Why abortion is wrong.

does not appear to be hypocritical if someone says adoption is good, but does not do it, under the above definition. But hey, I never heard a pro-lifer claim that everyone should adopt.

I am open to adopting, however.


that woman, you, and any med. student are a bunch of cells.

it seems easy for me. what is difficult, however, (I do admit) is making the point to someone who ignores or disregards the non religious stance.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/55701477-180/abortion-human-hazzard-prolife.html.csp
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/


http://www.skepticink.com/atheistintermarried/2012/11/27/the-atheist-argument-against-abortion/


I am sure you may select several links to atheists being pro-abortion. my point in presenting the links is that this "abortion is wrong" mentality is that it is not based on religions. some may have their own fight or reason based on religion, but the core principal is based on science, history, and philosophy.

a human egg cell and sperm cell can not form a non-human thing that magically becomes human. this is impossible!

humans can only procreate another human.

"we are having a baby." is this not what is said by so many parents to be when they first discover the wife is pregnant? "have" is present tense. "baby" describes the embryo.

regardless as to what you may refer a child in the embryonic stage of life as, similar to a toddler and a teen (of whom are not considered to be a baby), that child is still human.

I strongly disagree, and agree. In contrast, the goal is to better inform the woman what her decisions mean. Also, some desire certain surgical abortions to be illegal under the premise of "right to life".

"Obviously I am not saying an embryo has no rights, but it is not a fully formed human being so asserting that itis and thereforekillingit is the same as killing someone you run into in town is not a valid argument. It just shows you do not fully grasp what an embryo is and how potential for something is not the same as that something."

I agree hence why I say if the life of the mother is threatened then abortion can be done. However what right can a fully developed human who is in no physical risk by the pregnancy assert against the definite life of another.

I wish to ask another question. What are the rights of the mother?

So you believe having a child at a young age essentially ends your educations and your career prospects. This is clearly wrong. After the first year you can pretty much do anything you wish go to school come home, find a job, anything. I believe this is where the break down of the family really shows its face.

Let me elaborate. You have a mother yes? The same mother that gave you unconditional love as you put it. When my mother had me she was working full time as a tax inspector. Do you know who looked after me? My grand mother in the mornings and afternoons and mother in the evenings. I was given unconditional love by my family and extended family. Are you in a position if it ever were to happen to have your mother and father would help out?

Don't worry your life will not be ruined as a consequence of bringing another life in to the world.

You have obviously led a rather financially comfortable life. However there are billions out there that are not, but this doesn't stop them being happy. The fact that you deem having a rock solid financial basis as a prerequisite to having a happy life both for your self and for your child is rather sad.

I was wondering, what is this dream you wish to achieve?

Could I please ask another question. At what point is it not your body?

No. i have no lived a financially comfortable life, please done make assumptions, i live of a world of emotional support and love with the bare minimum in terms of finances.

my rock solid financial basis consists of enough money to feed, clothe and shelter my children without being behind on the rent because i had to buy bread etc.

The dream i wish to achieve is to come out of uni with a masters, find a job, save up, get married, have children, do my PHD from home while i raise my children rather than letting someone else raise them, having comfortable savings accounts for them should they need them for uni/travelling/wedding's etc. i dont think thats too much to ask. To be able to provide for my children the way a parent should.

and to answer your question, my mother is dying to have grandchildren so if i got pregnant she'd probably adopt it herself. the issue is that she doesnt have the money to do that, i've been enough of a burden on her as her child, i wont put her through that again.

There are vast differences between the bunch of cells that consist an embryo and those that I am made up of. Read around embryology if you want to better see how vast that difference is.



At least we agree on that. The rights of the mother are much more numerous than those of the embryo, the one this thread is based on is the right of the mother to chose if she wants to be a mother. Unwanted pregnancies are a difficult topic. I don't claim there is a generic right answer on what to do in all cases, however that is why it is so so so important that the final choice rests with the mother. Aside from anything else if a mother really doesn't want to have a child you get women taking dangerous drugs that harm them, "back alley" abortions, or even examples like Ireland where it is illegal where in 2007 I think something like 7000 women (this statistic may be very inaccurate I'm citing it from memory rather than having the source study in front of me) went to English clinics for abortions.

The fact is it is a very difficult personal decision of the mother, even if you believe the embryo has aright to live the mother has the ultimate right of control over her own body, so while you are welcome to your opinion and debating it online or with friends is fine, please do not lecture women who are actually going through this. Virtually no-one takes the situation lightly and all you would do is make a difficult and emotional choice more difficult and upsetting. As I've saidi haven't problem debating with you on your beliefs vs my beliefs on the topic, but I've seen fanatics camp outside women's health clinics, and I'm aware that some doctors with beliefs like your can put those beliefs before the health of their patients. You might be interested to know that in England in order for an abortion to take place two doctors are required to sign off on it, the upper limit on weeks is set likie it is because by that time most serious diseases will have been caught combined with the level of maturity of the embryo at that age begins to become less like a bunch of cells and more like a baby. Also of note that in cases where there is danger to the mothers life there is no upper limit but many mothers will go ahead despite the risk of death to themselves.

they're completely irrelevant.

The main function of sex is pregnancy.

The main reason people buy a car is to get to places.

:/

Can you please elaborate?

My apologies. But the thing is, United Kingdom is not the third world, the government provides you enough money to cloth feed and shelter your child so I do not see this as a reason. I do not see financial reasons as excuses which is what your primary argument is based on. Even if the government didn't provide one can make money or find money enough to feed their one child. My grandmother look after 7 with one set of earnings.

A carton of milk would set a family back by £10 and a roast chicken would have a £51 price tag if food costs had risen in line with house price increases over the last 40 years, research by Shelter has found.

The charity said that the typical value of a house had increased by just over 43 times since 1971, from £5,632 to £245,319.

If a family's weekly shop had increased at the same rate, it would now stand at £453, which is six times the actual figure of around £75.

Applying the house price rate of inflation to everyday food and drink items means that a bunch of six bananas would cost £8.47, a four-pint carton of milk would cost £10.45 and a leg of lamb would be £53.18, Shelter said.

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

Does a foetus not have a right to its own body? Why should the woman have more rights? She chose to have sex...she knows the possible consequences.

Can you please elaborate?

If you're going where I think you're going, I want to stop you right there.

If you think mental illness is irrelevant, you're incredibly wrong. Mental illness is the biggest health burden to Western countries, causing twice the burden in terms of DALYs of either cancer or cardiovascular disease. A relevant fact is that factors outside your control (like being made redundant) are the most likely to elicit mental illness, compared to events involving a loss (like retirement). Giving birth to a child, especially when you are aware that it is avoidable through abortion but you are not being allowed that right, involves a lot of uncontrollable negative changes. In this way not allowing birth control is potentially causing a lot of mental illness, as the child causes such a huge, uncontrollable change in your life, most effects of which will be seen as negative if the pregnancy is unplanned, as it almost invariably would be were the mother seeking a termination.

As evidence, we see that rates of depression are higher in unmarried mothers than married mothers, making the assumption that unmarried mothers did not have a planned pregnancy.

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

http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/2013/04/19/does-abortion-reduce-mental-health-risks-for-women-the-very-latest-research/


----

Tom

Does a foetus not have a right to its own body? Why should the woman have more rights? She chose to have sex...she knows the possible consequences.

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.'' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

You will find just as many papers claiming the opposite: the area is made difficult by the problem that women ending up going through with the pregnancy will tend to have started in a better mental state than those aborting their pregnancy, or tend to be in a better position to raise a child, thus their mental state or situation affects both their decision to abort/not and their metal health outcome after the decision. There's no adequate way to deal with this problem, with the result that the literature is divided.

Also, a little more thought and you will release this study isn't really comparing the correct groups; we need to compare a group of women choosing to abort with a group of women who chose to abort but were denied. Comparing mothers who chose to abort to those who chose not to abort is, of course, going to turn the bias I described above towards the group of mothers who had their child. Remember my post claimed that it was uncontrolled situations that predispose to metal illness and neither of the groups in your study were forced to receive abortion or denied their desire for termination.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Granted, I do agree with you that the group in this study aren't perfect. But the finding are still interesting. It seems to me that abortion supporters seem to view abortion as this magical quick fix. That it's a two sided coin, on one side is the unplanned pregnancy where no abortion is offered and the woman's mental health is greatly impacted. Then the other side is this wonderful abortion that allows the woman to go on with her life completely unaffected by the whole experience
I'm not for one second saying that this is your view, as I'm sure it's not. But that really bug me. The fact of the matter is that having an abortion can be an incredibly traumatising experience and should not be offered lightly.

Oh and your assumption that the difference in mental health between unmarried and married couples is proportional to unplanned and planned pregnancies is ridiculous.

Oh and your assumption that the difference in mental health between unmarried and married couples is proportional to unplanned and planned pregnancies is ridiculous.

Excuse the vagueness; the difference in mental health in pregnant married mothers and pregnant unmarked mothers can reasonably be extrapolated to the fact that more pregnancies in married couples are planned than are pregnancies in unmarked couples, since the mental health is similar between non-pregnant married and unmarried mothers.


Posted from TSR Mobile