Abortion

[Cecilff2]

If it can't live outside the womb on it's own, technically it's just a part of the mother's body and she can do what she sees fit.

So infants and small children are still part of the mother's body?

It's just self-righteousness. Do you care what happens to those children once they're grown? Are you donating money to homeless shelters and other charities to help support impoverished families or single mothers? Are you bitching about paying taxes that fund public aid? Are you interested in becoming a foster parent or adopting?

I have met a woman who was raped and still had her child. Do you know what happened? She ended up abusing that child and punishing that child for the father's actions. Are you, with such strong opinions about abortion--out there volunteering your time in programs to help mentor children? To help mentor single mothers???
Maybe you could have made some difference in a child's or a mother's life, shown some love and given some encouragement and support.

That works both ways though. Do you care what the child thinks? Do you think the child would prefer not to have been born? Just because you wouldn't want that life doesn't mean the kid doesn't.

 

[894tt3h9]

What I'm seeing here are a lot of hypothetical situations and a lot of "what ifs" instead of examining "what is."

+10 for Billy's posts.

My question is, what does it really matter? People have been killing their children inside and outside of the womb since the existence of human life. Animals kill their babies all the time. This is just how it is. That's it, that's all.

The only "what if" that I have in my mind is, what if we didn't stop trying to impose our opinions, our morals, and what we think is right upon other people? What if we stopped impeding the free will of others? Would there be total chaos? Would the whole world self destruct because of our actions? Maybe this planet wouldn't be so ridiculously over populated and completely pillaged of most of it's resources if we just let things be. Or maybe we'd just destroy ourselves. Either way, it seems like the planet would be better off without us.

 

[The Jester]

Calling abortion murder is just rhetoric.

I understand it is an emotional subject for some due to their own personal religious or philosophical beliefs... but not everyone shares those beliefs.. and as someone said above: What someone does with their own body is no one's business. If it can't live outside the womb on it's own, technically it's just a part of the mother's body and she can do what she sees fit.

It's funny. People want to defend the unborn, and then as soon as the child is born you forget... or just stop caring.

It's just self-righteousness. Do you care what happens to those children once they're grown? Are you donating money to homeless shelters and other charities to help support impoverished families or single mothers? Are you bitching about paying taxes that fund public aid? Are you interested in becoming a foster parent or adopting?

I have met a woman who was raped and still had her child. Do you know what happened? She ended up abusing that child and punishing that child for the father's actions. Are you, with such strong opinions about abortion--out there volunteering your time in programs to help mentor children? To help mentor single mothers???
Maybe you could have made some difference in a child's or a mother's life, shown some love and given some encouragement and support.

Get off your high horses. What good is your judgement if you are just going to sit there and do nothing to contribute to the society you find corrupt or so desperately want to preach against becoming more corrupt.

I couldn't rep you for that post, but you made quite a valid point.

 

[acd]

So infants and small children are still part of the mother's body?



That works both ways though. Do you care what the child thinks? Do you think the child would prefer not to have been born? Just because you wouldn't want that life doesn't mean the kid doesn't.

The "kid" isn't a kid yet. It doesn't have thoughts or wants.

And yes. It is a part of the woman's body.


It's not that I don't care: I'm more concerned for the liberties of the woman than I am for the cluster of cells that has the potential to be a person. I'm also more concerned that women are afforded the right to decide on their own what to do with their bodies, and that that right overrides you or anyone else who opposes such a decision from preventing them from carrying out that decision.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think abortions are wonderful things... It is not something to take flippantly. But nobody should be forced to do something with their body because your morals and emotions dictate that they should.

 

[KazeCraven]

No I mean literally, everyone is a murderer and I didn't call everyone bad, in fact I made it clearer by saying people aren't bad OR good. And again I ask you, if its ok to kill a zygote, is it ok to kill someone mentally disabled? Is there a difference? You tell me, I already said, according to my beliefs, there is no distinction, human is human, whether fully formed or not.

Hmm, okay, well I'll admit I just locked onto (and misinterpreted) your last statement about good and bad.

And yeah, but then it's up to whoever has to provide for that mentally disabled person. (Similar dilemma: do I pull the plug or not?) It's wrong for me to shoot someone's zygote; so it is with someone's dependent mentally disabled person. And I assume, by mentally disabled, you mean "has no consciousness".

 

[Cecilff2]

The "kid" isn't a kid yet. It doesn't have thoughts or wants.

And yes. It is a part of the woman's body.


It's not that I don't care: I'm more concerned for the liberties of the woman than I am for the cluster of cells that has the potential to be a person. I'm also more concerned that women are afforded the right to decide on their own what to do with their bodies, and that that right overrides you or anyone else who opposes such a decision from preventing them from carrying out that decision.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think abortions are wonderful things... It is not something to take flippantly. But nobody should be forced to do something with their body because your morals and emotions dictate that they should.

I think thats the crux of the thing here. Some people believe the right to the fetus's life should be determined by the mother. Others think it should be up to the person when they're born. (Then there are the others who completely oppose suicide in any form) To further clarify my views, I believe if a person doesn't want their life it should be their decision, not assumed.

I also can't agree that the fetus is her body. It is half from her, half from the father. The DNA of a zygote/embryo/fetus is not the same as the mother's. It is not her body, it is attached to it. Through a process she chose(Excepting rape). It'd be nice if there was a way to remove them and still sustain them. That technology might be a ways off still...

The only "what if" that I have in my mind is, what if we didn't stop trying to impose our opinions, our morals, and what we think is right upon other people? What if we stopped impeding the free will of others? Would there be total chaos? Would the whole world self destruct because of our actions? Maybe this planet wouldn't be so ridiculously over populated and completely pillaged of most of it's resources if we just let things be. Or maybe we'd just destroy ourselves. Either way, it seems like the planet would be better off without us.

Just because there are bad people out there doesn't mean its ok to give them free license to make others suffer because it happens anyways. If you want the world to change for the better, then as Ghandi said, "Be the change you wish to see". Letting it spiral out of control won't solve anything.(In fact if humanity took that path, I'm pretty sure the Earth would be unlivable for just about everything instead, and quite a lot worse off)

There are plenty of terrible things in the world, but there's plenty of good things too. People tend to glaze their eyes over when they see them, and the media sure doesn't like to portray them. Everyone fixates on tragedy and misses everything else. They forget all the things that others do to help. When people think of 9/11 they rarely think of the firefighters and policemen that risked their lives to aid in evacuating those still inside. They focus on the destruction it caused. Does anyone remember the fundraiser for the Haiti earthquake? Even those less fortunate by our standards still change things.

[/unfounded optimism]

Screw it, we're all going to die horribly.

 

[whytiger]

I believe that a fetus has a right to life and that a mother has a right to terminate her pregnancy. And I do not think that the right to terminate a pregnancy is equivalent to the right to kill the fetus since a fetus can be removed without killing it after a certain point in the pregnancy. Technology will determine when this point is reached so it will change over time, but in essence if a fetus can survive removal then both its right to life and the mother's right to terminate the pregnancy can be respected. If not, then the mother's right must be respected because the fetus is a part of her body like an appendage.

 

[Billy]

I believe that a fetus has a right to life and that a mother has a right to terminate her pregnancy. And I do not think that the right to terminate a pregnancy is equivalent to the right to kill the fetus since a fetus can be removed without killing it after a certain point in the pregnancy. Technology will determine when this point is reached so it will change over time, but in essence if a fetus can survive removal then both its right to life and the mother's right to terminate the pregnancy can be respected. If not, then the mother's right must be respected because the fetus is a part of her body like an appendage.

Actually its more like a parasite.

 

[Billy]

 

[Majesty]

I would say it's alright. A lot of animals kill their babies if they think they're not strong enough or if they can't take care of them. Heck, even cats do this (so 50% of this forum). Same goes for humans, we're not really different. If the mother is like 16 years old, this is definetly not old enough.

Yes it is killing. When you kill a mosquito, it's also killing, even if it's "just a bug".
It's the same again, if the baby is not developped enough so it wouldn't really be a real human, so it could be like "just a bug" too.

 

[Peppermint]

Yes it is killing. When you kill a mosquito, it's also killing, even if it's "just a bug".

I was thinking about something similar. Evidently human life is being put on a pedestal and assigned the highest value when compared to other living organisms. Everyday, we kill countless microorganisms, when cleaning, taking antibiotics, we kill (off) various plant and animal species, sometimes en masse, for human benefit or whim. In a more global sense, as species we're no more important than others that inhabit the planet, they all matter in supporting the ecosystem. (some people would even claim that humans are detrimental to nature as a species)

 

[yumiii]

I would say it's alright. A lot of animals kill their babies if they think they're not strong enough or if they can't take care of them. Heck, even cats do this (so 50% of this forum). Same goes for humans, we're not really different. If the mother is like 16 years old, this is definetly not old enough.

Yes it is killing. When you kill a mosquito, it's also killing, even if it's "just a bug".
It's the same again, if the baby is not developped enough so it wouldn't really be a real human, so it could be like "just a bug" too.

I like this analogy.
This is one of those questions that will always be debated somehow. There will always be people who will be for it, and there will always be some who will be against it.
It's such a gray area one can wonder if there was ever a black and white to begin with.

For me, it really depends on the situation.
Would the mother be able to provide for her baby to make it as happy and healthy as what it deserves, or would it just rot in poverty, bitterness, and sadness throughout its teen age life, possibly adulthood if it doesn't get out of said rot?
If it's the former, then go ahead, abort it. On the grounds of it living, that's true, sure. But really, so is everything else that is composed of cells. The reason I liked Royal's analogy was because what difference would it make in killing a fetus and in killing a bug? Just because that was a bug doesn't mean it wasn't living, it certainly didn't mean it didn't, or wouldn't have a life span, as short or unproductive as it would be compared to human's.
The mother can, of course, just opt for adoption if she won't go for abortion. You're still giving up on that life, only difference is that you're making it live.

Honestly, if a fetus was detected to have brain abnormality or some such thing, I think it'd be better to just end its life rather than making it suffer. I would certainly prefer to just be aborted anyway, if I was in that situation.
We can then argue that the fetus might actually want to live, but hey, if said fetus can't even think for itself during its lifespan, kind of pointless really.

You're just subjecting parent and child to suffering, either way.

 

[bamf]

I was thinking about something similar. Evidently human life is being put on a pedestal and assigned the highest value when compared to other living organisms. Everyday, we kill countless microorganisms, when cleaning, taking antibiotics, we kill (off) various plant and animal species, sometimes en masse, for human benefit or whim. In a more global sense, as species we're no more important than others that inhabit the planet, they all matter in supporting the ecosystem. (some people would even claim that humans are detrimental to nature as a species)

The world could most definitely survive without us. We are at the very top, and our extinction would probably be celebrated by nature. That is not to say we cannot coexist with the world around us, just the way we've been going for the past couple thousand years has made nature our enemy.

 

[Majesty]

I was thinking about something similar. Evidently human life is being put on a pedestal and assigned the highest value when compared to other living organisms. Everyday, we kill countless microorganisms, when cleaning, taking antibiotics, we kill (off) various plant and animal species, sometimes en masse, for human benefit or whim. In a more global sense, as species we're no more important than others that inhabit the planet, they all matter in supporting the ecosystem. (some people would even claim that humans are detrimental to nature as a species)

I agree with that 100%
You know those places where the dogs are extremly badly treated? Lots of them die, and sadly lots of people also say "Meh. They're just dog". And when one human dies, the same person starts saying that its absolutely horrible.
A lot of people also think humans are superior in everyway than other animals... Thats not true.
Jaguars walk faster. We suck at walking, that's why we needed cars. If jaguars couldn't run maybe they would have evolued into a different specie too. The world would've ended into some kind of World of Warcraft. xD
We can't fly. We can't do a lot of things. I'd write more, but you get the point.
We're not even that intelligent. We just live in a different way. Ants have a pretty awesome communauty

 

[Lilchamor]

Sorry if this point has already been brought up. I didn't have time to read through all of the other posts.

I am a humanitarian and a feminist. I plan on dedicating my life to fighting for the right of everyone, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, etc, to live in the best possible conditions and to have equal rights. That said, I am against abortion. I think that an unborn human fetus has the same rights as anyone else.

HOWEVER,

We can argue until we're blue in the face about when life begins, but that isn't the real issue. Outlawing abortion isn't the real answer. The real answer is striving for a more positive world that recognizes human equality. This means that if you're against abortion, you better buck up and be willing to pay the tax increases that will go toward funding all the children that are going to be born (many of them to poor, minority women who rely on government assistance). This means more sexual education in schools, to prevent pregnancies that lead to abortions in the first place. This means fighting for women's rights in America, and striving to put an end to sexual violence, so that abortion due to rape/incest will be less common. This means fighting for women's rights overseas and abroad, so that baby girls will not be aborted because their country views them as less worthy than boys.

In other words, if we focus on other issues, then abortions will naturally decrease. That's my stance.

 

[Cecilff2]

I was thinking about something similar. Evidently human life is being put on a pedestal and assigned the highest value when compared to other living organisms. Everyday, we kill countless microorganisms, when cleaning, taking antibiotics, we kill (off) various plant and animal species, sometimes en masse, for human benefit or whim. In a more global sense, as species we're no more important than others that inhabit the planet, they all matter in supporting the ecosystem. (some people would even claim that humans are detrimental to nature as a species)

Animals do the same. Foxes, if given the chance, will kill an entire group of chickens, eat one, and leave the others to rot. Completely unnecessary, but they still do it. Cats and dogs do it all the time. If a male lion comes across cubs that aren't his, it will kill and eat them. The only thing that makes humans different is they should have the restraint to not act on their impulses.

But they don't learn by being declared as enemies to the world. To be treated as terrible and called the same. People tend to have a mob or herd mentality, when each of the herd is already espousing doom and gloom the next one into the fold believes it and acts accordingly/similarly. Us VS them situations just leave things worse.

The world could most definitely survive without us. We are at the very top, and our extinction would probably be celebrated by nature. That is not to say we cannot coexist with the world around us, just the way we've been going for the past couple thousand years has made nature our enemy.

Unfortunately it also made some species completely dependant. But yeah if we suddenly disappeared, most of the earth's population would go on living.


Edit: Also agree with above post.

 

[Nixie]

Sorry if this point has already been brought up. I didn't have time to read through all of the other posts.

I am a humanitarian and a feminist. I plan on dedicating my life to fighting for the right of everyone, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, etc, to live in the best possible conditions and to have equal rights. That said, I am against abortion. I think that an unborn human fetus has the same rights as anyone else.

HOWEVER,

We can argue until we're blue in the face about when life begins, but that isn't the real issue. Outlawing abortion isn't the real answer. The real answer is striving for a more positive world that recognizes human equality. This means that if you're against abortion, you better buck up and be willing to pay the tax increases that will go toward funding all the children that are going to be born (many of them to poor, minority women who rely on government assistance). This means more sexual education in schools, to prevent pregnancies that lead to abortions in the first place. This means fighting for women's rights in America, and striving to put an end to sexual violence, so that abortion due to rape/incest will be less common. This means fighting for women's rights overseas and abroad, so that baby girls will not be aborted because their country views them as less worthy than boys.

In other words, if we focus on other issues, then abortions will naturally decrease. That's my stance.

(Bolded passages)?? Your statements don't exactly match your stated world view. Seems rather like a sweeping generalization toward minority women--brown/black = poor and pregnant.

 

[just me]

There is no difference, but there is a law of averages. Things do not just go away, either. All it takes is one person with enough noise to recreate a problem for others.

Can women on a very broad scale have two hearts? A born child is still part of the woman, is it not? Part of the man, too?

 

[acd]

(Bolded passages)?? Your statements don't exactly match your stated world view. Seems rather like a sweeping generalization toward minority women--brown/black = poor and pregnant.

I don't think it's a generalization that abortions occur more in minority populations...(which, unfortunately, still correlates with economic status here..)
But this is what I'm basing that off of: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html


I also agree with Lilchamor that if people were to focus on the social issues rather than outlawing abortion outright--we'd see a decrease anyways.. much more of a decrease than just banning them across the board.

 

[Nixie]

I don't think it's a generalization that abortions occur more in minority populations...(which, unfortunately, still correlates with economic status here..)
But this is what I'm basing that off of: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html


I also agree with Lilchamor that if people were to focus on the social issues rather than outlawing abortion outright--we'd see a decrease anyways.. much more of a decrease than just banning them across the board.

Actually the focus of my response was that humanitarians and (to a lesser degree) feminist philosophy is more concerned with a broader worldview. What harms others (or women) harms me, what helps others (or women) helps me. Someone who professes to be a humanitarian is more concerned with the things that are similiar rather than accentuating the differences or focusing on racial lines. Additionally I don't think a humanitarian would have such a negtative conotation toward government assistance because they would see the benefit of assisting those who need help without value judgements or a "if you don't support abortions, you better be ready to pony up more money because we will have a huge welfare state, that Oh by the way, is mostly made up of minority women who have children they can't afford because they are poor" statement. Ghandi was a humanitarian. Mother Theresa was a humanitiarian. The Dali Lama is a humantarian. It is a philosophy that seeks to understand and embrace that which binds us together, our shared humanity.

The veracity of the second statement was not the point. However, you are accurate in your description that such disparities are the result of generations (centuries) of economic disadvatages along racial lines that a mere 50 or so years of "Civil Rights" have yet to adequately counter balance.