Why abortion is wrong.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Presenttime
If I was pregnant, I would definitely get an abortion, sorry.
based on what?
Original post by _anyawalsh
The world is already overpopulated, add those figures you've said every year and we'd have big problems in a few decades
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
With an ageing population you will be lucky if you retire by 80. Never mind the economic consequences. Leaving that all aside the world has enough resources for many fold. The population isn't a problem it is educating them that is.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by March
'Definite potential' isn't a recognised term by, well, anybody. For starters, the fact abortions are possible (natural or otherwise) mean there's nothing 'definite' about a pregnancy to begin with, but moving past that, you're using that made up term to arbitrarily separate potentials of varying probabilities without explaining why ignoring the probability threshold you've set is immoral in itself.
Why is probability the important topic here? You still haven't explained your reason for believing an embryo is more human than a bundle of skin cells.
Why is probability the important topic here? You still haven't explained your reason for believing an embryo is more human than a bundle of skin cells.
Recognise it or not it is what it is and I have explained it, if you need a doctor of so and so to think for you go then I really have nothing to add.
The probability is important because if the probability of a thing happening is high then by slicing that probability essentially that definity you are preventing what will be, from happening. I argue there is no difference in doing this before the baby leaves the womb than when it does. The effect is the same.
Let me ask you a question. How is killing the baby as soon as it is born under drugs so it won't feel pain different from killing it in the womb?
If the probability threshold I have set to justify saving millions of lives per year is immoral then I can not begin to imagine the moral degeneracy of your situation.
Exactly so then we'd have the same problems as China have, isnt killing something that isn't really alive that wouldn't harm anyone, better than bringing a human being up to not have rights they should have, otherwise we just have more people on benefits etc..
And also many women used to die trying to abort the child themselves when abortion was illegal
Posted from TSR Mobile
And also many women used to die trying to abort the child themselves when abortion was illegal
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by da_nolo
the nazi's didn't think killing jews were killing humans either. both you and them are wrong. otherwise, please explain how an organism may reproduce a complete different organism that then morphs into the same organism that procreated it.
trick question. it's not possible. stated as such in biology.
trick question. it's not possible. stated as such in biology.
I do not consider it "killing a human" because I do not consider an embryo to have "life" until its heart begins to beat.
"Living" = being alive.
"Having a life" = enjoying life.
Refer to my point about "killing a human" above.
What, ever? Should humans only ever have sex to reproduce? I expect you never have casual sex and, assuming you have a girlfriend, only have sex at the right times in her cycle to make sure she has the highest chance of falling pregnant.
if it didn't make sense, you would not have been able to respond.
Thankfully I'm intelligent enough to work out what you tried to say, but that doesn't mean it made sense.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
then...
I think the question should just be...
do you view an infant (a baby who has been born) as equally as you view a fetus (a baby that has not been born)? unlike the what if scenarios, there is an absolute. it still covers your point as well, correct?
in which I must answer, yes (as I stated w/ the scenarios). there is no difference between a fetus, a teen, an infant, or an adult in terms of equality. they are all human.
I think the question should just be...
do you view an infant (a baby who has been born) as equally as you view a fetus (a baby that has not been born)? unlike the what if scenarios, there is an absolute. it still covers your point as well, correct?
in which I must answer, yes (as I stated w/ the scenarios). there is no difference between a fetus, a teen, an infant, or an adult in terms of equality. they are all human.
You can choose to believe that then, I disagree.
the movement to end abortion includes the removal or solutions to these issues.
Fix the solutions first if you wanna stop abortions. I'm on the implant right, if I were to get pregnant I would abort it, but if it were illegal my life and the babies life would literally be screwed. And it's not like I wasn't safe..
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf
Godwins law fulfilled on the OP. Well done.
Original post by da_nolo
there is no difference between a fetus, a teen, an infant, or an adult in terms of equality. they are all human.
Haha!
The comedy here is twofold. First of all is the claim itself; but secondly, you forgot about embryos. Or do you agree a small ball of nondescript stem cells should be excluded from your list?
It might be cruel to you to consider this, but have you ever thought about the greater good?
Think of those who have been raped, and couldn't bear to look at their child to see their evil father in their innocent face.
Think of those whose children to be would not be properly fed or clothed, and would suffer from this if they were born.
Think of those who would die hungry, ill or unwanted anyway.
If you talk about such a large scale, think of the size that the world's population would be now, and that:
- More land would be needed to live on, which would mean less farmland on which to grow food. This would mean more suffering for everyone, because there wouldn't be enough food to go around.
- More fossil fuels would be used to fuel the growing number of homes, and provide for that many more people. We might have used it all up by now, before we had found a sustainable alternative, and lacking the ability to preserve such a precious source of energy.
- Simple things like paper would be in shortages because of the reduced land available to grow trees on.
- More people would be driving or using transport, polluting the environment with their carbon footprint, and more food would have to travel distances to get to civilisations, as well as individuals burning for warmth etc, which would pollute the environment further.
- The pollution results in a larger hole in the ozone layer and therefore stronger UV rays, which would cause more cancer and more sunburn. It could get to a point where people can't venture outside for long.
- This would also mean that the atmospheric temperatures would rise, melting the arctic and antarctic faster which would give us higher sea levels and yet less land to live on, and all species would migrate away from the equator, meaning that yet more people, more animals and more plants would have to fit into a smaller area of land, and also insects such as mosquitos would bring diseases which are currently only sustained in hotter countries with them. There would eventually be nowhere left to move to.
- Yes these facts are inevitable anyway, but the faster the population increases, the faster it will happen.
You have to consider BOTH sides of the argument, and when thinking about having children, you need to also think about how you could be harming the planet and whether you can afford to look after the children properly.#
Personally, I think that abortion is a better alternative to bringing up a child that can not live it's life to the fullest. Quality of life is more important than having children just for the sake of it.
Think of those who have been raped, and couldn't bear to look at their child to see their evil father in their innocent face.
Think of those whose children to be would not be properly fed or clothed, and would suffer from this if they were born.
Think of those who would die hungry, ill or unwanted anyway.
If you talk about such a large scale, think of the size that the world's population would be now, and that:
- More land would be needed to live on, which would mean less farmland on which to grow food. This would mean more suffering for everyone, because there wouldn't be enough food to go around.
- More fossil fuels would be used to fuel the growing number of homes, and provide for that many more people. We might have used it all up by now, before we had found a sustainable alternative, and lacking the ability to preserve such a precious source of energy.
- Simple things like paper would be in shortages because of the reduced land available to grow trees on.
- More people would be driving or using transport, polluting the environment with their carbon footprint, and more food would have to travel distances to get to civilisations, as well as individuals burning for warmth etc, which would pollute the environment further.
- The pollution results in a larger hole in the ozone layer and therefore stronger UV rays, which would cause more cancer and more sunburn. It could get to a point where people can't venture outside for long.
- This would also mean that the atmospheric temperatures would rise, melting the arctic and antarctic faster which would give us higher sea levels and yet less land to live on, and all species would migrate away from the equator, meaning that yet more people, more animals and more plants would have to fit into a smaller area of land, and also insects such as mosquitos would bring diseases which are currently only sustained in hotter countries with them. There would eventually be nowhere left to move to.
- Yes these facts are inevitable anyway, but the faster the population increases, the faster it will happen.
You have to consider BOTH sides of the argument, and when thinking about having children, you need to also think about how you could be harming the planet and whether you can afford to look after the children properly.#
Personally, I think that abortion is a better alternative to bringing up a child that can not live it's life to the fullest. Quality of life is more important than having children just for the sake of it.
Original post by March
Haha!
The comedy here is twofold. First of all is the claim itself; but secondly, you forgot about embryos. Or do you agree a small ball of nondescript stem cells should be excluded from your list?
The comedy here is twofold. First of all is the claim itself; but secondly, you forgot about embryos. Or do you agree a small ball of nondescript stem cells should be excluded from your list?
I did not list every single developmental stage of man; as you may tell - toddler is left out, kids (in reference to the years prior to teen and after toddler) is left out, and I did not include the years within adulthood which differ.
if you belief this is wrong, please...do counter it.
I reckon rape would actually be more common if sex was restricted only to produce children.
Might I also ask (to nobody in particular) what people think of mutilation of the genitals so that sex is not enjoyed, which does take place in some religions for that reason. It would also considerably reduce the need for abortion. That way sex would only be used to produce children.
Before you think badly of me, I am completely against it! The sheer pain it must put people through.... eugh *shivers*
Might I also ask (to nobody in particular) what people think of mutilation of the genitals so that sex is not enjoyed, which does take place in some religions for that reason. It would also considerably reduce the need for abortion. That way sex would only be used to produce children.
Before you think badly of me, I am completely against it! The sheer pain it must put people through.... eugh *shivers*
Original post by carrotstar
It might be cruel to you to consider this, but have you ever thought about the greater good?
Think of those who have been raped, and couldn't bear to look at their child to see their evil father in their innocent face.
Think of those whose children to be would not be properly fed or clothed, and would suffer from this if they were born.
Think of those who would die hungry, ill or unwanted anyway.
If you talk about such a large scale, think of the size that the world's population would be now, and that:
- More land would be needed to live on, which would mean less farmland on which to grow food. This would mean more suffering for everyone, because there wouldn't be enough food to go around.
'developed' countries have an over abundance of food and continue to inovate ways to cultivate the land for maximum production/produce growth.
there are also new was to farm which require less land.
http://www.verticalfarm.com/
- More fossil fuels would be used to fuel the growing number of homes, and provide for that many more people. We might have used it all up by now, before we had found a sustainable alternative, and lacking the ability to preserve such a precious source of energy.
fossil fuels is quickly being seen as absolete. solar is gaining popularity and in turn scientists are developing stronger solar pannels (that create/capture more engery). there are also other ideas to progress in energy.
"We need to find a better way to make fuel from sunlight directly so that we can bring energy to whoever wants it whenever they want it — day or night, summer or winter," Lewis told the Caltech symposium. "My lab and other labs at Caltech are working on that, too."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=3860102&page=1
- Simple things like paper would be in shortages because of the reduced land available to grow trees on.
we are moving away from the use of paper in many aspects. some predict it will become a thing of the past. whether or not this is true, or your statement is true - still does not give merit to purge the human race.
- More people would be driving or using transport, polluting the environment with their carbon footprint, and more food would have to travel distances to get to civilisations, as well as individuals burning for warmth etc, which would pollute the environment further.
there is a large effort to decrease if not elimiinate that all together
- The pollution results in a larger hole in the ozone layer and therefore stronger UV rays, which would cause more cancer and more sunburn. It could get to a point where people can't venture outside for long.
in recent years some scientists say that hole has been closed. a hole that was created years ago when human population was less than it is now.
- This would also mean that the atmospheric temperatures would rise, melting the arctic and antarctic faster which would give us higher sea levels and yet less land to live on, and all species would migrate away from the equator, meaning that yet more people, more animals and more plants would have to fit into a smaller area of land, and also insects such as mosquitos would bring diseases which are currently only sustained in hotter countries with them. There would eventually be nowhere left to move to.
true the space on this planet is limited. that's why many people are investing in outer-planetory exploration. we have longed for a place to live among the stars before man landed on the moon. its more realistic today then ever.
- Yes these facts are inevitable anyway, but the faster the population increases, the faster it will happen.
there is reported 4.52% of the world population to living in the u.s.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_worlds_population_lives_in_the_US
the problem is not too many people in general, but too many people using more than what they need. this is changed by ideal.
You have to consider BOTH sides of the argument, and when thinking about having children, you need to also think about how you could be harming the planet and whether you can afford to look after the children properly.#
have you?
Personally, I think that abortion is a better alternative to bringing up a child that can not live it's life to the fullest. Quality of life is more important than having children just for the sake of it.
Original post by carrotstar
I reckon rape would actually be more common if sex was restricted only to produce children.
Might I also ask (to nobody in particular) what people think of mutilation of the genitals so that sex is not enjoyed, which does take place in some religions for that reason. It would also considerably reduce the need for abortion. That way sex would only be used to produce children.
Before you think badly of me, I am completely against it! The sheer pain it must put people through.... eugh *shivers*
Might I also ask (to nobody in particular) what people think of mutilation of the genitals so that sex is not enjoyed, which does take place in some religions for that reason. It would also considerably reduce the need for abortion. That way sex would only be used to produce children.
Before you think badly of me, I am completely against it! The sheer pain it must put people through.... eugh *shivers*
some of the 'likeness' of sex is the thought of it. such as rape. it is not the fact that they are having sex which excites rapists, but to 'control' the individual they are raping or to be w/ that individual.
we need to adress the mental aspects of rape in order to stop it. not the physical
Original post by Ghostly.
You can choose to believe that then, I disagree.
the movement to end abortion includes the removal or solutions to these issues
I'm on the implant right, if I were to get pregnant I would abort it, but if it were illegal my life and the babies life would literally be screwed. And it's not like I wasn't safe..
the movement to end abortion includes the removal or solutions to these issues
I'm on the implant right, if I were to get pregnant I would abort it, but if it were illegal my life and the babies life would literally be screwed. And it's not like I wasn't safe..
you would not be screwed. humans are capable to adapting.
in u.s. - I know two individuals born to a single mom in the worst neighborhood possible. the mom worked in day care/educator. one of the worst paying jobs, w/ little to no benefits. they did not have the greatest 'things'. conditions to follow many of the reasons not to have kids on this thread.
to weight them down more. they are black. met racism in all sorts of places in many different ways. if this mom followed the ideal that is presented by you and others on here. they would not be where they are today. one is working wall street and the other a lawyer. making 5 times the amount of their mother, if not more. she would not have, as she said, "her angels".
statistics and an opinion is not merit for killing another person. plain and simple.
if you do not have the support/people to help you in a situation of dire need. then meet knew people.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by snowyowl
I do not consider it "killing a human" because I do not consider an embryo to have "life" until its heart begins to beat.
then you disagree with science
"Living" = being alive.
"Having a life" = enjoying life.
"Having a life" = enjoying life.
What, ever? Should humans only ever have sex to reproduce? I expect you never have casual sex and, assuming you have a girlfriend, only have sex at the right times in her cycle to make sure she has the highest chance of falling pregnant.
I won't quote all that because it would take such a long time to comment on every little thing.
There might be no good to abortion in your opinion, but in mine there is less bad than in other options.
Yes adoption is an option, but there is currently less demand for adoptable children than there are children, meaning that many live in care homes for their younger years. There is also no guarantee that the adopting parents actually love and care for the child as they should, as they sometimes don't have the natural bond that the genetic parents have.
The production of solar panels and devices which are supposedly saving other resources are using resources themselves to be produced...surely you would justify the point of mentioning those as that they are for the greater good?
On the point that things cost resources to be produced, it is currently far more efficient to use pure gas for central heating or the hob because heat energy is lost in the process that changes the form of the energy. That means that until we can produce electricity without using any fossil fuels, we are waasting some of those precious resources.
Yes, many problems are created by the way we act rather than the size of the popultion..but a larger population would mean more people acting that way.
I have not mentioned your side of the argument because you pretty much covered that. I was just inferring that there is another side, and what it covers.
And yes, perhaps I would abort a baby that was disabled so that they did not suffer after birth, but I wouldn't even consider killing a child or adult in such a situation.
May I also bring in that your reference to the Aryan race, as Hitler tried to appeal to, could actually be a way forward. Though I mean this as in ensuring that children are not born disabled so that they will struggle in life, rather than specifically blonde hair and blue eyes...that would be ridiculous.
I will point out here that I hate Hitler.
There might be no good to abortion in your opinion, but in mine there is less bad than in other options.
Yes adoption is an option, but there is currently less demand for adoptable children than there are children, meaning that many live in care homes for their younger years. There is also no guarantee that the adopting parents actually love and care for the child as they should, as they sometimes don't have the natural bond that the genetic parents have.
The production of solar panels and devices which are supposedly saving other resources are using resources themselves to be produced...surely you would justify the point of mentioning those as that they are for the greater good?
On the point that things cost resources to be produced, it is currently far more efficient to use pure gas for central heating or the hob because heat energy is lost in the process that changes the form of the energy. That means that until we can produce electricity without using any fossil fuels, we are waasting some of those precious resources.
Yes, many problems are created by the way we act rather than the size of the popultion..but a larger population would mean more people acting that way.
I have not mentioned your side of the argument because you pretty much covered that. I was just inferring that there is another side, and what it covers.
And yes, perhaps I would abort a baby that was disabled so that they did not suffer after birth, but I wouldn't even consider killing a child or adult in such a situation.
May I also bring in that your reference to the Aryan race, as Hitler tried to appeal to, could actually be a way forward. Though I mean this as in ensuring that children are not born disabled so that they will struggle in life, rather than specifically blonde hair and blue eyes...that would be ridiculous.
I will point out here that I hate Hitler.
Original post by da_nolo
then you disagree with science
How so? Science considers sperm and eggs to be alive, but I doubt you'd consider them to be a human life.
Erm... What? I actually have no idea what you are going on about here.
You said if people don't want children then they shouldn't have sex. It follows, then, that you think sex is purely for reproductive purposes.
In that case, why are my assumptions wrong? Or is it one rule for you and one for everyone else?
I'm tocophobic. Lets just throw that out there, because it's true.
Now, if I get raped and end up pregnant - why on earth should I be forced to live out one of my worst nightmares when there is a safe procedure I can have. And if it wasn't available, I would probably find some way to have an abortion anyway, I just do not want to be pregnant or experience childbirth that much. So much I would risk the possibility of a septic abortion just so I didn't have to give birth.
My right to an abortion is one of the most important things to me, and it is not 'wrong' - access to an abortion does not force a decision, namely to continue a pregnancy, on anybody. Whereas, not having access to abortion does force a decision on somebody - THAT IS WRONG!
Now, if I get raped and end up pregnant - why on earth should I be forced to live out one of my worst nightmares when there is a safe procedure I can have. And if it wasn't available, I would probably find some way to have an abortion anyway, I just do not want to be pregnant or experience childbirth that much. So much I would risk the possibility of a septic abortion just so I didn't have to give birth.
My right to an abortion is one of the most important things to me, and it is not 'wrong' - access to an abortion does not force a decision, namely to continue a pregnancy, on anybody. Whereas, not having access to abortion does force a decision on somebody - THAT IS WRONG!
Why abortion is RIGHT: first off, women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, it's not yours, why should you give a damn and say what they can or can't do? Secondly, what if a girl had been raped? Would she want an abortion? Probably. Women have the right to abortion because it is their decision what they choose to do.
Stop telling women what they can or cannot do.
Stop telling women what they can or cannot do.
(edited 11 years ago)
Ugh another one of these threads:
Basic reasons why abortion should be allowed in any civilised society -
Cells including eggs and sperm, consequently the foetus which develops from them, do not qualify for any rights (whether artificial or natural) since this is an arbitrary criteria. By walking down a corridor you are literally killing thousands of mites and other cells, yet we cannot consider this an example of mass-genocide; what matters is the type of life being ended. There is no difference in sentience between a cell on the carpet and a bundle of them in a woman's womb.
Potential is a void argument because it merely avoids the issue. Prince Charles has the potential to be King one day, but he isn't – de facto he doesn't have the rights of the monarch. The same applies with a foetus.
Banning abortion wouldn't stop it happening, society would just return to the days of back street abortions which are dangerous to the psychological and physical well being of women.
A principle of liberty is being overridden in denying abortion, which would be acceptable if the foetus qualified for a human kingdom of ends. Sadly the foetus doesn't because it has not yet developed into a human. Real rights would be taken away from women for no good reason.
Simply raising a moral objection to abortion on general grounds overlooks case sensitivity and I'm not going into cliché examples but rape etc. apply here.
Basic reasons why abortion should be allowed in any civilised society -
Cells including eggs and sperm, consequently the foetus which develops from them, do not qualify for any rights (whether artificial or natural) since this is an arbitrary criteria. By walking down a corridor you are literally killing thousands of mites and other cells, yet we cannot consider this an example of mass-genocide; what matters is the type of life being ended. There is no difference in sentience between a cell on the carpet and a bundle of them in a woman's womb.
Potential is a void argument because it merely avoids the issue. Prince Charles has the potential to be King one day, but he isn't – de facto he doesn't have the rights of the monarch. The same applies with a foetus.
Banning abortion wouldn't stop it happening, society would just return to the days of back street abortions which are dangerous to the psychological and physical well being of women.
A principle of liberty is being overridden in denying abortion, which would be acceptable if the foetus qualified for a human kingdom of ends. Sadly the foetus doesn't because it has not yet developed into a human. Real rights would be taken away from women for no good reason.
Simply raising a moral objection to abortion on general grounds overlooks case sensitivity and I'm not going into cliché examples but rape etc. apply here.
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Jaguar (JLR) Degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1013
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Civil Service Fast Stream 2024 - Applicants threadLast reply 3 minutes ago
TFL Apprenticeship Scheme 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1255
Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2836
Last reply 13 minutes ago
Could I do Zoology at Uni with a level 3 Btec in animal managementLast reply 14 minutes ago
KPMG Audit Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 15 minutes ago
anyone else waiting on LSE law?Last reply 17 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 20 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 21 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1121
Trending
Last reply 1 day 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 1 day 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 ?
