89 replies to this topic

[Simbi Laveau]

mindpurge, on 15 November 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

I'm pro-life in all cases, I don't believe that abortion should be used as contraceptive... even for a 14 year old. This is why they have adoption agencies.

The ONLY TIME I believe it's a feasible option, is under 2 circumstances:

1. Mother will die
2. Baby is severely retarded or deformed

I don't believe a woman should have the right to kill their baby in any other case even rape (again, this is why they have adoption agencies... it's not the babies fault), and I believe that if you do, you're no better than a murdering psychopath... and furthermore you should be locked up.

You *stole* my avatar ...how rude

[Alienated Being]

I really don't care. It is their life and their body, so they can do as they wish. Frankly, I would much rather see a mother abort a child that was the result of a rape than to see that child grow up feeling unloved. Putting a child up for adoption, also, could have extremely negative implications, especially if it is adopted into a home where they become sexually abused.

This topic is also in the incorrect forum. I do not see how this pertains to "Spirituality v. Skepticism". This is more of a "Philosophy and Psychology"-oriented topic.

Edited by Alienated Being, 15 November 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[Seeker79]

Simbi Laveau, on 15 November 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

You *stole* my avatar ...how rude

You change your avatar once a week

[Imaginarynumber1]

I just don't care in anymore. Abort whomever you want.

Spoiler

What's the difference between a pile of aborted fetuses and a Lamborghini?

Spoiler

I don't have a Lamborghini in my garage....

[Simbi Laveau]

Seeker79, on 16 November 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

You change your avatar once a week

No,more like every three days .I'm trying to keep up with Eldorado and Hasina here ..don't harsh my mellow ...and its still no excuse to not at least ASK ,can I have the avatar a friend made for your old LiveJournal ,like TEN YEARS AGO . Rude.....just rrruuuddeee .Terrible forum etiquette .tut tut

[Mr Walker]

Hazrus, on 15 November 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but who are you to tell others they cannot?

Some tigers eat their young and some humans abort theirs, neither of which affects you or me in the slightest.

The  unnecessary death of every human being;  unborn, young or old, offends me and hurts me. It is, inherently and logically, no more ethical or moral to kill an unborn child than to kill one a week old, or to kill a ninety year old.

The problem is a practical one. An unborn child is biologically attached to its mother who is necessary for its survival . In turn the baby can affect the mothers physical and psychological health.

That puts two unique individuals into a potential conflict of interest.

The most ethical and logical  solution is to assign proportional rights to both individuals. As an existing adult human, a woman has certain basic rights. So does an unborn child, albeit lesser in law and in reality because it is a biologically dependent entity rather than an entirely independent one..

The "trick" is balancing those  rights in the best interests of both individuals.  While pregnant, a woman's body is not just  her own. She is also the host of a second unique and individual human being who will, with time and fortune, become a human being just like her. Tigers kill other tigers. humans kill other humans.
Murder does not affect me personally. Are you saying i have no right to comment on the morality of murder, or  work to prevent one adult human being killing another just because it "doesn't affect me"?
Abortion doesn't affect me personally either, but i have the same rights to comment on it, and to work towards establishing legal and ethical frameworks to regulate it.

[Jinxdom]

As a 'contraceptive method' to unwanted pregnancies.

Is this the whole morning after pill included in this or not? because the whole morning after pill isn't an abortion regardless of how many bibles and pro-lifers you try to throw at it.

[Seeker79]

Jinxdom, on 16 November 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

As a 'contraceptive method' to unwanted pregnancies.

Is this the whole morning after pill included in this or not? because the whole morning after pill isn't an abortion regardless of how many bibles and pro-lifers you try to throw at it.

That's not really abortion more like being on the pill.

[Beckys_Mom]

Jinxdom, on 16 November 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

As a 'contraceptive method' to unwanted pregnancies.

Is this the whole morning after pill included in this or not? because the whole morning after pill isn't an abortion regardless of how many bibles and pro-lifers you try to throw at it.

I took the morning after pill twice  ..Back when Gary and I  did  not want kids... That is one hateful pill to take, made me throw up ...

[Beany]

Women have been dealing with unwanted pregnancies for thousands of year, and will continue to do so despite whatever restrictive laws might be passed. Any way, why aren't we talking about the causes of unwanted pregnancies instead of the results? Why aren't we talking about sex education, free or cheap contraceptives, tougher child support enforcement, tougher sentencing for sex and child abusers, how we can support the mothers and their babies? Why aren't we focusing on solutions instead of insisting on making moral arguments? Reframing the question might result in practical, workable, solutions that moral arguments will likely never accomplish.

Edited by Beany, 17 November 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[Sthenno]

One thing genuinely puzzles me about the people who are completely opposed to abortion except in the case of it endangering the life of the mother. So, what, you believe that a foetus is the same as a baby and killing it is morally abhorrent, but if the mother is likely to die otherwise then that's OK? Where is the line on that? Does it then follow that it would be completely appropriate for a mother to send her newborn child into surgery because she needed it's kidney? What if a mother doesn't have enough food for her and her son and will starve to death if she has to feed both. Is it then OK to murder the child? I just don't get the logic...

[Rlyeh]

Sthenno, on 17 November 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

One thing genuinely puzzles me about the people who are completely opposed to abortion except in the case of it endangering the life of the mother. So, what, you believe that a foetus is the same as a baby and killing it is morally abhorrent, but if the mother is likely to die otherwise then that's OK? Where is the line on that? Does it then follow that it would be completely appropriate for a mother to send her newborn child into surgery because she needed it's kidney? What if a mother doesn't have enough food for her and her son and will starve to death if she has to feed both. Is it then OK to murder the child? I just don't get the logic...

So you don't get that the mother's body is inherently her own?

[Sthenno]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

So you don't get that the mother's body is inherently her own?

I get that, sure. What puzzles me is people who are completely anti-abortion, believing a foetus is a person with just as much right to live as you are I, but are then happy to suspend that right if the mother's health is at risk.

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

So you don't get that the mother's body is inherently her own?

The mother's body may be; but the baby inside her is NOT, biologically,  a part of her own body. It is an independent biological entity feeding from her for 9 months before separating from her. She does not logically have the same rights over that entity as she does over her own body. But there is a logical argument that her own health as an adult citizen has a higher priority than that of an unborn child.

Immediately the child is born, of course, they enjoy the same priority of legal protection, even if still umbillically attached. Smother a child after it has taken its first breath, and you are a murderer, whether you are its mother or not.

[Rlyeh]

What definition of independent are you using?

Mr Walker, on 17 November 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

She does not logically have the same rights over that entity as she does over her own body.

Logically then she can still have it removed, as it is her body. To come to your conclusion you've got to ignore the fact she must give up her body.

Quote

Immediately the child is born, of course, they enjoy the same priority of legal protection, even if still umbillically attached. Smother a child after it has taken its first breath, and you are a murderer, whether you are its mother or not.

Unless it offended God.

Edited by Rlyeh, 17 November 2012 - 09:01 AM.