Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mr Slayer

-Abortion-

727 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Poetic Reven

I have just spit on my moniter screen. As it no doubt contained cells capable of becoming an entire human being under the correct circumstances consider me to have just committed murder.

Come get me. :devil:

Well, the only cells capable of doing that are sperm and egg, and in order for you to be spittin them out, leave a huge gap that needs not to be explored. I'm done here, I've stated my point.

(note- I may or may not be sarcastic in this post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
donrobison

we need to abandon idealism when considering abortion, because the need for abortions come from non-ideal situations. Anyway, abortions will happen no matter what anyone says, non-abortion advocates fight a war which they cannot win! To be non-abortion, im sorry, is to live in a fantasy land. accept that abortions, child abandonment, does occur and will occur. I think the real discussion should be how to deal with the consequences of abortion, since it will inevitably occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

we need to abandon idealism when considering abortion, because the need for abortions come from non-ideal situations. Anyway, abortions will happen no matter what anyone says, non-abortion advocates fight a war which they cannot win! To be non-abortion, im sorry, is to live in a fantasy land. accept that abortions, child abandonment, does occur and will occur. I think the real discussion should be how to deal with the consequences of abortion, since it will inevitably occur.

Well, drug use will also continue to happen, murder will also continue to happen, theft will also continue to happen. That is not a very valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
demon_82

I'm sure there are viable reasons for abortion (product of rape, mother's health, etc), but it shouldn't be used because someone doesn't want to live up to their responsibilities and accept the consequences of their actions. If you don't feel you should have children, be responsible for yourself and use one of the many forms of contraception available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
donrobison

With regard to my previous statement and its rebuttle. What is not valid about the truth? Yes, it will continue to happen. as far as I see it this is the end of the arguement. The realization that we have no control over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

With regard to my previous statement and its rebuttle. What is not valid about the truth? Yes, it will continue to happen. as far as I see it this is the end of the arguement. The realization that we have no control over it.

Oh I completely agree that it is true that abortions will continue even if they are illegal.

Laws are not guarantees that something will not happen. Laws against murder have probably existed as long as human societies have, for the simple reason that murders happen.

Laws and the punishments meted out for violating them are intended to communicate the fact that society does not condone that action, thereby, possibly causing a person to hesitate and reconsider their actions, or if the act is still committed to provide a consistent, socially approved penalty for the event.

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions from happening, but it will communicate the fact that murder of an unborn, whether committed by a doctor with the full approval of the mother or whether committed by some crazed woman with a kitchen knife causing the mother's death in the process is not a socially approved action and will result in punishment.

The abortion argument has been extremely weakened by the fact that several murderers have now been tried for 2 counts of murder when they murdered a pregnant woman (notice they are not just feti any more). At this point legal abortion, is just a legal embarassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
donrobison

I hate to flood this thread but I have done research and I do know what I'm talking about.

www.abort73.com a website that is completely against abortion claims only 11 women die from legal abortions in 2000 in america. in mexico where abortion is illegal 70,000 women die a year from illegal abortions

http://www.kit.nl/frameset.asp?/ils/exchan...amp;frnr=1&

do you want:

a. x amout of fetuses to die

b. x amout of fetuses and women to die

c. im sorry there is no other realistic option

x amout of fetuses will die regardless of the legality/morality of the issue. persecuting the mothers accomplishes nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
artymoon

I personally don't agree with abortion. Concerning the country I live, who should hold the moral authority to uphold a decision in either way...9 justices of the Supreme Court or the American voters of the individual states? The fact is, the Supreme Court should have never made a decision like this (roe vs. wade), it should have been left up to the individual states and their voters. Whether or not you agree either way, when have you the voter been given an opportunity to really vote a position on this obviously important issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

I hate to flood this thread but I have done research and I do know what I'm talking about.

www.abort73.com a website that is completely against abortion claims only 11 women die from legal abortions in 2000 in america. in mexico where abortion is illegal 70,000 women die a year from illegal abortions

http://www.kit.nl/frameset.asp?/ils/exchan...amp;frnr=1&

do you want:

a. x amout of fetuses to die

b. x amout of fetuses and women to die

c. im sorry there is no other realistic option

x amout of fetuses will die regardless of the legality/morality of the issue. persecuting the mothers accomplishes nothing.

I am sure that millions of people still die as victims of murder. Should we just go ahead and legalize it? Maybe less people will die that way. Or since murder would no longer be a crime, then the statistics would change because we would go from 1,000,000 killed by murder to 0 killed by murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive
The abortion argument has been extremely weakened by the fact that several murderers have now been tried for 2 counts of murder when they murdered a pregnant woman (notice they are not just feti any more). At this point legal abortion, is just a legal embarassment.

legalized abortion as one option is a recognition of a women's status in society. Making abortion illegal not only says a woman does not have a say over her own body, but punishes those least able to care for an unplanned/unwanted child for those with the money will go to more evolved countries where they can get abortions legally and SAFELY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

legalized abortion as one option is a recognition of a women's status in society. Making abortion illegal not only says a woman does not have a say over her own body, but punishes those least able to care for an unplanned/unwanted child for those with the money will go to more evolved countries where they can get abortions legally and SAFELY.

We do not punish children in the same way we punish adults for the same crime, because it is assumed that children do not have the same maturity as adults. So, by allowing women to murder their unborn children are we not saying they are unequal to the men who ARE punished?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

fix your repressive laws then! :rolleyes:

let me throw something at you here:

the females of many species are able to spontaniously abort for reasons such as food shortages. Are you going to out and punish any animal that aborts? I doubt it, yet here you are taking the stance that you should have a say over the bodies of women. :blink:

I see in the other thread you like to eat meat. Do you care how those animals on your plate are treated, how they are killed? If you care so much about a FETUS that can not even yet feel pain you must be in tears over the treatment of animals. Are you?

As a "vegan" (actually that is an understatement) I have been asked how I can support a woman's right to choose. I answer that it is her body, her choice. "Would you prefer a return of infanticide?" So I am curious as to your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

the females of many species are able to spontaniously abort for reasons such as food shortages. Are you going to out and punish any animal that aborts? I doubt it, yet here you are taking the stance that you should have a say over the bodies of women. :blink:

Human females do this too, we call them miscarriage. I would never consider miscarriages in the same way that I do abortions.

I see in the other thread you like to eat meat. Do you care how those animals on your plate are treated, how they are killed? If you care so much about a FETUS that can not even yet feel pain you must be in tears over the treatment of animals. Are you?

They are not humans, I frankly couldn't care less. And I am not sure you can prove that an unborn child does not feel pain. In fact that even plants can feel pain would give me pause in believing that unborn humans do not feel pain

As a "vegan" (actually that is an understatement) I have been asked how I can support a woman's right to choose. I answer that it is her body, her choice. "Would you prefer a return of infanticide?" So I am curious as to your views.

I support a woman's right to choose too. She can choose to keep her legs closed, and in those unfortunate events when that choice is taken from her, she can choose to raise her child or give it away. She can also choose to commit murder, but like a true equal, she should have to pay for that crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Ah geez Son, let me guess you think women are inferior to man i bet too????and gays are a abomination.....and loving a child would spoil them???and that babies should be left to cry it out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Ah geez Son, let me guess you think women are inferior to man i bet too????and gays are a abomination.....and loving a child would spoil them???and that babies should be left to cry it out....

Actually, quite the opposite, Sympa.

I believe women are equal to men, obviously not the same (usually the physical differences are quite obvious), but completely equal in intellect, spirituality, and capacity to make decisions and accept the results of those decisions.

I believe gays are simply sinners just like me. The only issue I have with them is that I would never ask that someone accept my sins as a respectable part of my lifestyle.

I love my children inmensely, I would not only die for them, but I would kill for them too, and they are not spoiled (well, not much)

Babies sometimes do need to cry it out, but a responsible parent first insures they are not pooped, hungry, feverish, or being pinched by a piece of clothing or being attacked by some insect.

Please stop trying to make me out to be some sort of idiot caveman, I am far from it.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Wow! This thread generated a lot of discusssion in a few days. I wonder why? First i am a man, and second, my ideas have changed as i got older, and perhaps more conservative, however they have not correlated with any religious beliefs or lack of them over the years.

premise 1. Unborn children are just as human as males or females. This is particularly true where it can be shown that they are conscious ie. respond to stimuli, and an absolute consideration once they are capable of living outside the womb if "forced to"

premise 2 Their rights should be equal to, but not exceed the rights of people who exist outside the womb.

Premise 3 Some rights are greater than others.

Premise 4 The right to life is the greatest of these rights, particularly where that life is not inhibited by extreme physical or mental defects.

Given the logic inherent in these premises, Laws need to be made that give a lot more protection to unborn children, while still protecting the rights of the mother, and to a lesser degree the father. (While the child is a product of both parents the fact that it is carried more or less as a part of the mother for some time needs to be taken into account)

Thus the paramount right is that of the child to life, except where this would physically harm the health of the mother, and even then a non-mortal risk to the mother should not out weigh the child's right to life. If society decides that severely handicapped children also have this right to life, then it must provide for the children, if that is the parent's desire. Rape etc is not a reason that overrides the child's basic right to life, but children from this sort of scenario should be well provided for by the state, if there is no relative prepared to love them. The fact that many women die from illegal abortions is not in itself a factor which justifies legalising abortion. Whether you argue the point that, in countries like australia where abortion is legalised most abortions are neither recorded nor counted as such, making the comparison of statistics imposssible, you cannot trade off one evil for a greater one. Women's rights have come a long way and justifiably so. Part of the reason for this is the economic power of women and their social/political eloquence. Unborn children have few people to speak for them. Their political/economic power is largely unrecognised. However, as countries all round the developed world slip below replacement birthrates and governments offer thousands of dollars for a child, this may change. Many countries face the choice of restoring birthrates or vastly increasing migration, which as history shows, comes with recognised social and economic consequences.Finally, the hypocrisy which sickens me the most is one that for all the reasons mentioned above, allows unrestricted abortion and yet sees the use of human embryos to save both the lives and the health of others as "unethical" It shows quite clearly that the debate is not really about principles but rather a largely emotional one driven by self interest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rhyknow

OK, well i might get my head bitten off for this post... but here's what i beleive...

I beleive it should be a woman's choice what to do... Say if a woman is raped... well... she may not want to live for nine months with a child growing inside her, that was conceived under such terrible circumstances... if abortion is made illegal, it'll still go on... but women'll go to terrible mesures to do it. I.E. hurting themselves... however if it is legal, there are clinics where PROFESSIONALS can do it, therefore not harming the woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poetic Reven

Abortion defies the US's very own bill of rights. Yanno, where they say LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as some of human's NATURAL rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sthenno

Woah…should really have logged on over the weekend – this threads gone nuts!

Yet again I keep seeing the same problem again: people stating their own opinion as if it is the only one, as if it is fact.

For example, Iamson, you say that homosexuals are sinners like you, and they are wrong for wanting you to accept their sins as a respectable lifestyle. But it is only a sin to you because of what you believe. If they do not believe the same, nor believe they are sinning, why shouldn’t they see their lifestyle as respectable and not something to be hidden away?

Arbiter, of course human’s have a natural right to life, but how do you define at what point a foetus is a life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poetic Reven

Woah…should really have logged on over the weekend – this threads gone nuts!

Yet again I keep seeing the same problem again: people stating their own opinion as if it is the only one, as if it is fact.

For example, Iamson, you say that homosexuals are sinners like you, and they are wrong for wanting you to accept their sins as a respectable lifestyle. But it is only a sin to you because of what you believe. If they do not believe the same, nor believe they are sinning, why shouldn’t they see their lifestyle as respectable and not something to be hidden away?

Arbiter, of course human’s have a natural right to life, but how do you define at what point a foetus is a life?

Lets look at the definition of life, shall we?

Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to cool off. --of couse you'd be dumb to say fetus's dont do this. EDIT: and some people are dumb, I was reffering to homeostasis, not sweating

Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Production of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. --Fetus's are always multicellulr, you cant convince me otherwise.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. --oh they grow alright.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. --tests have shown that fetus's do respond to stimuli

Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. --they may not be able to do this yet, but neither can anyone who hasnt reached puberty yet, so this is a given.

Trust me, life begings at fertilisation.

Edited by Arbiter22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sthenno

The first two lines say all that need to be said –

“Let’s look at the definition of life

There is no universal definition of life”

So how can there a universal law on abortion?

Just because something exhibits some of the signs attributed to life does not mean that it exhibits all of them, thus exhibiting some signs alone is not enough to define something as ‘life’. A plant can grow, reproduce, respond to stimuli etc. I do not count a plant as a life. It is alive, of course, but that is not the same as being ‘a life’.

Life beginning at fertilisation is again just your opinion, some people hold others. Because the idea of what constitutes a life differs so much, because much of it relates to belief as well as biology, and because many things – such as whether or not a foetus can feel pain – will never be known for sure, the fairest way is to let people make their own decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poetic Reven

The first two lines say all that need to be said –

“Let’s look at the definition of life

There is no universal definition of life”

So how can there a universal law on abortion?

Just because something exhibits some of the signs attributed to life does not mean that it exhibits all of them, thus exhibiting some signs alone is not enough to define something as ‘life’. A plant can grow, reproduce, respond to stimuli etc. I do not count a plant as a life. It is alive, of course, but that is not the same as being ‘a life’.

Life beginning at fertilisation is again just your opinion, some people hold others. Because the idea of what constitutes a life differs so much, because much of it relates to belief as well as biology, and because many things – such as whether or not a foetus can feel pain – will never be known for sure, the fairest way is to let people make their own decisions.

Well, lets play a slightly different game. Say you didnt know it, but you were the result of an unwanted pregnancy. Now imagine you are as happy as all let out. Now, keep that in your head. Imagine your mother contemplated on ABORTING you. How would you feel then? Of course you'd be fully against it. But you say that its alright. Look at it from all points of view, not just your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sthenno

I wouldn’t be ‘against’ it, no. I would be glad that she made that decision, of course, but had she made that decision it wouldn’t be something I’d be around to comment on. Against it is the wrong term though, I am not against people having the freedom to choose, and never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poetic Reven

I wouldn’t be ‘against’ it, no. I would be glad that she made that decision, of course, but had she made that decision it wouldn’t be something I’d be around to comment on. Against it is the wrong term though, I am not against people having the freedom to choose, and never will be.

Freedom of choice stops when a life (human, no less) is in the balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sthenno

I’ll try again, because no one seems to be getting this. I personally do not believe a foetus in the early stages of development is tantamount to a life. Neither do many people. Neither does the law (at least here in the UK – not sure what US laws are). Not just you, Arbiter, but so many people here and stating “it’s taking a life” over and over again without seeming to realise that this is only in their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.