. It's very logical, right?
And abortion is an act of stealing too. You are stealing a life that is not yours. You are stealing the child's right to live.

To an extent, I agree. Yes, you're technically killing, but at what point does life begin? Conception? Birth? 20 weeks? Doctors are still unsure, so how can WE be sure? We can't, we just follow what our religion/belief says. Are you killing something, if it does not live?

But still it's your decision to make. No one can tell you what to do. Still..whatever you decision is..the word CONSCIENCE..will be with you..

If you had a strong opinion and did it for valid reasons, you should have no regrets. Now, for my full opinion.

I support the Pro-Choice view. As some Pro-Lifers state, that baby has a right to live, because it is an individual. Surely, then, the mother has the right to live how she wants, be it as a parent or not. The mother should have the right to choose what happens to her and what is rightfully hers. The mother will have to go through nine months of pregnancy and for what? For something she doesn't want. Keeping the baby will screw with it's head in later years, whilst adoption often does the same.

Mothers should make the choice of whether or not she will allow the baby to use her body for the next nine months, then take the majority of her life after that. What's the point in being a mother if you don't want to be one? It's like buying a car, but being scared of driving, subsequently, wishing not to drive.

Adoption seems practical, but if a child grows up and discovers that his mother did not want him, how would that make you feel? It would likely send you into despair and depression, in some cases, suicide. Sure, you may have a loving family (or in some cases, not so much), but wouldn't you rather be with your own mother and/or father?

In the case of rape, I heartily approve of abortion. It's the exact same as a mother not wanting the child, except now, in this case, the father did not mean to create him. The father did not love the mother, did not care for a childs well being and does not deserve to bear a child into the world. Does a child deserve the mental tortue of knowing he was accidental and unwanted? Torture seems like a worse sin than putting someone out of their misery, if you ask me.

If parents did not use contraception, that's their own damn fault, but their choice is still there. Same rules apply. If, however, contraception was used and conception still occured, there is yet another reason to allow abortion.

I am Pro-choice because I do not allow any religion, or anyone else for that matter, to cloud my judgement. I believe religion does not fully allow people to make their own decisions on things, but that's a whole different argument

 

[Ximruccilim]

An embryo is just as sentient as any mother. It has just as much right to live and develop life. Infringement of that right is known as murder. Murder forfeits one's own right to live.

That is my reasoning.

To an extent, I agree. Yes, you're technically killing, but at what point does life begin? Conception? Birth? 20 weeks? Doctors are still unsure, so how can WE be sure? We can't, we just follow what our religion/belief says. Are you killing something, if it does not live?

The general idea is that life is sentience. Which a conceptual embryo has been proved to possess.

If you had a strong opinion and did it for valid reasons, you should have no regrets.

Beliefs and opinions do not change the fact of whether an action is moral or not.

I support the Pro-Choice view. As some Pro-Lifers state, that baby has a right to live, because it is an individual. Surely, then, the mother has the right to live how she wants, be it as a parent or not. The mother should have the right to choose what happens to her and what is rightfully hers. The mother will have to go through nine months of pregnancy and for what? For something she doesn't want.

That is like saying that I have the right to murder someone who annoys me because I have the right to live the way I want, without annoyance.

Adoption seems practical, but if a child grows up and discovers that his mother did not want him, how would that make you feel? It would likely send you into despair and depression, in some cases, suicide. Sure, you may have a loving family (or in some cases, not so much), but wouldn't you rather be with your own mother and/or father?

In the case of rape, I heartily approve of abortion. It's the exact same as a mother not wanting the child, except now, in this case, the father did not mean to create him. The father did not love the mother, did not care for a childs well being and does not deserve to bear a child into the world. Does a child deserve the mental tortue of knowing he was accidental and unwanted? Torture seems like a worse sin than putting someone out of their misery, if you ask me.

It seems to me that only a qualified psychologist should be making assumptions like this.

I am Pro-choice because I do not allow any religion, or anyone else for that matter, to cloud my judgement. I believe religion does not fully allow people to make their own decisions on things, but that's a whole different argument

I would like to leave on the note that I, too, go by an entirely secular mind. I use reason and logic to determine anything moral or immoral. And I see little to hint that abortion is anything but immoral.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Beliefs and opinions do not change the fact of whether an action is moral or not.

And who, exactly, decides how moral any act is? There is no higher power that decides what we should/should not do, so we have to act on our own accord, doing what is best for ourselves.

That is like saying that I have the right to murder someone who annoys me because I have the right to live the way I want, without annoyance.

That's quite different. That person isn't there by accident, he is there by his own choice. Murder wouldn't be necessary, because you can take legal actions to prevent him from harassing you. However, it would be compulsory for the child to stay with the mother (with the exception of adoption) and some view abortion as the only option. I don't see why people are against the fact that someone has their own opinion on something. Let them do it, it's not affecting you, personally. If the time came, and you had to make the decision, then you can dispute with people (not you personally, just "you" as in society).

It seems to me that only a qualified psychologist should be making assumptions like this.

That's my opinion. If it's elaborate, so be it. I'm not particularly bothered if someone else has a dispute with it.

And I see little to hint that abortion is anything but immoral.

Once again, that's your view. But I think you already know that.

 

[Ximruccilim]

And who, exactly, decides how moral any act is? There is no higher power that decides what we should/should not do, so we have to act on our own accord, doing what is best for ourselves.

If that was true, then society would operate on total individualistic convenience, with no laws active. If it is best for one to steal, he should do so. Likewise with all other acts designed to better the self with no regard for others' rights.

No. There is a concrete 'higher power', as such, in the form of morality formed by logical analysis of the rights of oneself and others, so that our argument against any sanction of murder, rape and tyranny is not simply 'I believe differently'. Each human has the capacity of reason to decide whether any act is moral or not, though there are a myriad of interpretations even within this philosophy. My interpretation is that abortion is wrong, but should you or anyone present logic that proves this false, I am ever ready to change.

That's quite different. That person isn't there by accident, he is there by his own choice. Murder wouldn't be necessary, because you can take legal actions to prevent him from harassing you. However, it would be compulsory for the child to stay with the mother (with the exception of adoption) and some view abortion as the only option.

Perhaps it was a weak analogy. Let me offer another one - I have the right to choose to live in a big and luxurious house, even if it is eternally impossible for me to muster the wealth to afford such a place. Therefore, I am entitled to eliminate its true owner and take over.

Yes, I know in that case, the fact of 'the owner is there by choice and not accident' applies, but how does this make his right any more stable? Even if it is not the embryo's choice, it is still sentient, and existing within the mother's body. Even if it had the choice whether to live or not, I suppose it would. Even if it was not supposed to exist, it does, and thus has its natural rights granted by the act of being.

I don't see why people are against the fact that someone has their own opinion on something. Let them do it, it's not affecting you, personally. If the time came, and you had to make the decision, then you can dispute with people (not you personally, just "you" as in society).

The problem is that people with these 'opinions', should they come into a position of power, could have us living in quite the autocracy tomorrow, a result of the spread of their warped ethics.

That's my opinion. If it's elaborate, so be it. I'm not particularly bothered if someone else has a dispute with it.

And opinions require good foundation to be credibly accepted.

Once again, that's your view. But I think you already know that.

It is not a view. It is a fact that I have yet to see how the murder of an embryo is condonable. One can only treat this fact as unimportant by arguing that I am short of sight, which may be so. If so, I will need to be enlightened through progressing argument.

And it appears to me that the basis of your argument is the insinuation that the mother's rights to choice of life are somehow superior to that of the child's, along with some generalising theories about causing death before birth being more humane than allowing a child to grow up without parental contact, even if it is in a perfectly-comfortable environment. Any of this may be true, but I will need to be shown how. Until then, it befits me to assume that every being is equal in right to life.

EDIT:

Let me offer another one - I have the right to choose to live in a big and luxurious house, even if it is eternally impossible for me to muster the wealth to afford such a place. Therefore, I am entitled to eliminate its true owner and take over.

Actually, that is kinda partly in effect already, with the ludicrous benefits our government is handing out to louts, which the achievers have to be taxed incondignly for. A very dark pit it is we descend into.

 

[Warrior of Light]

I think the true confusion in all of this is that people are assuming that a child and an embryo are the same thing and that an embryo is as sentinent as a human. This is an error. An embryo is a collection of cells that cannot think or feel and is no more alive than a virus in your body. If we can use antibodics to kill a virus in our body why not do so for a embryo?

Even if it was not supposed to exist, it does, and thus has its natural rights granted by the act of being.

Simply because it does exists it should exist? Hardly. There are many things in this world that exist that shouldn't and we eliminate it to make for a better society and a better life for the individual.

The problem is that people with these 'opinions', should they come into a position of power, could have us living in quite the autocracy tomorrow, a result of the spread of their warped ethics.

Point of the matter is that everyone has a different idea on almost everything. Nothing is as black and white as people often it as. Just because a person has a different opinion does not necessarily make them warped.

And it appears to me that the basis of your argument is the insinuation that the mother's rights to choice of life are somehow superior to that of the child's, along with some generalising theories about causing death before birth being more humane than allowing a child to grow up without parental contact, even if it is in a perfectly-comfortable environment. Any of this may be true, but I will need to be shown how. Until then, it befits me to assume that every being is equal in right to life

This harkens back to earlier in my post--the collection of cells is not the same thing as an actual human being who can think and feel. If this were true we shouldn't be allowed to kill animals or plants or even that flu that we've all had.

I consider myself of a higher importance than a flu.

Actually, that is kinda partly in effect already, with the ludicrous benefits our government is handing out to louts, which the achievers have to be taxed incondignly for. A very dark pit it is we descend into.

You've either never been poor or you've forgotten what it is like. Unless the person is either lazy or deceiving donations to the needy is more than acceptable. Some people don't start off with a silver spoon in their mouth after all.

 

[Ximruccilim]

I think the true confusion in all of this is that people are assuming that a child and an embryo are the same thing and that an embryo is as sentinent as a human. This is an error. An embryo is a collection of cells that cannot think or feel and is no more alive than a virus in your body. If we can use antibodics to kill a virus in our body why not do so for a embryo?

An embryo features sensory receptors, just as does any other living organism. Thought is a different matter, and is not often the matter referred to in consideration of rights.

Viruses threaten to kill or seriously hamper us. I have no renitence towards eliminating an embryo, or any other being, if it does that.

Simply because it does exists it should exist? Hardly. There are many things in this world that exist that shouldn't and we eliminate it to make for a better society and a better life for the individual.

So an individual must be eliminated so that life may be better for the individual? Or do you mean, rather, 'individuals', suggesting that one person must be lost for the sake of many, an ochlocratic 'common good', as it were? Unless so, the logic in that seems paradoxical.

Point of the matter is that everyone has a different idea on almost everything. Nothing is as black and white as people often it as. Just because a person has a different opinion does not necessarily make them warped.

So you are saying that it is impossible for any viewpoint to be valid or invalid?

This harkens back to earlier in my post--the collection of cells is not the same thing as an actual human being who can think and feel. If this were true we shouldn't be allowed to kill animals

Which I do not if I can avoid it.

or plants

Well, no one can really avoid this. But rights and justice come to nothing when one does not have food on one's plate.

or even that flu that we've all had.

I consider myself of a higher importance than a flu.

I consider myself of a higher importance than anything that actively seeks to harm me.

You've either never been poor or you've forgotten what it is like. Unless the person is either lazy or deceiving donations to the needy is more than acceptable. Some people don't start off with a silver spoon in their mouth after all.

Nor does anyone automatically deserve a silver spoon in their mouth. Donations are only acceptable if they are granted willingly, no matter how great the need for them is.

 

[Warrior of Light]

An embryo features sensory receptors, just as does any other living organism. Thought is a different matter, and is not often the matter referred to in consideration of rights

The embryo dosen't even start to develop a brain until 6th week showing that it cannot preceive things like humans can. It cannot feel pain and has no sentience than a virus. It is little more than any multi-cell organism. You consider that that has more legal standing than a real human being?

Viruses threaten to kill or seriously hamper us. I have no renitence towards eliminating an embryo, or any other being, if it does that

In the case of where a difficult birth threatens the health of the mother then it's just the same as a virus. Would you consider it acceptable to eliminate it then?

So an individual must be eliminated so that life may be better for the individual? Or do you mean, rather, 'individuals', suggesting that one person must be lost for the sake of many, an ochlocratic 'common good', as it were? Unless so, the logic in that seems paradoxical

Never said anything about individual. I said "thing". We eliminate viruses that can make people sick, we kill animals for food and cut down trees for shelter.

So you are saying that it is impossible for any viewpoint to be valid or invalid?

Never said that. I said "does not necessarily". In other words, just cause one person view another's person view as invalid that dosen't make it invalid automatically. Proof needs to be presented.

Which I do not if I can avoid it.

If I may ask, why? Animals do not have the same level of intelligence nor sentinece as us. Given the chance and necessity to eat you they would. As long as the killing is humane I respect it. I'm not gonna avoid every crack in the street to avoid stepping on a bug.

Well, no one can really avoid this. But rights and justice come to nothing when one does not have food on one's plate.

You missed my point. The point is that if we consider a cluster of cells in a woman's belly as having more importance than the woman herself then we must consider all creatures that have any signs of life as being higher than ourselves. The fact that you walk over grass would be the equilvant of an abortion in this case.

Nor does anyone automatically deserve a silver spoon in their mouth. Donations are only acceptable if they are granted willingly, no matter how great the need for them is.

Some people would never part with their riches if others of some chivalry didn't take it upon themselves to insist that we care for others. I find it rather strange that you fight so hard to protect a cluster of cells that is no more alive than a virus over some unfortunate family on a street.

 

[Ximruccilim]

The embryo dosen't even start to develop a brain until 6th week showing that it cannot preceive things like humans can. It cannot feel pain and has no sentience than a virus. It is little more than any multi-cell organism. You consider that that has more legal standing than a real human being?

No, I never said either's rights were 'more' than the other's. And as I recall, few abortions take place before the 6th week.

In the case of where a difficult birth threatens the health of the mother then it's just the same as a virus. Would you consider it acceptable to eliminate it then?

Yes.

Never said anything about individual. I said "thing".

You have yet to justify the perception of an embryo as a thing, and not an individual.

We eliminate viruses that can make people sick, we kill animals for food and cut down trees for shelter.

As I said, unless every creature is healthy and fed, it does not serve to look for justice.

Never said that. I said "does not necessarily". In other words, just cause one person view another's person view as invalid that dosen't make it invalid automatically. Proof needs to be presented.

Which is what I try to do whenever I advocate the justice or injustice of something. But with or without proof, noncontradictory truths exist.

If I may ask, why? Animals do not have the same level of intelligence nor sentinece as us.

A horse has much more sentience and intelligence than a 2-year-old human. I presumed you were talking about animals of that standard.

Given the chance and necessity to eat you they would.

As would most humans.

You missed my point. The point is that if we consider a cluster of cells in a woman's belly as having more importance than the woman herself then we must consider all creatures that have any signs of life as being higher than ourselves. The fact that you walk over grass would be the equilvant of an abortion in this case.

Rights and justice mean nothing if no creature can move about.

Some people would never part with their riches if others of some chivalry didn't take it upon themselves to insist that we care for others.

Like me.

I find it rather strange that you fight so hard to protect a cluster of cells that is no more alive than a virus over some unfortunate family on a street.

I am not saying we should squander the fruits of our dedicated work on this 'cluster of cells', am I? Just that it is most admirable to refrain from killing them.