Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Coma and vegative are not the same.

Those things are not human.

Sorry, Gorman, but you don't know what you're talking about.

People often emerge from a coma into a vegetative state and then progress to full recovery.
A vegetative state is less severe than a coma, and is not final.

There is no way to know, apart from the reports of those who have recovered, what awareness a person on a vegetative state has.

A person in a vegetative state is still a human.

Originally posted by Serizawa
Most of the women are not raped so an easy way to avoid abortion is to keep your damn draws on. Mind over matter. Or sterilize yourself.....Period.

It takes two to tango. That is an utterly absurd assertion not worthy of a cogent reply.

I'm ready for round two of my grilling

I woudn't waste the match.

reply to post by Kailassa


reply to post by Gorman91


Braindead is the word relevant to abortion debate.

Coma and vegetative state are more like extended sleep combined with disability. These patients are not braindead, and altough there is some controversy, I do not think it is moral to kill or harm them.

On the other hand, braindead patients are routinely killed or used for transplantations, because altough biologically alive, their higher brain is irreversibly destroyed, and so they lack human rights stemming from our brain. Just like embryos and early fetuses.

reply to post by MMPI2


good article but i dont see abortions by a race as considered a genocide because the fetus was never born

genocides are like what happened in Rwanda, Bosnia, all of Europe and Asia durning the 30's and 40's, what happened to the Native Americans in the 1800's, what happened to the Aztecs durning the 1600's thses are all examples of genocide

just because one particular race is having more abortions then another doesnt count as being a genocide

Originally posted by Serizawa
Most of the women are not raped so an easy way to avoid abortion is to keep your damn draws on. Mind over matter. Or sterilize yourself.....Period.

OK. Totally logical. Now, in 2011, we will expect everyone to abstain from sex. Period. Or, of course, be sterilized.

Other posters point towards what God thinks, which, I'm sorry, whether I'm religious or not, what God thinks can not be held as evidence for or against anything.

Health of Mother: Abortion OK
Serious deformity which will severely shorten the child's life: Abortion OK
Rape: Abortion OK
Incest: Abortion OK
One Night Stand: Grey area. Many factors to think about. As posted already by someone else. Divorced, made a mistake, several children already, up to 6 months off work, stress on mother, stress on other children, funds taken away from the household. Good of the many.... Or even in instances where the mother is aware she can not care for a child but can not bear to give her child away and will keep it even though she can not properly provide, support, or care for the child abortion may be the best for the child. (I know you've heard about your everyday crackhead who refused adoption and should have aborted her child instead of having several only to starve them, torture them, and chop them into pieces before putting them in a plastic box in the basement.)
As a regular form of birth control: Absolutely not OK

Point: When you are in a situation when you are pregnant and abortion may be your best or only option. Then, and only then, should your opinion matter. In almost all cases the decision to abort is not an easy one to make. In the grand scheme of things many abortions are not selfish but devestating to the mother and father (if he's around) and likely the best thing for the unborn child.

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by byteshertz

 

But I know you know this and wanted to trip me up - hence the star

thanks for the star but - HUH?

ps -

we have established abortion itself is not wrong

we have?

edit on 24-2-2011 by MMPI2 because: (no reason given)

Got to agree with your last two words. This thread has shown there are several views on the subject and that.... there are several views on the subject.

'Wrong' is a really contentious word to use for subject matter that generates strong emotion by holders of all views. If it's legal to abort up to a certain stage, then it's legal. That doesn't make it 'right', nor does it make it 'wrong' to do so, just makes it legal.

I'm not sure what my views are on the subject but I certainly think that fanatical pro-lifers that attack clinics and their staff have in my mind no moral right (and certainly no legal right) to do so if the clinic is performing abortions within legal constraints.

Originally posted by byteshertz

Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by byteshertz

 

I thought you told me not to post up my OPINIONS and start posting FACTS! What better to quote then biology books? I'm no expert in the matter, I do not try to act like one.........But I do know for a fact that the authors of the book have greater knowledge on the subject then you or I.

As you have proven - just because you can quote fact does not mean your understanding of those facts are correct - all your quotes were 100% accurate and then misinterpreted by you which makes your assumption that when they say "they begining of the human being" they mean the begining of the human life - 100% wrong.
If the answer was that easy then there would be no trouble proving in a court of law that abortion is murder - but it is not possible to pinpoint where life begins so it is therefore no murder - because murder means to kill with intention and you can not kill something that does not have life.

The question you are posing is philosphical and the answer is dependent on your point of view, not even particularly from a moral, religeous or scientific standpoint. Laws in different countries/states/regions dictate at which point abortion ceases to be legal and any possible caveats to this. This doesn't presuppose that life doesn't exist before this point, but that it is classed as legal to take it.

You ask when life begins. You will get different answers to this. A heartbeat is a fairly obvious one. What about sensory awareness? What about tummy kicks?

Originally posted by jennybee35
I would like an answer to this question, also.

How can someone be charged with murder of an unborn child? If under our current laws a "fetus' is not a human being with rights, how is this justified:

charged with murder of unborn baby

man charged with baby murder

I only provided two links, the last one shows how many states have a statute or law against murder of unborn humans. The google search returned 35, 000 results for "man charged with murder of unborn baby."

How do you justify the law deciding that these were humans with their own rights and still claim that an unborn child can be ripped to pieces and vaccumed out of the womb?

edit on 2/24/11 by jennybee35 because: spelling!

The glib view is that these murders weren't carried out by people licensed by the state to do so. Sorry to sound cynical (and I don't hold massively strong views either way on abortion so don't write me off as being biased).

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by byteshertz

 

When ever you terminate a living being whether in the womb or alive it is murder.

They are a person even at conception, no ifs ands or buts.

But hay all the people for abortion are alive.

A beached whale has a greater chance of survival than an unborn child.

If there are no ifs and or buts about it, why is there even a debate?


Oh, right, because that is an opinion, not a fact, and one that is not backed up with any.

But this will always be a matter of opinion. Everyone on here and probably everyone everywhere will have their opinion on this, all prefaced by their own caveats, and why is that a bad thing? As long as at the same time it's acknowledged that there are laws currently in place that prescribe circumstances, and they are respected (doesn't mean they can't be challenged using the appropriate methods - ie, through court, not by bullet) then what is the problem?

Originally posted by byteshertz
reply to post by Dendro

 

Yeah - I mean shot myself in the foot in the sense that now I have destroyed the opposing argument the thread isnt going to get much attention

No, actually, I just found the thread, it's more interesting than the umpteen 'is this a UFO' ones that usually jump up. You proved your opinion, others have proved their opinion. So you have several opinions but you seem to think (for the moment at least) that yours is the right one.

Originally posted by Dendro
This is an article from my philosophy class.

A Defense of Abortion - JJ Thomson

Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.

She presents you with some hypothetical situations/thought experiments.

edit on 25-2-2011 by Dendro because: Forgot about external

Philosophy. good point, because that is the root of this. Not science as such but ones own individual stance, and I'm sure you can find a standpoint from others that opposes the information you have kindly provided.

Starring and flagging.

This is a difficult topic and one I have never personally addressed. I took the correct precautions and a couple times I got lucky. I believe that abortion should be avoided when possible and when not possible, kept safe and legal to protect the lives that already exist.

I was harassed by anti-abortion protesters when I went to get my birth control method so that I would not have to make that painful decision. Many women I know have gone through the procedure. Only one regretted it.

I hope to be a mother someday, but not yet. I'm not in a relationship or married and I want to get that sorted out first. This is my decision. No one is going to take that away from me.

reply to post by foreshadower99


Did anyone see the article today on WND about the two little boys who had a near-death experiences? They have both written top-selling books on their experiences in heaven....and one of the boys met his sister who had miscarried. He had never been told about the fetus that died, but he met her in heaven. This would indicate that a fetus does indeed have a soul. Great article and it lends support to the idea that heaven is real....Other near-death experiences have relayed stories of hell --- those people changed their lives and turned to God.

reply to post by Kailassa


You are correct. I was raised with it meaning brain dead. Brain dead is what I was speaking for test subjects. Not people whom still have brain activity. And in which case, I think they deserve to stay alive because of their potenital to come back.

They are human. They have the same potential and the same rights.

reply to post by caf1550


im not sure that i agree with you. if i was a real fascist sociopath like say...hmmm...henry kissinger, for example... abortion might be the best way to eliminate a huge segment of the "useless eaters" that are the target of my social engineering plans.

the cool thing about the hypothetical 'kissinger abortion-genocide plan" is that it doesn't involve killing adult humans en masse via standard methods (i.e., bullets to the back of the head, gas chambers, etc). It thus eliminates the possibility of those nasty forensic exhumations and troublesome genocide trials in front of the united nations.

and remember...all that really counts is the desired end result - a massive reduction in a specific segment of the population. How we get there is immaterial. Being Henry Kissinger, it ultimately doesn't matter if these mass murders are carried out with small caliber firearms or dilation and cutterage instruments...just as long as they are dead and not using up valuable limited resources that should be saved for us and our chosen elite.

and think further...if we were a fascist sociopath like henry kissinger, just take a minute to understand how much pride and admiration in ourselves that we have masterminded, facilitated and fostered the elimination of entire generations of "useless eaters' without really lifting a finger. muhahahahahaha!! we didn't even have to work hard at it! all we had to do was get the idiot sheeple to believe that killing their would-be children is a constitutional right! and that it is a viable method of contraception! and that it should be available upon demand!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

reply to post by kinda kurious


Yes. and when that tango is going to lead to a life, stop dancing and accept what you've done.

reply to post by Gorman91


I can agree so long as members quit blaming only the female for allowing herself to "get pregnant." That is what I keep seeing here. A troubling new take on "blaming the victim" by religious zealots.

reply to post by Gorman91


Fine, if there really were two to tango then there would be a reduction in abortions... I'd say by half.

Abortion statistics

On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

I'm coming up to 23 years on this planet and never once have I had any contact with my biological father or sperm donor as seems appropriate.

reply to post by kinda kurious


You blame whoever failed to use common sense. Whichever gender is irrelevant. But the life formed from that has full rights

reply to post by Dendro


So you want a daddy? Find one. That's not a reason to kill.