Why abortion is wrong.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by cartman
An unborn baby at 20 weeks is capable of feeling pain. Have you not seen the videos of abortion, whereby the baby does everything to get away from the item that abortionists use to crush the babies skull?
In fact, babies at 20 weeks feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.
Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:
Three main methods are used to kill the unborn baby. They are as follows:
And you want to tell me this is not immoral and the baby doesn't suffer? And in regards to your ability to suffer, what about those who can't feel pain? Are they less of a human being, and therefore should be killed?
In fact, babies at 20 weeks feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.
Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:
•
The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days
•
Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that “thinking” is taking place in the brain.
•
The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days.
•
All organs are functioning—stomach, liver, kidney, brain—and all systems are intact at 56 days.
•
By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches.
Three main methods are used to kill the unborn baby. They are as follows:
•
Partial-birth abortion (D&X): The unborn baby is delivered feet first, except for the head, which is punctured at the base of the skull with a sharp object. The brain is then suctioned out, killing the child. (This method was outlawed in the United States in 2007.)
•
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist and tear the baby’s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.
•
Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother’s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child’s entire body.
And you want to tell me this is not immoral and the baby doesn't suffer? And in regards to your ability to suffer, what about those who can't feel pain? Are they less of a human being, and therefore should be killed?
Sure, if the fetus is conscious and can register pain, then conducting an abortion past this point could be interpreted as somewhat cruel, especially if there are no medical needs for doing so (safety of the mother etc.). Nothing I wrote contradicts anything you have just said.
But as for people who can't feel pain, they are of course conscious and have lives that they live. And I didn't say anything that can't feel pain should be killed. Are you a crazy person?
Original post by cartman
Well if a foetus has an heartbeat then I would say that is a human being. You seem to think because the foetus is dependant upon the mother then that means it's not a human being? That's like saying people in care homes are not people because they're can't look after themselves. Or people on life support are not human because they can't support themselves. It's absurd logic.
Since you've asked me, why don't you give me your definition of human life?
Since you've asked me, why don't you give me your definition of human life?
That's a bad definition, as the heart beats far before the circulatory system develops. Cardiac function also doesn't mean there is any neurological function and I think that neurological function is probably the most important factor in being "human".
People in care homes can survive without being biologically attached to another human being. Example: if somebody survives by drinking only breast milk of Selena Gomez, and refuses to provide their nutrients any other way, she is not morally obliged to allow this person to drink her breast milk to keep them alive. The situation of an embryo is similar: the conceptus cannot survive without biological attachment to the mother. Logically, I think, if the cells of the embryo are biologically dependent on the mother, it makes sense to consider them one biological individual and not two.
I don't believe, even if the conceptus is considered to be a 'human', that that person has a human right to use the mother's body. The mother has a right to control how people use her body and if the result is that the person cannot continue biological life, so be it. That only seems cold because it's an emotionally charged topic. Of course I feel sorry that potential people 'die' in abortion. Ideally we would all be pro-choice AND pro-life, so that women could somehow implant their conceptuses into other consenting women. However I put logic above emotion and so I can recognize that the wishes of the living woman outweigh the future wishes of her conceptus. The argument of potential life also gets moved back to contraception and in the extreme case it would be considered immoral at any point not to have sex because of the potential life. Yes, this is an exaggeration of the argument, but the same principles apply. At what point does it change from being a ridiculous viewpoint (not having constant sex is immoral) to a logical viewpoint (killing the embryo is immoral)? Conception? That's just arbitrary.
I won't provide a definition of human life, because it's not relevant to my argument for abortion. It's relevant to YOUR argument against abortion, hence why you need to provide the definition you wish to work under. I'm utilitarian meaning that I don't justify abortion on grounds of 'abortion is killing a human' but that 'the good of abortion outweighs the bad'.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Hypocrism
That's a bad definition, as the heart beats far before the circulatory system develops. Cardiac function also doesn't mean there is any neurological function and I think that neurological function is probably the most important factor in being "human".
People in care homes can survive without being biologically attached to another human being. Example: if somebody survives by drinking only breast milk of Selena Gomez, and refuses to provide their nutrients any other way, she is not morally obliged to allow this person to drink her breast milk to keep them alive. The situation of an embryo is similar: the conceptus cannot survive without biological attachment to the mother. Logically, I think, if the cells of the embryo are biologically dependent on the mother, it makes sense to consider them one biological individual and not two.
I don't believe, even if the conceptus is considered to be a 'human', that that person has a human right to use the mother's body. The mother has a right to control how people use her body and if the result is that the person cannot continue biological life, so be it. That only seems cold because it's an emotionally charged topic. Of course I feel sorry that potential people 'die' in abortion. Ideally we would all be pro-choice AND pro-life, so that women could somehow implant their conceptuses into other consenting women. However I put logic above emotion and so I can recognize that the wishes of the living woman outweigh the future wishes of her conceptus. The argument of potential life also gets moved back to contraception and in the extreme case it would be considered immoral at any point not to have sex because of the potential life. Yes, this is an exaggeration of the argument, but the same principles apply. At what point does it change from being a ridiculous viewpoint (not having constant sex is immoral) to a logical viewpoint (killing the embryo is immoral)? Conception? That's just arbitrary.
I won't provide a definition of human life, because it's not relevant to my argument for abortion. It's relevant to YOUR argument against abortion, hence why you need to provide the definition you wish to work under. I'm utilitarian meaning that I don't justify abortion on grounds of 'abortion is killing a human' but that 'the good of abortion outweighs the bad'.
People in care homes can survive without being biologically attached to another human being. Example: if somebody survives by drinking only breast milk of Selena Gomez, and refuses to provide their nutrients any other way, she is not morally obliged to allow this person to drink her breast milk to keep them alive. The situation of an embryo is similar: the conceptus cannot survive without biological attachment to the mother. Logically, I think, if the cells of the embryo are biologically dependent on the mother, it makes sense to consider them one biological individual and not two.
I don't believe, even if the conceptus is considered to be a 'human', that that person has a human right to use the mother's body. The mother has a right to control how people use her body and if the result is that the person cannot continue biological life, so be it. That only seems cold because it's an emotionally charged topic. Of course I feel sorry that potential people 'die' in abortion. Ideally we would all be pro-choice AND pro-life, so that women could somehow implant their conceptuses into other consenting women. However I put logic above emotion and so I can recognize that the wishes of the living woman outweigh the future wishes of her conceptus. The argument of potential life also gets moved back to contraception and in the extreme case it would be considered immoral at any point not to have sex because of the potential life. Yes, this is an exaggeration of the argument, but the same principles apply. At what point does it change from being a ridiculous viewpoint (not having constant sex is immoral) to a logical viewpoint (killing the embryo is immoral)? Conception? That's just arbitrary.
I won't provide a definition of human life, because it's not relevant to my argument for abortion. It's relevant to YOUR argument against abortion, hence why you need to provide the definition you wish to work under. I'm utilitarian meaning that I don't justify abortion on grounds of 'abortion is killing a human' but that 'the good of abortion outweighs the bad'.
Answer this question:
If your mother was going to have an abortion, and it was you that she was thinking of aborting, would you stand by your arguments?
Original post by Hypocrism
Doesn't do anything for me. How can you not see that killing 6 million Jews is different from terminating a growth of cells which had no feelings?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Jews were considered sub-humans by the Nazis and were killed. Babies are butchered in the uterus of thousands every day because they are just considered cells when they will grow up to be contributing people of society with feelings and dreams and ambitions.
Abortion is purely selfish. I do not buy any argument that the child will not have a good life. How can anyone even begin to presuppose whether a life will be good or not. We aren't psychics.
Justin Bieber's mother wanted to abort him, when he was young, but her Christianity led her to change her mind and keep the baby. Listen, I don't like his music, but you just cannot say that anybody is just not going to have a good life as an excuse to abort them.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100200108/the-guardian-jokes-about-justin-bieber-being-aborted-how-low-can-it-sink/
PS: Tell the 30000 plus who liked that video how killing 6 million Jews is not in many ways linked to the sinister destructive massacres that are abortions.
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/rebekah8363/
Original post by Aristocles123
I watched it and I'm still pro-choice, sorry. But very interesting nonetheless
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
What in particular was interesting? And what in particular did you not agree with?
7 or 8 people on the street all putting their pro-choice views across, getting owned by the person doing the documentary, then each completely changing their impression on the entire issue.
(edited 11 years ago)
I don't think abortion is wrong.
1. It's the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world, why should she?
2. Life doesn't actually begin until the baby is born. A foetus has a heart beat yes, but it does not breathe and does not think for itself. Hence, in my opinion, it is not alive.
3. There is an argument that you could give the child up, but there is no garuntee that the child would be adopted. This could lead to the child being in and out of foster/ care homes all its life, when care homes are already overcrowded.
4. What if a woman had a child when she was young, and when said child was grown up, the mother fell pregnant again. Say, she doesn't want to start raising a child all over again, she's older, doesn't have the energy to raise a child, perhaps she has a career that she wants to put first. Is it fair to bring a child into the world like that?
A foetus is a ball of cells purely dependant on the woman carrying it. A ball of cells is not a baby until the late stages of pregnancy and is not alive until it is born.
I also don't get why people are comparing abortion to Hitler's genicide of the Jews. They are completely different situations.
And just FYI: Hitler's mother considered abortion. Many lives could have been saved by her aborting one little ball of cells.
1. It's the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world, why should she?
2. Life doesn't actually begin until the baby is born. A foetus has a heart beat yes, but it does not breathe and does not think for itself. Hence, in my opinion, it is not alive.
3. There is an argument that you could give the child up, but there is no garuntee that the child would be adopted. This could lead to the child being in and out of foster/ care homes all its life, when care homes are already overcrowded.
4. What if a woman had a child when she was young, and when said child was grown up, the mother fell pregnant again. Say, she doesn't want to start raising a child all over again, she's older, doesn't have the energy to raise a child, perhaps she has a career that she wants to put first. Is it fair to bring a child into the world like that?
A foetus is a ball of cells purely dependant on the woman carrying it. A ball of cells is not a baby until the late stages of pregnancy and is not alive until it is born.
I also don't get why people are comparing abortion to Hitler's genicide of the Jews. They are completely different situations.
And just FYI: Hitler's mother considered abortion. Many lives could have been saved by her aborting one little ball of cells.
Original post by jcarz
(I haven't got an actual argument, so LOOK YUCKY PICS THAT'LL CHANGE YOUR MINDS YOU HEATHENS NEED JESUS
(I haven't got an actual argument, so LOOK YUCKY PICS THAT'LL CHANGE YOUR MINDS YOU HEATHENS NEED JESUS
Fixed that for ya.
Original post by aoxa
I don't think abortion is wrong.
1. It's the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world, why should she?
2. Life doesn't actually begin until the baby is born. A foetus has a heart beat yes, but it does not breathe and does not think for itself. Hence, in my opinion, it is not alive.
3. There is an argument that you could give the child up, but there is no garuntee that the child would be adopted. This could lead to the child being in and out of foster/ care homes all its life, when care homes are already overcrowded.
4. What if a woman had a child when she was young, and when said child was grown up, the mother fell pregnant again. Say, she doesn't want to start raising a child all over again, she's older, doesn't have the energy to raise a child, perhaps she has a career that she wants to put first. Is it fair to bring a child into the world like that?
A foetus is a ball of cells purely dependant on the woman carrying it. A ball of cells is not a baby until the late stages of pregnancy and is not alive until it is born.
I also don't get why people are comparing abortion to Hitler's genicide of the Jews. They are completely different situations.
And just FYI: Hitler's mother considered abortion. Many lives could have been saved by her aborting one little ball of cells.
1. It's the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world, why should she?
2. Life doesn't actually begin until the baby is born. A foetus has a heart beat yes, but it does not breathe and does not think for itself. Hence, in my opinion, it is not alive.
3. There is an argument that you could give the child up, but there is no garuntee that the child would be adopted. This could lead to the child being in and out of foster/ care homes all its life, when care homes are already overcrowded.
4. What if a woman had a child when she was young, and when said child was grown up, the mother fell pregnant again. Say, she doesn't want to start raising a child all over again, she's older, doesn't have the energy to raise a child, perhaps she has a career that she wants to put first. Is it fair to bring a child into the world like that?
A foetus is a ball of cells purely dependant on the woman carrying it. A ball of cells is not a baby until the late stages of pregnancy and is not alive until it is born.
I also don't get why people are comparing abortion to Hitler's genicide of the Jews. They are completely different situations.
And just FYI: Hitler's mother considered abortion. Many lives could have been saved by her aborting one little ball of cells.
Watch this film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
Original post by aoxa
I don't think abortion is wrong.
1. It's the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world, why should she?
1. It's the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world, why should she?
As Pro-Choice as I am, that's a flimsy argument. If a mother and father don't want to raise a (already born) child, do they not still have a responsibility for that child? The same applies pre-birth, so long as we are talking about a foetus that could be considered a person. Which brings me to the next point.
Original post by aoxa
2. Life doesn't actually begin until the baby is born. A foetus has a heart beat yes, but it does not breathe and does not think for itself. Hence, in my opinion, it is not alive.
Why is the actual birth the barrier? There is very little difference between the two, outside of breathing. A baby five minutes before birth thinks just as much as one give minutes after birth, and a Child doesnt really gain a sense of self until later. So why would the cut off point be birth?
Original post by aoxa
4. What if a woman had a child when she was young, and when said child was grown up, the mother fell pregnant again. Say, she doesn't want to start raising a child all over again, she's older, doesn't have the energy to raise a child, perhaps she has a career that she wants to put first. Is it fair to bring a child into the world like that?
4. What if a woman had a child when she was young, and when said child was grown up, the mother fell pregnant again. Say, she doesn't want to start raising a child all over again, she's older, doesn't have the energy to raise a child, perhaps she has a career that she wants to put first. Is it fair to bring a child into the world like that?
It might not be fair, but it's her responsibility to do so. If she has no wish to have any further children, she can sterilize herself.
Assuming the pregnancy was at a sufficiently early stage however, I would see no issue with it.
Original post by Xiomara
Fixed that for ya.
I made four posts in a row, only one of which contained pictures.
Ironic that you stoop to "infantile" belittling.
Just as you lack the decency to respect the rights of human beings in the womb, it is clearly your trait to lack decency in responding to opposing arguments as well.
Original post by Xiomara
That's like saying if you don't want to get hit by another driver and die, don't buy a car.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
but by driving a car you are accepting the possibility that you could be in an accident, same as by having sex, even with all possible contraception, there is still the risk of pregnancy and so by having sex you are taking that risk and so should make sure you are in a situation where you can have a child before you do it. Its just selfish to think 'oh no, it will never happen to me' or 'we used contraception so it's not our problem' cos it bloody well is your problem and you should accept the consequences!
Original post by jcarz
Ridiculous and pathetic video.
Well done, it shows people have conflicting views about a complicated issue when put on the spot by a raving madman shouting at them about hitler.
Secondly, the final part of the video tries to relate them not following the commandments (including the inane ones no less) and try to pass it off as some kind of judgement about the character of people who are pro-choice.
Original post by Farm_Ecology
Why is the actual birth the barrier? There is very little difference between the two, outside of breathing. A baby five minutes before birth thinks just as much as one give minutes after birth, and a Child doesnt really gain a sense of self until later. So why would the cut off point be birth?.
For me, the "cut off" point is birth, because before birth the baby does not breathe and is still dependant on the mother. Once it is born, it is independent - in the sense that it breathes, moves on its own accord, and as long as it is fed, and is cared for, it can survive outside the mother's body. In fact, once it is born, the child no longer needs a mother. It can be cared for by anybody.
You're killing people when you masturbate as well, you know?.
Original post by jcarz
Answer this question:
If your mother was going to have an abortion, and it was you that she was thinking of aborting, would you stand by your arguments?
If your mother was going to have an abortion, and it was you that she was thinking of aborting, would you stand by your arguments?
I'm sure my mother would have her reasons for having an abortion. I do not consider my life to be more valuable than the life of my mother.
Original post by giuseppe94
You're killing people when you masturbate as well, you know?.
Wrong
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Original post by ruby321
I agree. If you don't want a baby, don't ****ing have sex.
aha i see what you did there!!!!
Original post by cartman
An unborn baby at 20 weeks is capable of feeling pain. Have you not seen the videos of abortion, whereby the baby does everything to get away from the item that abortionists use to crush the babies skull?
In fact, babies at 20 weeks feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.
Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:
Three main methods are used to kill the unborn baby. They are as follows:
And you want to tell me this is not immoral and the baby doesn't suffer? And in regards to your ability to suffer, what about those who can't feel pain? Are they less of a human being, and therefore should be killed?
In fact, babies at 20 weeks feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.
Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:
•
The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days
•
Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that “thinking” is taking place in the brain.
•
The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days.
•
All organs are functioning—stomach, liver, kidney, brain—and all systems are intact at 56 days.
•
By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches.
Three main methods are used to kill the unborn baby. They are as follows:
•
Partial-birth abortion (D&X): The unborn baby is delivered feet first, except for the head, which is punctured at the base of the skull with a sharp object. The brain is then suctioned out, killing the child. (This method was outlawed in the United States in 2007.)
•
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist and tear the baby’s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.
•
Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother’s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child’s entire body.
And you want to tell me this is not immoral and the baby doesn't suffer? And in regards to your ability to suffer, what about those who can't feel pain? Are they less of a human being, and therefore should be killed?
Actually that is wrong. It's been proven that foetuses that are less than 24 weeks old do not have the brain connections to feel pain, so something is making me doubt the 'research' that has gone into formulating and backing up the rest of your argument.
Original post by Gray Wolf
I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end, you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have; you have killed a person.
Now let me give you some statistics:
196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States.
7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child?
Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do!
(the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)
Thank you for reading,
Gray Wolf
Now let me give you some statistics:
196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States.
7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child?
Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do!
(the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)
Thank you for reading,
Gray Wolf
your first paragraph is incorrect. I support your possition and despise all forms of abortion. however, an item in motion that stops being in motion is natural. that is natural law. an object in motion will continue to be in motion untill something stops it (how ever it may stop), while an object that is motionless will continuet to be motionless until something makes it move.
the overall ideal, however, is worth your time and is correct. pregnancy is normal and may be agrued as such agsainst pro-abortionists that are corrupt in this thought.
the statistics are scarry and sad.
because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 1 hour ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 2 hours ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 2 hours ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 2 hours ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesPosted 2 hours ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKTrending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
