Why abortion is wrong.

I'm sorry but there are thousands are accidental children, and I'm sure most of them would be outraged if they didn't have a chance to live in this world because you decided that "its better if they had the stability to be raised properly." You don't get the right to make that decision. At all.

I know I'm going to get negged to death for saying something "against the standards of this day and age" and "old fashioned" But oh well.

I definitely don't blame you. I blame the society in which we live in. I'm sorry you had to go through all that, and its precisely the ordeal you went through is why I think this. Women and girls everywhere who have no choice but to abort because they aren't ready for a baby as it will ruin their life... but its not easy to just forget about the whole thing as if it never happened, like it wasn't a big deal. (this is what pro-abortionists commonly think and will have you believe) And maybe there are some women don't have an emotional connection to the foetus, it doesn't exude from the fact that loads do and abortion is very damaging emotionally.

If only there wasn't such a huge pressure to find partners at such a young age, boyfriends that you wouldn't for a minute think about getting married to and starting a family with and its all purely for pleasure, enjoyment and sex. And at the end of this short term agreement, guy gets sex, girl gets = ? and the guy drops her just like that, for petty reasons or simply because he got bored or maybe they both had an argument. What a huge waste of time, energy and emotions not just for the girl, but for both of them. And if a baby is to occur by accident, it is very common for the guy to want nothing to do with it and there is nothing in the law to state that he must take care of it and he just gets up and leaves. The girl in the situation is screwed over in every way. Noone sees that this an unfair exchange.

I think more emphasis should be put on having sex in stable relationships, (yes, preferably marriage), where if a baby was to occur by accident or not it would be welcomed and the whole argument of abortion wouldn't even exist.

That's just me though.

what I meant is that you should only have sex if you are emotionally and physically ready to have a child IF it was to occur. Be an adult and take responsibility for your actions. You know full well: having sex = possibility of a child. And if you can't handle that then simply don't have sex!! It irradiates the need for all these is abortion wrong/right arguments.

Also I think a women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape if its done in the early stages of pregnancy, but rape only.

If it fails they should definitely accept it. You are an adult and you know that sex may lead to children. If you cannot accept that possibility you shouldn't be having sex with that person or sex at all! They should be grown adults who should accept the consequences of their actions.

I do know that and take the necessary precautions, and I shouldn't be punished if an accident occurs. My body, my rules, and no-one will ever take my right to control my destiny away from me.

Its all opinions and mine is probably up until the time when it can survive on its own if separated from the mother! So about 21ish weeks which is what we have now.

This is the argument I really dislike. It's not just your body. The idea the foetus (no matter how undeveloped) is just a waste product from sex to do with as you wish is horrible.

Too bad the government is on my side, huh? It's funny because as a man, you will never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy in your life, yet you think you can police how much control I, a woman, have over my own body.

That I agree with : )

it refers to acting before pregnancy. once someone is pregant, they have a child.

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.

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 wasting 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.

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.

That is incorrect, when you fertilise you have a conceptus, later on a blastocyst and morula. This is all a pre-embryo. When you get a primitive streak you have an embryo.

These are the same things that fish have.

never knew allowing an innocent human to live to be considered worse than killing him or her.

I played football for a team referred to as 'boys home'. these were kids who were never adopted. I work with one of them today, as well as had contact with many over the years. they are rather content and happy with their lives. what a person's live may be like, does not warrant a death penalty.

yes, some are. some are not - however. the idea is to replace "energey source". which may reduce other affects as well as reduce the demand on a single or multiple resources that are being pulled thin.

still, I see no merit in killing another human being in excuse to ease living when the death does not solve the issue nor ease it.

energy is always 'wasted' in every sort of way it is used. it is never 100% efficently used.

incorrect. you assume how the child will act, and that this action in some way gives merit to kill the child. both assumptions are illogical.

as stated before, killing a person does not solve the problem - therefore it is not a solution and should not be done.

if anything it worsens the problem.

"the way people act is harming our livelihood, we need population control in terms of abortion. oh, problem solved, we can be irrisponsible still."

its similar mentality as littering. "someone is going to pick it up, so it does not matter what I do."

there is no garuantee that the child will suffer. "disabled" is a large umbrella. my friend is disabled - in a wheel chair.
even the word "suffer" covers too large of a possibility. you suffer every day in stress.

point is still the same. what people experience every day and just being different does not merit a right to kill another person. regardless to their developmental stage in life.


then why support his actions and reasoning? "suffering" was used as an excuse to force abotion on many as well as kill multiple "handicap" individuals. its the same system of ignorance used by a new face.

Science doesn't support your claims, because it doesn't make claims about things like this.

If you define an individual, science can tell you whether something falls under that definition or not. However your current definition of having different genetics or being a combination of two cells is not a good one.

When placental trophoblast cells form, they join together and become a syncytium. The placenta also combines maternal and paternal DNA. Does this make the placenta a new individual? Why aren't you campaigning to save the placentas? The placenta is alive, we could keep it alive, but we "abort" it regularly.

What about triploidy mosiac syndrome? There are many cells in those individuals' bodies that have an entirely different number of chromosomes in their cells. The abnormal cells have their own DNA coding. Does that mean half of their body is a new individual?

there is no definition or clarification as to whom or what is human in science?

no science does not make a claim, it is not a person. it does provide a system for gathering information, which supports my claim.

my claim: we are human beings from conception to death.

science provides information in determining who is human, that's dna. you want to know if organism a, b, or c is human? then you look at dna (if restricted from all other forms of evidence).

information through science supports that.

the new human individual is not a sperm cell nor egg cell. the genetic coding is different, and the purpose is different. what is purpose? lets break it down simple: sperm cell, to fertilize; egg cell, to be fertilize. is the single cell person supposed to do any of this? no. so if we looked at the purpose, we can see the child is not an egg cell or sperm cell as previously stated.

in short, the placenta is an organ not a being. it is derived from fetal cells, making it a part of the child. the placenta, in turn does its purpose. there is also dna from the mother, however this is due to the connection it has to the uterus.

my statement about the number of chromosomes was towards the lack of a normal amount for the condition of distinguishing a human being versus the previously stated egg/sperm cell. there is a group of x numbers that represent the # of chromosomes for a human being which may be above, bellow, or exactly 46. 23 is not in this group.

how is a human female pregnant?
by having a human offspring
which is also referrred to as a child!
how so? oh - fertilization, etc. etc.
oh, so a pregnant woman has a child developing within her womb. so what I said is correct.

okay.

these are not the same things that a fish has, as there is no human dna in fish. the process and the manner it is described is similar.

I played football for a team referred to as 'boys home'. these were kids who were never adopted. I work with one of them today, as well as had contact with many over the years. they are rather content and happy with their lives. what a person's live may be like, does not warrant a death penalty.

Wow you know a few children in care who are happy?! Does that mean they ALL must be happy then? Does it account for the other 91,000? (and thats just the UK...)