I Don't Understand Why Abortion Is A Right
Bosnian_Cowboy
Join Date: 2003-06-07 Member: 17088Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-06-07 Member: 17088Members, Constellation
I'm very open-minded but I don't buy into the "I can do whatever I want with my body." First of all, in a civilized society, you can't. Second of all, it isn't only your body there is a growing organism inside you. Why is it so abnormal to consider an unborn baby alive? The distinction with sperm/egg and an unborn baby is that unless you do something to stop the baby's growth (like killing it), it will one day be born. Sperm and eggs are a tool of life and I see no way how an unborn baby can be considered the same.
The liberal side of America is so afraid of alienating the feminists that they just give into this without considering it. Isn't it a woman's choice to have sex anyway? That's where your "rights" are, in the intercourse. You have the right to not risk pregnancy by not having intercourse, and if you are forced to then those who forced it on you are to be punished. And I know people will think that it isn't fair because men don't bear responsibility in the real world, well responsibility isn't much about fairness, it is about doing the right thing.
Roe vs. Wade was a big mistake, in my opinion. Hopefully, one day we will correct it (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ - Roe has a change of heart).
The liberal side of America is so afraid of alienating the feminists that they just give into this without considering it. Isn't it a woman's choice to have sex anyway? That's where your "rights" are, in the intercourse. You have the right to not risk pregnancy by not having intercourse, and if you are forced to then those who forced it on you are to be punished. And I know people will think that it isn't fair because men don't bear responsibility in the real world, well responsibility isn't much about fairness, it is about doing the right thing.
Roe vs. Wade was a big mistake, in my opinion. Hopefully, one day we will correct it (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ - Roe has a change of heart).
Comments
I think the admins will decide that....And anyways, this is a discussion forum and I personally think this is a great topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm very open-minded but I don't buy into the "I can do whatever I want with my body." First of all, in a civilized society, you can't. Second of all, it isn't only your body there is a growing organism inside you. Why is it so abnormal to consider an unborn baby alive? The distinction with sperm/egg and an unborn baby is that unless you do something to stop the baby's growth (like killing it), it will one day be born. Sperm and eggs are a tool of life and I see no way how an unborn baby can be considered the same.
The liberal side of America is so afraid of alienating the feminists that they just give into this without considering it. Isn't it a woman's choice to have sex anyway? That's where your "rights" are, in the intercourse. You have the right to not risk pregnancy by not having intercourse, and if you are forced to then those who forced it on you are to be punished. And I know people will think that it isn't fair because men don't bear responsibility in the real world, well responsibility isn't much about fairness, it is about doing the right thing.
Roe vs. Wade was a big mistake, in my opinion. Hopefully, one day we will correct it (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ - Roe has a change of heart). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically, the baby is alive once the egg is fertilized, and ther-for, it would be like killing an unborn baby. Anyways, I think women do have a right to have an abortion or not to. What if a women was destroyed, then became pregnant...Think of how she would feel giving birth to a baby from a man she was assaulted and violated by. There could be so many cases where women would get pregnant, and it not being their fault. I look at it like this, (this might be kind of offensive and wrong in a way.) But, what if, lets take a family member for example, like a sister, what if they were destroyed by a man while taking a walk in the park. Then in a week or so, they find out they are pregnant with a baby...Should they really have to give birth to it...What if they do....What if they end up not loving it when it is born and grows to be older? Of course this is all my opinion, but I think that right there answers your question...
/edit
<span style='color:red'>Damn blockz0rz....
"destroyed" = r4pe (sorry for breaking filter)</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--Mullet Aug 25 2003+ 03:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet Aug 25 2003 @ 03:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Technically, the baby is alive once the egg is fertilized, and ther-for, it would be like killing an unborn baby. Anyways, I think women do have a right to have an abortion or not to. What if a women was destroyed, then became pregnant...Think of how she would feel giving birth to a baby from a man she was assaulted and violated by. There could be so many cases where women would get pregnant, and it not being their fault. I look at it like this, (this might be kind of offensive and wrong in a way.) But, what if, lets take a family member for example, like a sister, what if they were destroyed by a man while taking a walk in the park. Then in a week or so, they find out they are pregnant with a baby...Should they really have to give birth to it...What if they do....What if they end up not loving it when it is born and grows to be older? Of course this is all my opinion, but I think that right there answers your question...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a to deal with this than abortion, giving up the child for adoption. And if the right to choose abortion was decided solely based on destroy then it would only be given to those who are destroyed. Unless I am seriously misinformed, this right it is given to all women who are pregnant.
Life IMO is not always black and white.
<!--QuoteBegin--Mullet Aug 25 2003+ 03:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet Aug 25 2003 @ 03:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Technically, the baby is alive once the egg is fertilized, and ther-for, it would be like killing an unborn baby. Anyways, I think women do have a right to have an abortion or not to. What if a women was destroyed, then became pregnant...Think of how she would feel giving birth to a baby from a man she was assaulted and violated by. There could be so many cases where women would get pregnant, and it not being their fault. I look at it like this, (this might be kind of offensive and wrong in a way.) But, what if, lets take a family member for example, like a sister, what if they were destroyed by a man while taking a walk in the park. Then in a week or so, they find out they are pregnant with a baby...Should they really have to give birth to it...What if they do....What if they end up not loving it when it is born and grows to be older? Of course this is all my opinion, but I think that right there answers your question...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a to deal with this than abortion, giving up the child for adoption. And if the right to choose abortion was decided solely based on destroy then it would only be given to those who are destroyed. Unless I am seriously misinformed, this right it is given to all women who are pregnant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you are saying it dosn't matter how a girl gets pregnant, they will still have to deliver the child? See, that right there seems wrong. It would be like forcing someone to give birth to a kid. This might sound a little weird also, but some girls these days mature at a very young age....And I'm sure you have all read the stories of the fathers who molest their children....What if a young girl got pregnant, like 10-12 years old? I couldn't imagine that...
With the technology these days, doctors can determine if a child will be "handicap" before they are even born... I know this because of a family member. Anyways, this family member of mine found out about this, and she DID have an abortion. She use to believe in not having abortions, but when the doctors told her about her child, she couldn't even imagine raising a kid for a couple of hours to only see it die later on..... I think the mother has the right to chose between abortion or not.
Mullet: If the child gets to live then why not force the female to give birth to the child? And a girl has to have her first period (which is at like 13-14) before she can get pregnant so girls of a younger age can't become pregnant. And girls that young are too immature probably to have any complex emotions attached to their unborn child, maybe just by association to the horrible thing that was done to them. Either way, the child should get a chance at life.
Just because its an odd scenario dosn't mean it couldn't happen....
What would the exceptions be?
Please read my edited post above.....it explains abortion with one of my family members who was against abortions.
Just because its an odd scenario dosn't mean it couldn't happen....
What would the exceptions be?
Please read my edited post above.....it explains abortion with one of my family members who was against abortions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlikely doesn't mean impossible so I didn't mean it never happens. The exceptions would be just what Moon described, if the mother was at risk by going ahead with the pregnancy. Mullet, I am aware of such medical anomalies like unborn children having no brains, therefore unable to live outside the womb. That, to a reasonable person, would be considered an exception in a ban on abortion.
BTW: Bed time now....ill post again tomorrow.....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlikely, probably so.
The thing is though IMO it would be problematic to make some sort of exception here because you run into the following issue:
Who determines how great a risk the problem should have to be in order to allow an abortion ? How much of a risk should be the deciding factor ? 1/20 chance of death ? 1/100 ? etc. I wouldn't want a random person saying "hmmm... I think your wife will maybe be ok... so l'm not going to allow an abortion, sorry".
Part of me thinks this a reasonable compromise.
The other tells me that when it comes to my loved ones I don't enjoy the prospect of having to rely on "reasonable" people where their lives are concerned.
(while this may sound harsh, it is in no means an attempt to flame <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Now, for my contribution. I feel I don't have the time nor the concentration to present my opinion right now, but please allow me some comments.
Bosnian, you basically pointed out in your first post that an embryo is in every of its development stages "alive", and that killing this living organism is thus wrong. Well then, are you a vegetarian?
The question is not whether an embryo is alive - we are forced to destroy life on a daily basis to satisfy our need for nurishment - the question is whether an embryo is human, and that's why this topic is so damn controversial: We're discussing the truly oldest and biggest can of worms in human history - human nature.
Commie already gave us (although in a tone borderlining on a nuke) one possible answer on the question of whether an embryo is human or not:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People argue that that clump of cells is NOT human. They say "Oh it turns human" OF COURSE I WILL ITS NOT GONNA TURN INTO A CHICKEN OR SOMETHING. Thats why I feel it is human from the moment its conceived. What else can it turn into besides human? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a human piece of DNA in there, and provided it will be treated correctly, it will turn into a human being, thus it <i>is</i> a human. This approach is strictly biological - it shares a number of characteristics, thus, it is, at least potentially, a human.
Well, would you consider your finger a potential human being? Because, provided the correct treatment, that clump of cells will turn into that. Would you consider one of the failure births already mentioned completely human? This question hurts even me as I type it, but how can a baby-looking creature without a brain be completely human?
A 'normal' birth is not a 100% clear cut affair - it's happening because an enormous amount of things, starting with sperm and eggcell, accidentaly went right. To repeat: A human being like us all sitting in front of our screens is <i>not</i> the only possible outcome of an embryos development.
I agree. Topics like these are dormant land-mines, itching to explode.
But I'll submit my arguement anyways: In cases of incest or destroy, abortion is an unquestionable and understandable alternative to being pregnant with an unwanted baby.
But back to an egg being fertilized. Big woop, it has 24 chromosomes and *may* become a human being. Until the clump of cells develops neurons, its completely incapable of feeling pain. And it may not even develope its neural network properly. Theres a birth defect in which the brain itself NEVER FORMS. Theres just an empty head with fluid in it. You can't loose something you never had, just like you can't die if you never were alive. The baby never died, because it never WAS. But that means it never even WAS even when it WAS a clump of cells. Whatever we are, weather you think we're just a bunch of neurons, or a magical soul...whatever it is that makes us *US*, is something that slowly grows as your brain develops.
The key question that the debate usually revolves around is whether or not the fetus is a human life, and thus worthy of the same rights and protection that we grant to all human life. Suppose for the sake of argument that there is a 1/100 chance that this is so, but we'll never know for certain - there is *some* objective moral truth on the issue, but we'll never agree 100% on what it is.
Given that there is a 1/100 chance of it - is it acceptable that there are so many of these "somethings" with a 1/100 chance of being human lives being killed? If human life is of inestimable value, even a slim chance of destroying it (barring circumstances in which another human life is being threatened) should be unacceptable.
Of course, this is by no means the end of the debate, because then we tackle the issue of what the state's role in all of this should be. I've ranted before on the state's job not being to enforce morality, but to provide for its citizens. Should unborn children be considered citizens, and therefore protected by the state? If not, how about newborn children? The mentally disabled? Anyone who's not able to live without assistance (biological or otherwise) from others?
My personal view: I can tolerate abortion if it's done early on, when it's just a clump of undifferentiated cells. On the other hand, I find stuff like partial-birth abortions completely abhorrent. In between is where it gets grey, but I typically draw the line at the point at which neurons start firing.
The key question that the debate usually revolves around is whether or not the fetus is a human life, and thus worthy of the same rights and protection that we grant to all human life. Suppose for the sake of argument that there is a 1/100 chance that this is so, but we'll never know for certain - there is *some* objective moral truth on the issue, but we'll never agree 100% on what it is.
Given that there is a 1/100 chance of it - is it acceptable that there are so many of these "somethings" with a 1/100 chance of being human lives being killed? If human life is of inestimable value, even a slim chance of destroying it (barring circumstances in which another human life is being threatened) should be unacceptable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That same argument could be used to say that driving is immoral. After all, there is a % chance that a human life of limitless value will be ended every time you get in the car.
True, driving isn't illegal and generally isn't considered immoral (unless you're Amish). However, drunk driving is illegal. Randomly firing handguns into the air is illegal. Clearly there's some threshold at which even posing a risk to human life is illegal. I guess the question is - what probability are you willing to ascribe to a fetus being a human life? For some people, obviously, it's 100%, and for some it's 0%, but I suspect most of us aren't exactly sure and put it somewhere in the middle. Is that spot above or below the level of acceptable risk?
Science can twist anything into makeing things look ok, reason can also.
Human reasoning can reason anything into being right. Even some murders think its ok for them to kill.
"may" become a baby?
How often do you see a a pregant women not give birth to a human baby. A deformed one yes, human yes.
i hate to say it, but my reasoning is, if i was gonna be born deformed somehow. i'd wish my parents to have choosen an abortion for me. but that is my choice.
Parents have no right taking the lifes of the child that, has every right to live. That is murder. It may not be able to feel any pain. but it is a human baby. it is alive. it does breath, with help from its mother. Its lives. and if something is alive, and you kill it. thats what it is, you KILLED it. and the fact that its a human child in the making, you killing that would make it murder.
but it was right when said this can be a heated discussion, abortion is hard to discuss with out an argument.
what about the rights of the woman?
it is after all her body, and 9 months is a long time to carry a child you ultimatly plan to have adopted.
Science can twist anything into makeing things look ok, reason can also.
Human reasoning can reason anything into being right. Even some murders think its ok for them to kill.
"may" become a baby?
How often do you see a a pregant women not give birth to a human baby. A deformed one yes, human yes.
i hate to say it, but my reasoning is, if i was gonna be born deformed somehow. i'd wish my parents to have choosen an abortion for me. but that is my choice.
Parents have no right taking the lifes of the child that, has every right to live. That is murder. It may not be able to feel any pain. but it is a human baby. it is alive. it does breath, with help from its mother. Its lives. and if something is alive, and you kill it. thats what it is, you KILLED it. and the fact that its a human child in the making, you killing that would make it murder.
but it was right when said this can be a heated discussion, abortion is hard to discuss with out an argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I must state my arguement of incest or rape. That, I believe, is the only time when a woman's choice regarding the child shouldn't be questioned or judged.
what about the rights of the woman?
it is after all her body, and 9 months is a long time to carry a child you ultimatly plan to have adopted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you've already accepted that the fetus is a child worthy of protection as other human beings (and that really is the crux of the debate, IMO), the 9-month inconvenience seems sort of inconsequential next to the deliberate termination of an innocent life. Call me cruel, but...
And I see some people are judging this subject based on people arguing against it and not what they have to say (like how they have religious convictions).
Also, my thoughts on if an unborn baby is alive or not is summed up in the first paragraph of my first post, I get the impression some might have skipped it.
The liberal side of America is so afraid of alienating the feminists that they just give into this without considering it. Isn't it a woman's choice to have sex anyway? That's where your "rights" are, in the intercourse. You have the right to not risk pregnancy by not having intercourse, and if you are forced to then those who forced it on you are to be punished. And I know people will think that it isn't fair because men don't bear responsibility in the real world, well responsibility isn't much about fairness, it is about doing the right thing.
Roe vs. Wade was a big mistake, in my opinion. Hopefully, one day we will correct it (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ - Roe has a change of heart). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, saying "I'm very open minded" and then laying out the rest of what you did seems like a contradiction.
Next you’re assuming that every pregnancy is caused by a voluntary act. You left out Rape, and Molestation. Maybe in your world these things don’t happen, but in the real world they do. Secondly, everyone should have the right to correct a mistake, Its far better to end a pregnancy then to bring a child into the world and abuse him/her because you were too young and immature to understand what having a child was all about.
Furthermore, I didn’t fully understand your reference to sperm/egg . Are you saying that Masturbation is killing babies too? If you took health class in school (which I doubt you did) you would know that even a man who doesn’t masturbate will eventually ejaculate (to clear the stock and start fresh if you will) so are you saying that men are naturally prone to killing unborn children?
And lastly, I was very offended by your blatant sexist comments about women. Saying that the responsibility in sex lies solely with the woman is plain ignorant and I don’t need to say things like "It takes two to tango" to prove the point.
edit: Also, there are a lot of people in this thread talking about the rights of the fetus, if we are going as far as giving an unborn organism rights then we need to allow babies to smoke/vote/buy guns/drink/drive last time I checked I had to wait 18 years to vote/smoke and play lotto, cause I was "too young" to make certain decisions for myself, and I had to wait till I was 21 to buy alcohol and handguns, again, because I was too young at 18 to make those decisions (even though I could join the military and kill for my country) so please consider the fact the there are restrictions placed on us by society that have to do with age, and last time I checked we start counting days from birth not before.
Anyway, some food for thought: <a href='http://www.abortionisprolife.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.abortionisprolife.com/</a>
Its based on the philosphy of the amazing Ayn Rand. While I disagree with her venom, it does make the point that the destruction of a potential life often liberates the current life from the burden. This is true, but it doesn't nullify the human factor in my opinion.
I'm pro choice, except I beleive the time to choose is when you're about to have sex. Don't do it if you won't accept the consequences.
EDIT
As for incest, no. The motivation for it is that the child will most likely have birth defects. However, we can now detect many defects before birth, meaning that it would legally make all retarded unborns open game. Then you're offically stating that disablities are grounds for denying exsistence, a VERY slippery slope.
Next you’re assuming that every pregnancy is caused by a voluntary act. You left out Rape, and Molestation. Maybe in your world these things don’t happen, but in the real world they do. Secondly, everyone should have the right to correct a mistake, Its far better to end a pregnancy then to bring a child into the world and abuse him/her because you were too young and immature to understand what having a child was all about.
Furthermore, I didn’t fully understand your reference to sperm/egg . Are you saying that Masturbation is killing babies too? If you took health class in school (which I doubt you did) you would know that even a man who doesn’t masturbate will eventually ejaculate (to clear the stock and start fresh if you will) so are you saying that men are naturally prone to killing unborn children?
And lastly, I was very offended by your blatant sexist comments about women. Saying that the responsibility in sex lies solely with the woman is plain ignorant and I don’t need to say things like "It takes two to tango" to prove the point.
edit: Also, there are a lot of people in this thread talking about the rights of the fetus, if we are going as far as giving an unborn organism rights then we need to allow babies to smoke/vote/buy guns/drink/drive last time I checked I had to wait 18 years to vote/smoke and play lotto, cause I was "too young" to make certain decisions for myself, and I had to wait till I was 21 to buy alcohol and handguns, again, because I was too young at 18 to make those decisions (even though I could join the military and kill for my country) so please consider the fact the there are restrictions placed on us by society that have to do with age, and last time I checked we start counting days from birth not before. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I clearly gave my belief in the distinction between a fetus and sperm/eggs. You should carefully read it again.
What is the limit on the right to live? Could a mother end your life if she felt you a nuisance before you reach 18?
If you read this whole thread you will probably come to read my posts about rape and such things, unless you disregard it like you did with my entire topic post.
Bam. Good ol google search.
A 1987-88 survey of 1,900 American women at abortion clinics revealed that few decided to abort because they had been victims of rape or incest, were carrying a "defective" baby, or whose pregnancies were harmful to their own health. In the survey, some women gave more than one of the following answers:
76% were concerned about how a baby could change their lives
68% could not afford a baby at the time
51% had relationship problems or wanted to avoid single parenthood
31% were unready for responsibility
31% did not want other to know they'd had sex or were pregnant
26% had all the children they wanted, or had all grown-up children
23% had a husband or partner who wanted them to abort
7% had parents who wanted them to abort
(All of the above abortions could have been avoided by the use of birth control.)
13% of the babies had a possible health problem (only 8% of these women, or 1% of the total, said a physician had positively informed them of a fetal defect or abnormality)
7% of the women had a health* problem
<b>1% were victims of rape or incest </b> <------ Look here!
In conclusion, a majority of abortions were done because the woman leads a loose life (a big no no! Sex is for marriage! It will avoid a lot of complications....like abortion,) and has little to no regard for the consequences.