Abortion

burntgorilla

I can understand that. Perhaps abortion should be made more difficult so that it is not seen as an easy solution. But then that has the possibility that people will go to back street abortionists. Do people actually see abortion as a quick and easy procedure, or do they dither over it? I don't know.

Many just see it as an easy get-out clause. They should just deal with the consequences of their actions. There already is an 'easy' solution. Adoption. I'm sure a child would say they would much rather live with foster parents than not be alive at all.

I really doubt back street abortionists would flourish if we consider the issue rationally and with a good idea of history.

Why isn't it a valid comparison? They are both similar in that there is no set moment at which having the capacity to be something becomes the same as actually being that thing.

Quite right. Read over what I stated again.

Interesting. No, an acorn is certainly not a tree. However it has the potential to become a tree. Regardless of this the difficult question remains. When does the acorn become a tree? When it grows its first roots? Maybe we should just say we should not kill an acorn because it could become a magnificient tree. I would much rather kill a tree that has lived a long time on the earth and had glorious experiences than an acorn that has yet to embark on its magnificient journey (quote of the day). I'm sure you can understand the point I'm making.

I say that it is a futile comparison because humans and trees are very different. It is easy in arguments to compare things to each other, however seemingly alike they are. I'm sure many people kill a tree without a second thought. The same could not be applied to humans. The moral issues surrounding trees and humans are totally different and thus the comparison cannot be made when discusssing abortion, an issue that heavily relies on morals. From a Christian perspective, humans are special. Admittedly not everybody is a Christian, however others hold similar views.

Reply 82

Abortion is a lot easier than adoption.

Reply 83

ForumFreak

Abortion is a lot easier than adoption.

Proof of my initial premise:

Many just see it as an easy get-out clause.

Reply 84

Yeah I agree with that statement, I just dont think that it makes abortion wrong.

Reply 85

ForumFreak

Yeah I agree with that statement, I just dont think that it makes abortion wrong.

Fair enough, but why not? I'm biased (who isn't?). I've always been taught that human life is special. Killing human life, or what has potential to become a human, is wrong without a valid justification (i.e. rape, possibility of mother's death etc.). Why not give birth and give the baby to an adoption agency? The child would be grateful for that rather than to be killed.

As I've always said, my quarrel is with ignorant young teenagers that have unpretected sex and use abortion as an easy 'get-out' clause without any consideration of the ethics.

Reply 86

I think thats it. We've all been brought up with different ideas and views. My parents always taught me that I should never give birth to anything that I am not prepared to look after and that embryos/early fetuses (I dont like partial birth abortion) are not human lifes.

It does also bug me that most abortions are had by people (young or otherwise) who have had unprotected sex. However there are women who have been raped or have had contraception failure and I dont think they should be punished just because of irresponsible people.

Reply 87

dcarsten

Is this a UK forum? Many of the people posting sound like they might have roots in the American Midwest. I thought we Americans cornered to market on trying to force intensely personal decisions on the entire population because of our individual personal views. :confused:

Listen....

1. Regardless of how reprehensible you consider abortion to be I think any rational person must concede that having an abortion is an intensely personal decision. If you think abortion is wrong...its very simple....DON'T HAVE ONE IF YOU HAVE AN UNPLANNED PREGNANCY. Its not just a simple debate of abortion or no abortion, apparently nobody that is anti-abortion I've come into contact with ever wants to discuss all the things that would have to come along with banning abortion. If abortion was banned you would then have an large additional quantity of unplanned (unwanted) children born every year. At that point SOMETHING would have to be done about these poor children whether it be adoption or state care or something. I just want anyone who supports making abortion illegal to consider this. Here in the United States the foster care and adoption system is a complete mess already...god only knows what would happen if they banned abortion.

This is the basic flaw of nearly all the anti-abortion rhetoric I've ever heard. They are totally concerned with the rights of a fetus while in utero well above the personal rights of the mother...but once this baby is born they couldn't care less what happens to it....doesn't matter if the baby is dumped in a garbage can, neglected by a drug addict mother who didn't want it etc etc. As long as an abortion was prevented.

2. Banning abortion will lead to the deaths of many women. When abortion was illegal in the US do you know what happened? Thousands of women who felt they had no other option went to underground illegal abortion clinics and died on the operating table. If they ban abortion this is going to happen all over again and I believe it will happen in any nation that bans abortion.

incidentally I personally don't think abortion is great thing. I honestly don't know what I'd do if I was in a situation where me and a girl created an unplanned pregnancy. This my not be a decisive stance but I'm being honest. That said, I feel like it would be completely ridiculous to try and make this decision for every person in my country...why??? because I'm not pompous enough to believe I'm any kind of moral authority on everyone's behavior and life decisions.

We live in a world where there are millions of people already struggling through life with 2 strikes against them and with NOBODY that gives a crap about them. I think we might better devote time and energy to helping these people rather than to removing the personal choice of millions of women and force more unwanted children to be born.

Reply 88

ForumFreak

Totally agree.

Reply 89

dcarsten

Is this a UK forum?

Yes.

Many of the people posting sound like they might have roots in the American Midwest.

???

I thought we Americans cornered to market on trying to force intensely personal decisions on the entire population because of our individual personal views. :confused:

It's called a debate or a discussion. There's a whole section devoted to issues such as terrorism, religion and philosophy.

Listen....

Evidently the idea of a debate does not exist where you live if you demand so much attention to your 'right and proper' views.

1. Regardless of how reprehensible you consider abortion to be I think any rational person must concede that having an abortion is an intensely personal decision.

No need to concede it. Of course it's personal.

If you think abortion is wrong...its very simple....DON'T HAVE ONE IF YOU HAVE AN UNPLANNED PREGNANCY.

This was said a few posts ago. Read the first page again. There are one or two comments replying to that exact issue. Briefly it's along the lines that society cannot function if it is based upon inconsistent moral values (i.e. I think murder is wrong, but I shall not impose this belief upon the rest of society). It is a spurious argument.

Its not just a simple debate of abortion or no abortion, apparently nobody that is anti-abortion I've come into contact with ever wants to discuss all the things that would have to come along with banning abortion.

Except, of course, us who are discussing this very matter. I, personally, don't think it should be banned for people who have been raped etc.

If abortion was banned you would then have an large additional quantity of unplanned (unwanted) children born every year.

Evidently even you would wish to discuss this matter. Tere would be less deaths. Adoption centres could take in children.

At that point SOMETHING would have to be done about these poor children whether it be adoption or state care or something. I just want anyone who supports making abortion illegal to consider this.

Yet you stated before that we shouldn't consider this? Anyways, we are discussing this.

Here in the United States the foster care and adoption system is a complete mess already...god only knows what would happen if they banned abortion.

Perhaps teenagers would think twice about having unprotected sex since there is no easy way out anymore? It's simple; use a condom.

This is the basic flaw of nearly all the anti-abortion rhetoric I've ever heard. They are totally concerned with the rights of a fetus while in utero well above the personal rights of the mother...

The mother abused her right to free-will by having unprotected sex. She must deal wih the consequences. Reap what you sow. We take into account that some incidents require abortion, such as if the mother would die as a result. But what about the baby?

but once this baby is born they couldn't care less what happens to it....doesn't matter if the baby is dumped in a garbage can, neglected by a drug addict mother who didn't want it etc etc. As long as an abortion was prevented.

I would argue the opposite. We care more for the baby than the abortionist. Unsuitably mothers should give their child to adoption centres. I feel that the mother had no consideration for her own child by having an abortion, and even for having unprotected sex.

2. Banning abortion will lead to the deaths of many women. When abortion was illegal in the US do you know what happened? Thousands of women who felt they had no other option went to underground illegal abortion clinics and died on the operating table. If they ban abortion this is going to happen all over again and I believe it will happen in any nation that bans abortion.

The problem lies with these ignorant people who don't treat human life with respect. That is no excuse to allow abortion. More adoption centres should be set up. Loads of people want to adopt nowadays.

incidentally I personally don't think abortion is great thing. I honestly don't know what I'd do if I was in a situation where me and a girl created an unplanned pregnancy. This my not be a decisive stance but I'm being honest.

Good to see you are considering the ethical questions.

That said, I feel like it would be completely ridiculous to try and make this decision for every person in my country...why???

That is what government is based on whether you like it or not. As I've stated before, society only functions with consistency.

because I'm not pompous enough to believe I'm any kind of moral authority on everyone's behavior and life decisions.

Highly ironic. This is precisely what you are doing. It is a discussion for goodness sake, not a list of instructions of how everybody should live. It is merely a discussion of opinions.

We live in a world where there are millions of people already struggling through life with 2 strikes against them and with NOBODY that gives a crap about them.

Convesely a discussion on the issue is helpful for realising this. I could easily argue that people don't give a stuff about zygotes that could eventually become, potentially, humans.

I think we might better devote time and energy to helping these people rather than to removing the personal choice of millions of women and force more unwanted children to be born.

The children are wanted - by adoption centres. Are you seriously implying that we should not waste energy discussing these ethical questions?

If I don't agree with murder then I won't do it. But I shouldn't impose my morals on the rest of the world...

We need morals in a society. Society cannot function with inconsistencies.

Reply 90

dcarsten

Myth Leader.

First of all I enjoy how you drew so much information from individual words in my post. Don't read so much into the word listen...I didn't mean anything by it.

Also, you brought up adoption centers several times. Let me just say that I admittedly don't know how this system works in the UK. My argument was based on the fact that in the United States there is no simple process of providing for unwanted children. The adoption system is very slow and the foster care system is overworked and has very few safeguards for the children. Children are frequently placed with physically or sexually abusive foster parents who take in foster children so they can receive money from the state for their care. A foster parent in the United States receives a check every month PER child they foster. Also, foster children are frequently bounced from one foster home to another for years which leads more than half of them to develop some sort of attachment disorder.
If there happens to be some amazing system of adoption and foster care in the UK that I'm not aware of, I apologize for this ignorance.

Contrary to what you have asserted, like I said in my last post...I am NOT trying to argue what everyone should do. Yes, it is a discussion but arguing for banning abortion in essence is claiming to know what is best for everyone and is a position that doesn't allow for discussion. I heartily agree with you that many people who have abortions have put themselves in this situation because of blatant irresponsibility but I still don't feel like being pro-choice constitutes inconsistent moral values.

By the way I think you might want to consider that society and government itself IS in fact based on inconsistent moral values. You brought up murder....well you as a UK citizen and me as an American probably both believe murder is wrong. I certainly do. However we live under two governments that probably kill more people in our name then most on this planet.
So, murder is wrong....except for certain reasons sanctioned by the government.

Just like in my country it is reprehensible to torture someone....unless its someone we deem an enemy to the state.

Just like many in my country who argue that marriage is a sacred institution that forms the bedrock of society but have been divorced several times.

From everything I've experienced throughout my lifetime it seems pretty apparent to me that society and governments worldwide have completely inconstant moral values. There is what is morally correct for YOU and then what is correct for EVERYONE ELSE. There is what is morally correct for your nation and what is morally correct for whoever is currently an enemy.

I basically feel that humans generally have this bizarre need to impose moral and behavioral standards on everyone else that they almost never live up to themselves. If you want to get really personal, if anyone asked me about it I would say that I believe murder is wrong. But I spent 6 years in the United States Marine Corps, one tour in Iraq so who knows how many deaths I was directly or indirectly responsible for. My point is, look closely at your own personal beliefs and moral standards and honestly see how many you wouldn't be willing to relax when applied to yourself.

Damn, I'm rambling off topic. I'll stop now.

Reply 91

abc101

People complain about people 'imposing' their morals on everyone else. But if we didn't do this, how would we ever make any laws?

I think it's rather more serious to impose a death sentence on a defenceless baby than to 'impose' morals upon people.

Reply 92

burntgorilla

Are you going to dispute that an acorn is a tree?

The acorn will only compare to a sperm, at best.

Reply 93

Lucia.

I'm trying to say that initially the unborn is just an individual genetically. Once it develops rudimentary organs and begins to move then it is most definitely human. But much more about human identity is defined outside of the womb.

When a woman goes through an abortion, she does not think she is killing a child. She is preventing a pregnancy.

As burntgorilla has said above the definition of what is human is "fuzzy".

There are too many questions about what constitutes human life and what doesn't.

This is where your argument comes crashing down like a ton of bricks.

She is already pregnant when she decides to have an abortion.

The unborn is a human being there is no argument against it, what other species is it if not a human?

Reply 94

burntgorilla

It has the capacity to become human, just as an acorn has the capacity to become a tree. However, stating that an embryo is a proper human is the same as stating that an acorn is a tree. They're clearly not.

No, sperm has the capacity to become human, the unborn is a human.

burntgorilla

The killing of innocent people was what you originally said, I think. That is why she can cry at the Green Mile and be in favour of an abortion, because one is a person and the other isn't.

Can you prove they are not people?

burntgorilla

Part of the problem is that "human" has a rather fuzzy definition, so you can argue endlessly about when something becomes human. But at the same time, there's loads of dodgy thinking, which states that acorns are the same as trees etc. etc.

Myself, I'm in favour of abortion.

Acorn = sperm

small tree = foetus

That is a more accurate analogy.

Reply 95

silverbolt

The_Myth Leader

The child would be grateful for that rather than to be killed.

you logic is faulty, if you abort an cluster of cells it is not a child and it has no say in that, also you cannot predict the future, many children are angry whn they find out they are adopted. Even assuming the cluster of cells is a thinking feeling life it does not have teh capacity to decide if it wants to lie or die

Reply 96

Chat Forum Helper, Life & Style Forum Helper

Martin Daugherty

Something can be of the human species without it being a human life. A human liver is of the human species but it isnt a human life.

Reply 97

PinkMobilePhone

*sigh* oh gawd why am I always sucked into these abortion threads? I always end up getting frustrated yet I always still end up jumping in there and saying something.

I must be tapped in the head.

Okay, the way I see it is that a foetus is merely a younger less developed version of a baby.
A baby is a younger less developed version of a child.
A child is a younger less developed version of a teenager.
A teenager is a younger less developed version of an adult.
An elderly person is a younger less developed version of an adult. Some might even say an elderly person is over-developed.

They are all different stages in human life, yet all are human life.

Yes, a foetus, up to a certain age, cannot survive without the aid of its mother to feed it etc. but then again a baby, too, relies on other people to feed it, clothe it, keep it warm etc.

So too sometimes do elderly people (not ALL elderly people - some can look after themselves, but there are many that can't).

So too do handicapped people (unless it's very mild of course).

The fact that the foetus relies on someone else to take care on it is not enough justification to say that it is not a human life.

A human liver is never going to grow into a baby. Just as a frog is never going to grow into a cow.
A foetus IS going to grow into a baby however, thus it is the first stage of human development.

And there's no point either in saying that a foetus is the same as a sperm, because a sperm, just sitting around being a sperm, is not going to grow into a human baby either.

There we go - that's my PoV - I'd rather not get into this TOO much because as I say the last thread got on my nerves.

Reply 98