Abortion - your views.

[ZidanelovesGarnet]

kill a child is sad even if it wasnt yours even if you got this child because of unwanted means, killing a child is a sin this child is brought into this life and its soul has a chance of living and enternal life.........what is better a child dieing before life or a child born and there for having a soul and a chance to live eternal in the kingdom of our divine maker?

 

[Davey Gaga]

kill a child is sad even if it wasnt yours even if you got this child because of unwanted means, killing a child is a sin this child is brought into this life and its soul has a chance of living and enternal life.........what is better a child dieing before life or a child born and there for having a soul and a chance to live eternal in the kingdom of our divine maker?

It's not at simple as that, as many of us have justified.

 

[ZidanelovesGarnet]

ya but it could be

 

[Scottlee]

I've got nothing against abortion. Until the moment of birth I don't consider babies to be alive. Hell, I don't remember being aware of anything until I was at least 2 years old. I'd rather a woman aborted her kid instead of bring it into a poor environment where it will not get a good upbringing.

 

[ZidanelovesGarnet]

thats why the goverment should give money and check up on them

 

[Sephire]

I believe that a baby is alive when it draws it's first breath. A baby doesn't draw its first breath on its own until it's outside of the womb. Without the mother, a baby couldn't survive so I believe it is up to the mother if she wants the baby or not.

However, I can't say that I agree with abortion entirely. I think it's selfish if one indulges in the pleasure of sex without protection, knows the risk of becoming pregnant, does, and then decides they don't want the child they concieved. It's simple. If you don't want a baby, then use protection during sex, or just don't have sex at all. Of course, there are situations where the protection breaks, which can't be helped, and therefore perhaps that's a case where abortion should be allowed.

I also believe that abortion should be allowed in extreme circumstances. For example, rape. A woman wouldn't have asked to have been raped and thus it is not her fault, so if she doesn't want a baby, she should be allowed to terminate it.

If the baby endangers the mothers life, then I agree that abortion should be allowed. I think it would be more disruptive for the mother to lose her life than the unborn baby.

What if the mother can't afford to raise the baby? Would it be fair for a child to suffer and struggle to survive? Although, in this case, I think the baby should be born, and then adopted, because it's not as if it's not wanted.

Besides those factors, I do think that abortion is wrong. I do see it as killing. But are you really killing though?

Overall I think it depends when the abortion is carried and what the circumstances are.

 

[Warrior of Light]

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.

When you refuse to allow the mother the right to terminate an embryo you are choosing between the mother's rights and the embryo's right's. One take predecence over the other--IMO, an actual intelligent being that is human should take predecence over a cluster of cells.

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

It cannot think, it cannot feel, it has no peception of pain or anything. That dosen't qualify for individual, IMO. Animals have more preception and we still don't say they are humans now do we?

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

What does that have to do with my statement? The point of the matter is that we are "killing" things that have more sentience then an embryo ergo it's highly contradictory to kill those things and not an embryo.

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

Naturally. But proof tends to enlighten...but it can't if people ignore the proof. You can tell someone the sky is blue but if people ignore you no amount of scientific proof will do anything.

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

That's an interesting point. The horse however will never gain the sentience that the child will likely attain.

As would most humans.

...What? No. Unless you're living with cannabals most people don't eat other people.

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

Again, what relevance does that have to my statement...?

Like me.

Which category are you placing yourself? In the one where you look to find a way to see that richer people support the poor or the rich type that tries to avoid paying for the poor. Clarify.

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.

Yeah, actually you are in an indirect manner. By forcing women to have children they never wanted you force them to raise kids that would not otherwise have. So this is a strain on the family and they resort to begging or going to social assistance. Or the government pays for the foster care of a unwanted kid and the many legal, educational and basic needs of the child people like you would force the world to take. Where do you think social assistance gets it's money from? Where do you think the government gets that money from?

"The fruits of our dedicated work".

 

[Ximruccilim]

When you refuse to allow the mother the right to terminate an embryo you are choosing between the mother's rights and the embryo's right's.

I see them as being equal and parallel, a situation where one can only do nothing.

Animals have more preception and we still don't say they are humans now do we?

I would no sooner kill one or the other.

What does that have to do with my statement? The point of the matter is that we are "killing" things that have more sentience then an embryo ergo it's highly contradictory to kill those things and not an embryo.

And my point is that it may indeed be wrong, but I would do no differently were it necessary for me to survive and function efficiently.

Naturally. But proof tends to enlighten...but it can't if people ignore the proof. You can tell someone the sky is blue but if people ignore you no amount of scientific proof will do anything.

Those are exactly the kind of people I fear coming into power or influence. Sure, they may not have committed any crime, but I think it is apt to label their view of the world 'warped'.

That's an interesting point. The horse however will never gain the sentience that the child will likely attain.

If you are making a point of such future sentience, you must also account for the fact that the child will eventually gain just as much of it as the mother.

...What? No. Unless you're living with cannabals most people don't eat other people.

You said 'necessity'.

Which category are you placing yourself? In the one where you look to find a way to see that richer people support the poor or the rich type that tries to avoid paying for the poor. Clarify.

The person who does whatever he wants with his money, be he rich or poor, so long as he pays those deserving of his pay, for whatever deed. Generosity is fine, but it should never be enforced.

By forcing women to have children they never wanted you force them to raise kids that would not otherwise have.

I never said it is necessary for them to raise their offspring. I would most admire leaving them in an orphanage if not, but, fundamentally, they can cast them out into the street for all I care. I do not believe there is any automatic obligation for a parent to care for their child.

So this is a strain on the family and they resort to begging or going to social assistance. Or the government pays for the foster care of a unwanted kid and the many legal, educational and basic needs of the child people like you would force the world to take. Where do you think social assistance gets it's money from? Where do you think the government gets that money from?

"The fruits of our dedicated work".

Any fair government is entitled to a common tax from the population, in return for protecting their rights. What they do with this tax is no more my concern than what my own neighbour does with his week's wages, though, if they want a stable nation, they should use it to answer common needs such as health and policing, rather than needs specific to certain groups in society, like childcare and education. It is only where this escalates into incondign excess that I am in opposition of. Then it is nothing more than theft.

 

[Davey Gaga]

ya but it could be

Ooh, compelling argument.
(sarcasm).

thats why the goverment should give money and check up on them

What the hell are you on about?

 

[Sephire]

ya but it could be

*Takes a deep breath* Please would you expand? Could be what? Are you referring to the post before? This is nothing but spam, something I see a lot of from you.

thats why the goverment should give money and check up on them

...Read above...

Ooh, compelling argument.
(sarcasm).

LOL!

What the hell are you on about?

I think he was referring to the post before, but I have no clue xD.
Amen.

 

[Warrior of Light]

I see them as being equal and parallel, a situation where one can only do nothing.

No, sir you don't. You are choosing the rights of the embryo over the mother because you are forcing the mother to keep the child whether the mother or the child wants it. In this case it is neither's rights you're concerned about--you're exercising your preceived "right" to mind other people's business such as their own body and life.

I would no sooner kill one or the other.

The unfortunate necessity arrives when an animals comes to kill you. You can always ignore that and die but the matter of the fact is that other people have the right ro defend themselves. They also have the right to hunt for susetance. Susetenance requires killing the animal. As long as its done humanely that's fine with me.

And my point is that it may indeed be wrong, but I would do no differently were it necessary for me to survive and function efficiently.

Clarify. That makes no sense to me.

Those are exactly the kind of people I fear coming into power or influence. Sure, they may not have committed any crime, but I think it is apt to label their view of the world 'warped'.

Problem is that other people may not view their opinions as warped. Oftentimes life is far more grey than people give it credit for.

If you are making a point of such future sentience, you must also account for the fact that the child will eventually gain just as much of it as the mother.

An embryo may eventually gain enough sentience to qualify as a human but without the mother's womb it never will. A horse is already born and proven that it cannot attain sentience relative to its race. An embryo is no more than a cluster of cells.

You said 'necessity'.

Again clarify.

The person who does whatever he wants with his money, be he rich or poor, so long as he pays those deserving of his pay, for whatever deed. Generosity is fine, but it should never be enforced.

People have the right to whatever with their money but not with an cluster of cells in their body?

Generosity is the world's way of balancing out the unfairness of the world. If generosity wasn't enforced there would very many more children dying today. I can afford to lose a few dollars. I can do without that other video game. A child who's only income is donations that the government makes people pay cannot.

I feel that in general people should learn to be more giving. Who knows...maybe someday you or I would be on the streets depending on the generosity of people who are stingy to give.

I never said it is necessary for them to raise their offspring. I would most admire leaving them in an orphanage if not, but, fundamentally, they can cast them out into the street for all I care. I do not believe there is any automatic obligation for a parent to care for their child.

...You are very insistent that mothers keep a child they didn't want/might have been forced into but you don't care for the child itself? What's the point of fighting to force a child into the world when you clearly couldn't care what becomes of them when arrive? There's no logic in that.

You don't care about what happens to the mother or the child. Why do you care so much about the embryo? Why is the embryo more important than both of them?

Any fair government is entitled to a common tax from the population, in return for protecting their rights. What they do with this tax is no more my concern than what my own neighbour does with his week's wages, though, if they want a stable nation, they should use it to answer common needs such as health and policing, rather than needs specific to certain groups in society, like childcare and education. It is only where this escalates into incondign excess that I am in opposition of. Then it is nothing more than theft.

Education and childcare are critical to building a happy society. The money that people pour into these things makes happier, heatlhier, more productive members of society...that ultimately don't drain the health care system as much or require as much policing. It's all a cycle and by ignoring one part you make the rest suffer.

 

[Ximruccilim]

No, sir you don't. You are choosing the rights of the embryo over the mother because you are forcing the mother to keep the child whether the mother or the child wants it.

In the same manner that I am 'forcing' people not to murder or steal.

The unfortunate necessity arrives when an animals comes to kill you.

I never said I would not defend myself to the point of killing an animal. I would defend myself to the point of killing a human in the same way. If they are threatening my life, where is the immorality in that?

You can always ignore that and die but the matter of the fact is that other people have the right to defend themselves. They also have the right to hunt for susetance. Susetenance requires killing the animal. As long as its done humanely that's fine with me.

I agree.

Clarify. That makes no sense to me.

See just above.

Problem is that other people may not view their opinions as warped.

Which does not change the fact that they are.

An embryo may eventually gain enough sentience to qualify as a human but without the mother's womb it never will. A horse is already born and proven that it cannot attain sentience relative to its race.

So your perceived importance of upcoming sentience only cuts off when it depends upon other sentience to develop?

Again clarify.

If there was necessity, most humans would revert to cannabalism, just like animals. You may say no, that this only occurs in more primitive societies, but it is not so. Modern armies of excellent civilisation have reverted to the practice in desperate times.

But this is of little matter, since both of us seem to agree that the need for sustenance overrides any justice that operates otherwise.

People have the right to whatever with their money but not with an cluster of cells in their body?

Last time I checked, money was wholly inert.

Generosity is the world's way of balancing out the unfairness of the world.

Those who do not/cannot achieve fall behind. How is that unfair?

If generosity wasn't enforced there would very many more children dying today.

Unfortunately true, but this only impacts upon one's own life if one perceives a need to prevent such deaths. I do not. My life is mine; others' lives are theirs.

I can afford to lose a few dollars. I can do without that other video game.

That is your choice. It makes you neither better nor worse than me.

A child who's only income is donations that the government makes people pay cannot.

It is simply unfortunate that it is not born with the means to achieve such pleasures. But birth does not entitle it to them.

I feel that in general people should learn to be more giving. Who knows...maybe someday you or I would be on the streets depending on the generosity of people who are stingy to give.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Ayn Rand

...You are very insistent that mothers keep a child they didn't want/might have been forced into but you don't care for the child itself? What's the point of fighting to force a child into the world when you clearly couldn't care what becomes of them when arrive? There's no logic in that.

I still do care that it should not be actively murdered. No blame can be attributed in a passive death.

You don't care about what happens to the mother or the child. Why do you care so much about the embryo? Why is the embryo more important than both of them?

I never said it was. Mother, child, embryo - all have an equal right to their existence, and each right runs parallel to the other, not infringing. As long as this right holds, none should kill the other. If any of them are killed by nature and circumstance, it is a different matter.

Education and childcare are critical to building a happy society.

So no society before the 19th century was happy?

The money that people pour into these things makes happier, heatlhier, more productive members of society...that ultimately don't drain the health care system as much or require as much policing.

Assuming that there are no other apparati for socialisation in place.

 

[Tristis Miles]

Personally, I believe that only women should make this decision, and men should just step aside. This may sound kind of weird, coming from a man and all, but hear me out. We men have absolutely no idea how truly hard it is to bring up a child - we'll never have a being growing inside of us for nine months, we'll never experience hot flashes and mood swings and all those things that accompany pregnancy. All we can do is offer our aid and see that - wow, she must be going through a lot.

Once the child has entered the world, who takes care of him or her most of the time? The woman, right? Yes, there are some stay-at-home dads, but I'm talking majority here. So not only does a child involve a lot of responsibility, what with feeding, clothing, and providing shelter for another individual, but the little guy or girl also requires the caretaker to convert a huge chunk of their lives.

A child is one of the greatest gifts you can create. But if there's no one to take care of him or her, they are doomed to a rough life. Why would you want to put an innocent child through that sort of life? To be bitterly resented, ignored, or shoved off to an orphanage when you've done nothing wrong but exist, it seems. Orphanages are already packed, and can't possibly provide the same amount of love and care that parent/s who wanted them could.

Also, I don't know about you guys but I can't remember much of my childhood. If not for your parent/s telling you about what sorts of things you did, you'd never know. As the egg and sperm cells join, yes you can argue whether or not it's living. But the fact remains that it hasn't developed enough to exist on its own, or know that it even exists yet. Only in time does the cell develope into something functional on its own, but it depends completely on the mother in the beginning stages. Therefore, in my opinion, the mother has the right and power to deny or give life. She will be the one most affected, not the man. So if she feels that she won't be able to take care of another, or that she doesn't want the little him or her, it's best to stop the process before the child knows its existance, and save both from difficulty.

 

[Garnet]

I am completely pro-life. Abortion is murder, there is no question to me about that. From the moment the baby is conceived, it is a living creature. Every single life deserves a chance.

It is simple. Do no have sex if you are not willing to accept the consequences. I don't care if your protection fails or whatever, because everyone knows that the only way to be 100% positive you will not become pregnant is to abstain completely. If you're not mature enought to handle that, you shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity.

 

[Rasputin]

"Pro life" is a term created by idiots. Honestly, do you really think anyone is "anti life"?

 

[Misty]

I am completely pro-life. Abortion is murder, there is no question to me about that. From the moment the baby is conceived, it is a living creature. Every single life deserves a chance.

It is simple. Do no have sex if you are not willing to accept the consequences. I don't care if your protection fails or whatever, because everyone knows that the only way to be 100% positive you will not become pregnant is to abstain completely. If you're not mature enought to handle that, you shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity.

Half the time when people say they are pro-life completely, they still approve of abortion if it endangers the mothers life or some approve of it in cases of rape.

Why can't we just be all Pro-Choice and stop these violent Pro-life/Pro-abortion parades we've heard about before.

People have the choice to do whatever they want with their bodies, and yes, there is a baby to think of, but what that person does with the baby has got nothing to do you, won't affect your life in anyway (unless there are certain circumstances..).

Sure, some people do it out of pure convenience, some people have to do it, whether or not they have made mistakes.

Some people need to do it for important reasons.

We should all at the end of the day just respect what people do, not slander them for it and get on with our own lives.

 

[Rasputin]

Half the time when people say they are pro-life completely, they still approve of abortion if it endangers the mothers life or some approve of it in cases of rape.

Why can't we just be all Pro-Choice and stop these violent Pro-life/Pro-abortion parades we've heard about before.

People have the choice to do whatever they want with their bodies, and yes, there is a baby to think of, but what that person does with the baby has got nothing to do you, won't affect your life in anyway (unless there are certain circumstances..).

Sure, some people do it out of pure convenience, some people have to do it, whether or not they have made mistakes.

Some people need to do it for important reasons.

We should all at the end of the day just respect what people do, not slander them for it and get on with our own lives.

Why not? Because my bias detector went off the instant you used the term "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion".

 

[Sephire]

I am completely pro-life. Abortion is murder, there is no question to me about that. From the moment the baby is conceived, it is a living creature. Every single life deserves a chance.

But they say something is only living when it has the following attributes:

- Movement
- Respiration
- Sensitivity
- Growth
- Reproduction
- Nutrition

A foetus can not do some of those things without the mother. For example, it can not gain nutrition on it's own. Is it really possible to say it's a living creature the moment it's concieved?

A lot of people have different beliefs as to when a baby is actually living. I'm one to believe that the moment it can respire on it's own, or the moment that it has a pulse, is when it is living. But that's just my own personal opinion.

My point is, I just don't think it's right to disregard abortion entirely. Pregnancy just doesn't elvolve entirely around the baby. I am not saying that the baby is insignificant, nor that it should be disregarded entirely. I just think other factors should be taken into consideration when it comes to abortion.

As I've said before, I do think it's wrong to have an abortion just because one doesn't want a baby. Tough shit. You had sex, face the consequences of your actions.

If protection broke, it's not your fault. But you know it's not entirely reliable. Consider that before indulging in sexual pleasure.

However, when it comes to not being able to afford a baby, or when the baby endangers the mother's life, I think abortion should be considered an option, but not an answer.

 

[Garnet]

Well, people can argue the "facts" back and forth forever.

And being "too poor" is not an excuse...people will always say they can't afford to have a baby. You just make a way somehow...and there are always government programs/family/or even adoption if you are truly impoverished.

But until you actually have a child of your own, and realize and look into the eyes of what you would have killed if you would have had an abortion, I just don't think you can truly realize just how awful abortion is.

 

[Vincent'sLucrecia]

I'd never support something that kills a human being or something that's going to live. The woman can easily put the child up for adoption if they didn't want him/her in the first place. The same would happen if they were a rape victim - just place the child up for adoption after it's born, and you don't want to live with painful memories.
Also, I'm agnostic. Not Catholic.