PDA

View Full Version : having a baby


iDarky
August 20th, 2009, 07:37 AM
if you have a child what would you do will put it up for adoption or get an abortion. what do you think your mom and dad will do would they kick you out or what.

poopnoodle
August 20th, 2009, 07:39 AM
I'd get an abortion before I ever had a kid. (Heeere comes the hate, I've got my reasons.) My mom would most likely threaten to murder me, then support me.

Jolene
August 20th, 2009, 07:41 AM
I'd have to put him or her up for adoption. My parents wouldn't be able to raise it; they couldn't even raise me.

iDarky
August 20th, 2009, 07:47 AM
my mom would me until get my own home then id get the boot.....

.little monster
August 20th, 2009, 07:47 AM
I wont, I am a gay guy. : 3

If somehow I did..I would give it up for adoption.

Prom night dumpster baby~

SquirtleGirl
August 20th, 2009, 07:49 AM
I'd have an abortion. My body, my choice.

It's probably more selfish to bring a child into the world when you can't support it.

Twisted Cuteness
August 20th, 2009, 07:51 AM
I don't want to have kids. I want to adopt. Why brink more bratlets into the world when there are so many who already need a home?

Mizan de la Plume Kuro
August 20th, 2009, 08:12 AM
I don't want kids. I'd rather live alone because I'm a loner.

Devil's Guitarist
August 20th, 2009, 08:43 AM
well,right now i'd kill myself...heheheh I wouldn't really know what to do...that's why you always have to use protection!!
but when if i had a good job and everything,i'd be sooo happy!!!I can't wait to be a father!xD

Toblerone
August 20th, 2009, 08:47 AM
If i ever gave birth to a child despite being male.. hehe.

But if i made someone else pregnant i'd support whatever they'd want to do. I wouldn't leave them like so many other stupid people do.

Graceful
August 20th, 2009, 08:58 AM
I'd maybe give birth. I'd feel like I'm killing a person if I had an abortion. So I'd keep it and have a part time job. I'd support it by myself if the father says no. [Mum and Dad would kill me though....]

peirateis
August 20th, 2009, 09:20 AM
Heaven forbid I get a girl pregnant, I say, pull a Juno and wait it out and put the baby up for adoption.

Anxiety.
August 20th, 2009, 09:26 AM
If I was giving birth to it, my Mom and Dad would kick me out xD

I would ask my partner what she wants to do. At this age, my parents would threaten to kick me out, but they wouldn't.

But that's unlikely, I'm Bisexual, leaning towards Homosexual.

Kura
August 20th, 2009, 11:34 AM
I'm staying abstinent until I got married. If I got raped I would definitely abort because I don't believe that I would be able to handle raising a child from someone who would've done that to me.

I don't really want kids.. when I'm married, I'd like to just keep it between my husband and I for a few years, and then if we're both ready for that step then we'll take it.

Chloè
August 20th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Considering my sister is dead due to abortion, and I was a failed abortion, I would NEVER do anything so disgusting, and inhuman. I would have it and keep it.

Mew Ichigo
August 20th, 2009, 12:16 PM
Its not possible, since Im a loner.

EDIT: I'd raise the baby if it was rape though...

Rokusasu
August 20th, 2009, 12:20 PM
If I were ever to parent a child at my age, I'm fortunate enough that my parents would support me and my partner. I wouldn't want the pregnancy to be terminated because I kinda view abortion as murder. XD;

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
August 20th, 2009, 08:08 PM
I'll have someone carry my baby for me (btw I'm straight) I just don't want to go threw morning sickness, and the pain of given birth, so I'll have like a carrier or something like that


:t354:TG

♣Gawain♣
August 20th, 2009, 10:42 PM
I don't plan to marry anyway. Kids are rascals these days...

Camisado
August 20th, 2009, 10:50 PM
This is a difficult question.

I am pro-choice for a number of reasons, but I don't know if I'd be able to go through with abortion myself.

However, I have at least another year and a half of a qualification to do through work, and the person I'd likely be having a baby with hasn't started university yet, so it would be difficult for him too.

I know our families are supportive, and I make enough money (as long as I'm living at home) to support this sort of situation but wow, it'd be difficult.

In a few years time with stability, a house, and preferably marriage? It'd be fine. In fact, I'd like one or two children a lot. ._.

Genophobic
August 20th, 2009, 11:08 PM
no dude. i cant even raise myself and country is overpopulated. theres no abortion despite living in a catholic country.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
August 20th, 2009, 11:12 PM
I would never EVER allow abortion ever if I somehow got a girl pregnant and had a baby on the way if I was young.

But I think the fact of me being gay will prevent this situation from ever happening.

It would be my screw up, and I shouldn't just solve the problem by killing the baby before it even has a chance to live.
Even if I did it if I SOMEHOW got drunk or something,

Seriously, I don't plan to get drunk ever. I don't think I'll touch a beer or wine until I'm 21. But I don't overdo beverages, anyway.

In that case, it was MY fault for getting drunk.

---

But anyway, since a situation like that won't occur in my life,
I'll answer the question of wanting a kid or not.

Yes. I do.

Are you kidding? Yes I want a family.
I even would like more than one kid.

Raising a kid is no easy task, I know.
But my decision still stands.

Whether I'll adopt or do surrogate, I'll save that when the time actually comes where it's about time I would like to establish a family itself. :3

Charliezard
August 20th, 2009, 11:24 PM
I'd let the chick decide. I've never regarded my opinion as very important, even if it effects the rest of my life... I wouldn't feel comfortable with choosing to abort or choosing to bring a baby into this world where their parents couldn't do a good job raising them... I'm too weak to decide lol x)

Timbjerr
August 20th, 2009, 11:35 PM
...since I'm 22, on my own, and relatively stable financially, my parents really shouldn't have to do anything about it. The only concern with my parents is that I'm married to a girl before having kids with her. :P

matt561
August 21st, 2009, 01:48 AM
Erm has no one ever said they would put something on the end of it before they started? Because that's what I would do.
Otherwise like oher people being Bi leaning male I guess it depends who I was with.

I mean if I was with another man and some girl walked up and said I'd have got her pregnant well I dont know what I would do.

Signomi
August 21st, 2009, 01:53 AM
No matter the situation, I don't think I can ever find it in myself to abort my own child, it would feel completely against my morals and I'd find it incredibly hard to stomach that I'd be preventing the blossoming of newborn life, that said, the only time I ever want to have a child would be when I'm finally married and completely devoted to my husband, and that we are both willing to start a family, but if that doesn't go quite to plan then I'd most likely keep the child and work as hard as I've ever had to protect the welfare of my own offspring.

♣Gawain♣
August 21st, 2009, 02:01 AM
No matter the situation, I don't think I can ever find it in myself to abort my own child, it would feel completely against my morals and I'd find it incredibly hard to stomach that I'd be preventing the blossoming of newborn life, that said, the only time I ever want to have a child would be when I'm finally married and completely devoted to my husband, and that we are both willing to start a family, but if that doesn't go quite to plan then I'd most likely keep the child and work as hard as I've ever had to protect the welfare of my own offspring.

You're right. Abortion can both(you and the baby) destroy your lives, killing the baby, and killing your moral rights. You'll regret it when after you've done such actions.

Abortion can only be morally right if the mother is in mortal danger. The other reasons? Meh

Giraffes? Giraffes!
August 21st, 2009, 02:05 AM
I wouldn't let my wife/girlfriend abort any child, no matter the how bad things are. I don't think it's fair that we brought a life into this world and didn't give it a chance to live. Even if we were dirt poor, i want that child to have a shot at life. So, no... i'd rather give the child up for adoption then to not give him/her a shot at living.

Soul Eater
August 21st, 2009, 02:05 AM
My mom actually said she would support the idea. She would be willing to even help me if I was to have one now. XD I really wouldn't be able to go through abortion. D: It would just be so hard. :< I'd also want to keep my first-born child because well... yeah. D:

processr
August 21st, 2009, 05:15 AM
I wouldn't be so horrifically stupid to have done so in the first place. Contraception was invented for a reason, people, and if your religion says it's wrong, then chances are they say sex before marriage is also wrong. I've no sympathy for those who freely choose to ignore the risk that unprotected sex carries.

And please, before you start hating on me, make sure you read what I've said. I'm condemning those who could use protection (whether it be condoms, the pill or whatever) but do not; those who are raped and whatnot have the greatest sympathy for their plight from me.

Cherrim
August 21st, 2009, 08:51 AM
Honestly, I don't know. The idea of pregnancy horrifies me but idk if I could go through with an abortion. It would be a REALLY hard decision to decide between the two for me, though. (And if I did end up having the thing, I'm sure it'd go up for adoption the moment it was out. uggggh kids.)
I wouldn't be so horrifically stupid to have done so in the first place. Contraception was invented for a reason, people, and if your religion says it's wrong, then chances are they say sex before marriage is also wrong. I've no sympathy for those who freely choose to ignore the risk that unprotected sex carries.

And please, before you start hating on me, make sure you read what I've said. I'm condemning those who could use protection (whether it be condoms, the pill or whatever) but do not; those who are raped and whatnot have the greatest sympathy for their plight from me.
:( Hypothetical situation, I believe this thread asks for--there are plenty of situations past practicing safe-sex that could result in pregnancy. Aside from abstinence, there is no contraceptive that is 100% effective. I just figured OP wanted people to respond as if the situation has already occurred, regardless of the means that caused it.

Nuke
August 21st, 2009, 09:01 AM
At my age its not really a problem yet but if I got a girl pregnant at an age between 16-23 (Never happening..) then I would let it be their choice, while it would impact my life it would be her body so she should get the most input. I'd prefer for her not to have an abortion though as, like many, I would class it as murder.

I dont think I'll ever have that problem though.

Ash~The Purifying Prince~
August 21st, 2009, 05:32 PM
I'm a guy so I can't actually give birth to a baby; but if by some chance I got a girl pregnant I really wouldn't go for the whole abortion thing. I mean from the moment of conception thats a whole new life that I and someone else created, so I wouldn't have it in me to destroy possibly the most wonderful miracle life has to offer.


I'd support the girl with everything I have; I wouldn't care what my parents say although they'd probably kill me but if such a thing ever happened I'd be 100% supportive and 100% there for the baby and the mother. ^^ but I'm not even silly enough to even let that happen in the first place in my teens. I'd prefer to wait until I'm older and I've actually found the right girl to live my life with and start a family with.

Luck
August 21st, 2009, 05:57 PM
I wouldn't let my wife/girlfriend abort any child, no matter the how bad things are. I don't think it's fair that we brought a life into this world and didn't give it a chance to live. Even if we were dirt poor, i want that child to have a shot at life. So, no... i'd rather give the child up for adoption then to not give him/her a shot at living.
Google "ectopic pregnancies." You are just taking away womens right to choose.
Honestly, I don't know. The idea of pregnancy horrifies me but idk if I could go through with an abortion. It would be a REALLY hard decision to decide between the two for me, though. (And if I did end up having the thing, I'm sure it'd go up for adoption the moment it was out. uggggh kids.)

:( Hypothetical situation, I believe this thread asks for--there are plenty of situations past practicing safe-sex that could result in pregnancy. Aside from abstinence, there is no contraceptive that is 100% effective. I just figured OP wanted people to respond as if the situation has already occurred, regardless of the means that caused it.

Abstinence, I always hated that. "Just say no" isn't the best saying for ****ty, jailbait, hormonal teenagers. The only way to actually prevent it is to either scare them, or make them wear giant chastity belts. If it were up to me, many things would vary in it. Status of the baby, status of the mother, female rights, etc. If I knew the baby wasn't going to live for very long, and would have several conditions, or if the finances didn't allow for it, I'd lean towards abortion. But I don't like imposing my thoughts on women on such neutral thoughts(to me) like this.

Jordan
August 21st, 2009, 05:58 PM
If it was my own decision or mistake, I would not think twice about having the baby.

Zero°
August 21st, 2009, 06:03 PM
My mom had me when she was 14, and kept me, however...

I'd probably give it up for adoption, he/she would be better of with another family, than with someone that wouldn't know what to do with him/her.

Alpha King
August 23rd, 2009, 06:11 AM
I'd have an abortion. My body, my choice.

It's probably more selfish to bring a child into the world when you can't support it.


No, I can see what you say by your body, but it's nowhere selfish to do that. It's selfish getting an abortion cuz you can't control what you do in bed, it's your responsibility. You destroy a life, an innocent life. Put it up for an adoption. If my wife and I had a child we couldn't take care of I'd put it up for adoption so someone who can raise the baby will take care of it. I would want the best for my baby not to kill it before we could have it.

If it were sick so it wouldn't live long at all I'm not sure what I would do. If someone gets raped or molested then I see a proper reason for an abortion. I understand it's the women who are having the baby, but it makes no difference, pregnancy is a natural thing, and if you didn't want to have a baby you should have some protection. It's all about responsibility. :)

Corvus of the Black Night
August 23rd, 2009, 06:50 AM
Flippin' "hypothetical threads". Oh how I am sick of them. But might as well give this one a spin. :p

First off, I wouldn't be so stupid to put myself in a situation where I would literally be screwed underage in the first place. But if worst were to come to worst (i.e., an embryo was magically conceived in my uterus, as if by God) I would abort it. If I were over 18, I wouldn't, but you know, I'm what they call "underage".

Sorry, Jesus. =(

By the way, for those extreme pro-lifers out there (woo, yet ANOTHER abortion debate in which nobody actually listens to the other side of the debate!), people who have abortions are not doing so to simply say, "Whee! I get to eject my fetus! What a wonderful day!". The decision is a hard one to make and one that requires much thought. A person who has an abortion usually does so for realizing that the environment is not suitable for a child to grow up in, and the pregnancy was either caused by accident or was thought of too hastily, or due to a sudden change in environment such as losing a job or one's home burning down. Animals exhibit similar behaviours, although unable to kill an animal in its embryo form, it will rather starve the weaker offspring to support the stronger. Why? Because the environment is not suitable for the offspring to live in, and it's better to support a strong one to survive than to malnourish both to cause them both to survive, but not grow to their potential.

Death of the young is cruel, but nature is cruel. Only the toughest will survive, and that's why most parents do what it takes to make a child survive in the real world, to be strong, healthy and to have vigour. Without such traits, the child will live a sickly life and will most likely die at a young age. It seems even if an abortion won't kill them, nature will, which is why some parents, due to the situation, would much prefer an abortion than to see a child with memories and experiences of love and hate, of friendship and loneliness, of colour, sound, tastes and feelings, with emotion, die. Admittedly, a fetus has the potential to feel such experiences, but not when they are in the uterus.

And thus, the debate grinds down to this. When does simple growth end and human life and personality begin? Does it begin when the fetus has a mind, or when it begins to use that mind?

Alpha King
August 23rd, 2009, 08:55 AM
Flippin' "hypothetical threads". Oh how I am sick of them. But might as well give this one a spin. :p

First off, I wouldn't be so stupid to put myself in a situation where I would literally be screwed underage in the first place. But if worst were to come to worst (i.e., an embryo was magically conceived in my uterus, as if by God) I would abort it. If I were over 18, I wouldn't, but you know, I'm what they call "underage".

Sorry, Jesus. =(

By the way, for those extreme pro-lifers out there (woo, yet ANOTHER abortion debate in which nobody actually listens to the other side of the debate!), people who have abortions are not doing so to simply say, "Whee! I get to eject my fetus! What a wonderful day!". The decision is a hard one to make and one that requires much thought. A person who has an abortion usually does so for realizing that the environment is not suitable for a child to grow up in, and the pregnancy was either caused by accident or was thought of too hastily, or due to a sudden change in environment such as losing a job or one's home burning down. Animals exhibit similar behaviours, although unable to kill an animal in its embryo form, it will rather starve the weaker offspring to support the stronger. Why? Because the environment is not suitable for the offspring to live in, and it's better to support a strong one to survive than to malnourish both to cause them both to survive, but not grow to their potential.

Death of the young is cruel, but nature is cruel. Only the toughest will survive, and that's why most parents do what it takes to make a child survive in the real world, to be strong, healthy and to have vigour. Without such traits, the child will live a sickly life and will most likely die at a young age. It seems even if an abortion won't kill them, nature will, which is why some parents, due to the situation, would much prefer an abortion than to see a child with memories and experiences of love and hate, of friendship and loneliness, of colour, sound, tastes and feelings, with emotion, die. Admittedly, a fetus has the potential to feel such experiences, but not when they are in the uterus.

And thus, the debate grinds down to this. When does simple growth end and human life and personality begin? Does it begin when the fetus has a mind, or when it begins to use that mind?


If the child is sickly and wouldn't live long, it's better not to make them go through a miserable life like that. Being underage, though, it's still about responsibility. We shouldn't let small babies not even born yet; not fully developed, just....kill them? I think not.

Corvus of the Black Night
August 23rd, 2009, 09:00 AM
Then again, if you were raped, would you want that child and you to live with that?

I prefer abstinence over all else, however. Besides, this is a "hypothetical situation", so really, why argue over something that the majority of the female population doesn't go through? I'll wait for you to get raped and see if you change your mind before I continue the argument.

HomicideCrunkMan
August 24th, 2009, 08:24 AM
Well considering the given situation, if that were to happen, it would be entirely your choice. It's your body, do with it what you wish.

Redstar
August 24th, 2009, 08:27 AM
I recommend this thread locked. Abortion debate on a Pokemon forum? I don't like where that's headed.

Lady Gaga
August 24th, 2009, 08:29 AM
I recommend this thread locked. Abortion debate on a Pokemon forum? I don't like where that's headed.

well, this is Other chat. anything can be said here.

anyways,m i myself would never put a girl in that situation. but if it somehow were to happen, i would go with whatever she wanted, and be the responsible father. though, i only want kids when im an adult.

Redstar
August 24th, 2009, 08:30 AM
well, this is Other chat. anything can be said here.

anyways,m i myself would never put a girl in that situation. but if it somehow were to happen, i would go with whatever she wanted, and be the responsible father. though, i only want kids when im an adult.
I wouldn't know. This is actually the first time I've come this far down in the forum. =\

If people can remain civil, then discuss all you like. I just have horror stories of people not being able to remain civil.

Timbjerr
August 24th, 2009, 10:21 AM
If the child is sickly and wouldn't live long, it's better not to make them go through a miserable life like that. Being underage, though, it's still about responsibility. We shouldn't let small babies not even born yet; not fully developed, just....kill them? I think not.

I agree with this point more than anything.

Let me share a secret. I'm the product of a difficult pregnancy. When my mother was carrying me, I was given a 5% chance of survival, and she was given somewhere around 30%. Even though her doctor advised that she get me aborted, she refused. You could argue that she was being selfish because I know my mom and there's nothing she loves in this world more than being a mother. It wasn't an easy decision for her, and it was even harder for my dad to accept it. She went through with her pregnancy putting 100% faith in God, and lo and behold, I was born. I was undersized and had only one functional lung, but I was born. Now I may not be a shining example of happiness and joy today, but I am thankful for having life, knowing everything that my parents went through during my birth. I'm aware that I may be coming off a little like a Christian missionary, but my point is, you can't give up on a life, even if doctors tell you that it's a lost cause. Miracles do happen, and abortion is never the answer.

Stellar
August 24th, 2009, 11:59 AM
I'd get an abortion. I am in no way capable of raising a child, and who knows what nut the kid would end up with?

...that isn't to say that I get pregnant all the time just to terminate the pregnancy for fun. Not that that's possible at this point in my life, but I'd always make sure to be responsible.

EDIT:

Miracles do happen, and abortion is never the answer.
Sorry, just read this post and had to respond. I think your story is a very beautiful one and I admire both your conviction and the courage of your parents a whole lot. I know we have different views, and I have my reasons, but I just had to say something. I wish your family all the luck in the world, because it sounds like you guys deserve it. ^^

Luck
August 24th, 2009, 04:20 PM
Miracles do happen, and abortion is never the answer.

Just thought I'd respond to this. YES, miracles do happen. But it was just luck(no pun intended) that you were conceived. I don't agree with your last statement. Abortion isn't always the answer, but in some situations, it is the only logical conclusion. Pregnant women don't abort for the lulz. And adoption wouldn't be that great either. There are already orphanages up to their neck in kids, and there is no way that you can rely on people in this cruel world we live in.
To end this, miracles can happen, but when it is impossible to take the fetus out of the fallopian tube as of now, miracles won't support you.

poopnoodle
August 24th, 2009, 04:41 PM
The only reason I am living in a healthy environment today is because my mother aborted when she was younger and wasn't able to have kids, so she decided to adopt me. She's fostered several underprivileged children like myself, and if I ended up being just another unwanted child living in the slums where I was found, I don't know if I would want to be alive. (Edit: I started tearing up after I posted this, because tomorrow's my birthday and I've never been so grateful for my mother. ): )

Btw, no one is pro-abortion (that I know of)...they're pro-choice. I'm an avid supporter of human rights and there is an extensive amount of situations one should consider in a topic such as this.

Tyrantrum
August 24th, 2009, 05:13 PM
If, in some crazy/deranged way, I got a sex change and had a baby. My parents would obviously kill me, while doing their best to help me support it. I don't think abortions are the best way to deal with an unborn baby, imo... :(

Alpha King
August 24th, 2009, 05:33 PM
I'd get an abortion. I am in no way capable of raising a child, and who knows what nut the kid would end up with?




That's why YOU get to choose from couples who' would be best at raising your child.

Esper
August 24th, 2009, 05:55 PM
That's why YOU get to choose from couples who' would be best at raising your child.
I think it's irresponsible and selfish to assume that you can always give a baby up for adoption. Someone else will take care of it? Yeah. Sure.

Contrary to what many may think, there are not lines of caring, childless couples around every corner. There just aren't. Gay couples and people who are single also have a harder time adopting (or are outright prevented in some places). The baby will most likely go into foster care where it can be like a cat in a pet store waiting for someone to take it home. If the baby has birth defects it's less "valuable" to some prospective parents (or just not feasible to someone who would take care of a special needs baby but can't afford to) further lowering the chances of adoption. Lots of kids end up in foster care without long-term parents or homes and the older a kid gets the harder it is for them to be adopted. There are plenty of other issues that don't need going into, but suffice it to say that kids put up for adoption can have tough, unloved lives.

So, which is more irresponsible, having an abortion or giving a baby up for adoption? It's a matter of circumstances. If you find yourself pregnant, not likely to have complications, not minding going through with the pregnancy for nine months, and there is a tender and well-off couple at your bedside waiting to adopt the moment that baby pops out then, yes, adoption is probably your best bet. For everyone else it isn't so clear cut.

And for the record, I would abort.

Alpha King
August 25th, 2009, 11:11 AM
I think it's irresponsible and selfish to assume that you can always give a baby up for adoption. Someone else will take care of it? Yeah. Sure.

Contrary to what many may think, there are not lines of caring, childless couples around every corner. There just aren't. Gay couples and people who are single also have a harder time adopting (or are outright prevented in some places). The baby will most likely go into foster care where it can be like a cat in a pet store waiting for someone to take it home. If the baby has birth defects it's less "valuable" to some prospective parents (or just not feasible to someone who would take care of a special needs baby but can't afford to) further lowering the chances of adoption. Lots of kids end up in foster care without long-term parents or homes and the older a kid gets the harder it is for them to be adopted. There are plenty of other issues that don't need going into, but suffice it to say that kids put up for adoption can have tough, unloved lives.

So, which is more irresponsible, having an abortion or giving a baby up for adoption? It's a matter of circumstances. If you find yourself pregnant, not likely to have complications, not minding going through with the pregnancy for nine months, and there is a tender and well-off couple at your bedside waiting to adopt the moment that baby pops out then, yes, adoption is probably your best bet. For everyone else it isn't so clear cut.

And for the record, I would abort.

Well, contrary to what you say, I think it's waaaay more selfish and irresponsible to abort a baby.

No one said you can just put a baby out there. It takes a lot of thoughts and tears to put a baby up for adoption. More than you think. While, yes, some children may not find a home for specific reasons, it's the selfishness and judgmental approach of the people, while others spend their lives caring for these outcasts. But for me living a life is better than not. Only if I were so sure that my child was going to die of disease early would I find a reason to abort my child. Some foster kids are so underprivileged it's horrific to think about, but what would you do, just let them get shot? You don't just have yourself guess at what will happen if you don't know. Lots of people are looking for babies to take care of. Less, for older children. The point is, someone out there is waiting for that one child to turn up.

Lastly, People don't give up babies too easy for adoption, don't consider it being there to give it away "when it pops out". And just cuz you're giving your baby up, doesn't make the kids underprivileged. In fact, it makes the kid more privileged because the reason for putting a baby up for adoption is because you can't raise the child in that environment. Adoption is way better for everyone despite what the person said before me.

Luck
August 25th, 2009, 12:57 PM
Well, contrary to what you say, I think it's waaaay more selfish and irresponsible to abort a baby.

No one said you can just put a baby out there. It takes a lot of thoughts and tears to put a baby up for adoption. More than you think. While, yes, some children may not find a home for specific reasons, it's the selfishness and judgmental approach of the people, while others spend their lives caring for these outcasts. But for me living a life is better than not. Only if I were so sure that my child was going to die of disease early would I find a reason to abort my child. Some foster kids are so underprivileged it's horrific to think about, but what would you do, just let them get shot? You don't just have yourself guess at what will happen if you don't know. Lots of people are looking for babies to take care of. Less, for older children. The point is, someone out there is waiting for that one child to turn up.

Lastly, People don't give up babies too easy for adoption, don't consider it being there to give it away "when it pops out". And just cuz you're giving your baby up, doesn't make the kids underprivileged. In fact, it makes the kid more privileged because the reason for putting a baby up for adoption is because you can't raise the child in that environment. Adoption is way better for everyone despite what the person said before me.

He already said it was a matter of circumstances. Of course, it usually is better when babies are adopted, but when the baby will suffer its whole life, I'd think you would just make it easier. Please though, tell me how it is irresponsible to abort a baby. The parents try to do what is better for the baby. If they refuse to give it up for adoption because of the sickening world out there, and don't have enough money to give the baby a good job, then they will have an abortion. It isn't selfish if you care for the baby more than yourself.

Timbjerr
August 25th, 2009, 02:27 PM
He already said it was a matter of circumstances. Of course, it usually is better when babies are adopted, but when the baby will suffer its whole life, I'd think you would just make it easier. Please though, tell me how it is irresponsible to abort a baby. The parents try to do what is better for the baby. If they refuse to give it up for adoption because of the sickening world out there, and don't have enough money to give the baby a good job, then they will have an abortion. It isn't selfish if you care for the baby more than yourself.

The way I see it, given the choice between abortion and adoption, neither are significantly more responsible than the other. In fact, it's irresponsibility that puts people in the position to have to make this choice. Adoption gives the child the chance to actually live while abortion denies them that simple right. True, there is the likelihood that the child will stay in an orphanage until they're 18, but they've still got their life if nothing else.

TwilightBlade
August 25th, 2009, 02:49 PM
Although I seriously believe that two should not have a baby if they cannot financially support one, I would keep and raise my baby.

My mom considered aborting me (well, us, as I'm a twin). Now if she went through with abortion because it was a "bad" time or whatever excuse, well, no one would know me today as I wouldn't exist. I have family and friends and I turned out fine, right. I may not have many toys, eat a lot, or have a quiet or safe environment to live in, but I turned out fine, right. :>

Vanilla Kitsune
August 25th, 2009, 03:41 PM
An abortion. I don't have the time or money to raise a child.

Noah Ridgewood
August 25th, 2009, 04:01 PM
Assuming it was unwanted and I had the ability to have children (meaning if I was of the opposite sex):

1. I wouldn't be able to end the life of another human being, so adoption is completely out of the question. I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing something that was once part of me and that I helped create was killed.
2. If I didn't have the money to raise I child, I would first (before they were born) look for possible solutions to my financial problem.
3. If I found a solution to the problem, I would have the child and raise it with my family supporting me (not financially, unless I was in dire need of help).
4. If I did not find a solution to the problem, I would take the time to find a family who was looking to adopt. I wouldn't want my child to be placed somewhere where I wasn't able to know that they were safe.
5. If I chose to give it up for an adoption, the family would need to be one who realized that I am the mother and have an open relationship with me and allow me to see my child as it grew up, having them know that they were adopted when they were born.

Now, if I got someone else pregnant, I would support any decision they have as I believe (despite the fact that both a man and a woman are responsible for the creation of the baby) the woman should be the one with the ultimate decision.

Alpha King
August 25th, 2009, 04:26 PM
He already said it was a matter of circumstances. Of course, it usually is better when babies are adopted, but when the baby will suffer its whole life, I'd think you would just make it easier. Please though, tell me how it is irresponsible to abort a baby. The parents try to do what is better for the baby. If they refuse to give it up for adoption because of the sickening world out there, and don't have enough money to give the baby a good job, then they will have an abortion. It isn't selfish if you care for the baby more than yourself.


Well, to settle it, abortion is just like getting rid of a child. Adoption is you want the kid to have a life and it's better off being with another family. In other words, you CARE what happens to your child. Besides, the world IS fairly cruel, but that's what the media portrays it to be. There's actually more good in the world, think about it, did you ever have all your friends get shot? It's not that cruel although still rough. What else will you work on though? Aren't we all building up to cope with the real world? What I'm saying is, if foster cared for, (which usually isn't in the slums or in the ghetto) it will make them strong to have strength to fight. That's what you want, thoguh, right? Your kids to be stronger than what you ever were? Abortion, though a tough decision, is an easier way out. You'll never know what they would've become, or what they'd be like. We want the best for our descendants, do we not?

Luck
August 25th, 2009, 04:43 PM
Well, to settle it, abortion is just like getting rid of a child. Adoption is you want the kid to have a life and it's better off being with another family. In other words, you CARE what happens to your child. Besides, the world IS fairly cruel, but that's what the media portrays it to be. There's actually more good in the world, think about it, did you ever have all your friends get shot? It's not that cruel although still rough. What else will you work on though? Aren't we all building up to cope with the real world? What I'm saying is, if foster cared for, (which usually isn't in the slums or in the ghetto) it will make them strong to have strength to fight. That's what you want, thoguh, right? Your kids to be stronger than what you ever were? Abortion, though a tough decision, is an easier way out. You'll never know what they would've become, or what they'd be like. We want the best for our descendants, do we not?

Indeed, who wouldn't?
But there are many risks in pregnancy. Although a baby may soon be conceived, it can actually get strangled by its own umbilical cord. And abortion isn't really like getting rid of a child. Unlike a child, a fetus isn't conscious of it's existence, and it doesn't have a social life or feelings. But this discussion is really irritating me because this focuses on your views of morals and moral standards. I don't like discussing philosophy, because it cannot be supported by science. These damned hypothetical threads.

Alpha King
August 25th, 2009, 07:05 PM
Indeed, who wouldn't?
But there are many risks in pregnancy. Although a baby may soon be conceived, it can actually get strangled by its own umbilical cord. And abortion isn't really like getting rid of a child. Unlike a child, a fetus isn't conscious of it's existence, and it doesn't have a social life or feelings. But this discussion is really irritating me because this focuses on your views of morals and moral standards. I don't like discussing philosophy, because it cannot be supported by science. These damned hypothetical threads.


Well, I guess, what you're saying is moral is ...... bad? I'm not the most moral, goody-goody person you'll ever meet but I have 1 last point to make. The same people who are for abortion are the same people who don't believe in the death sentence, hypocritical much? Like you'll kill these innocent lives, but you refuse to kill off the guilty, evil ones.

Ineffable~
August 25th, 2009, 07:13 PM
Heaven forbid I get a girl pregnant, I say, pull a Juno and wait it out and put the baby up for adoption. This.

Considering my sister is dead due to abortion, and I was a failed abortion, I would NEVER do anything so disgusting, and inhuman. I would have it and keep it. And this.

What don't people undertand about the definition of murder? It's not okay to kill any human being at all. Even if it is inside you and currently part of your body. In fact, I would consider killing your unborn child...way much more inhumane than any form of murder. The people who think abortion is okay have obviously never heard of adoption.

My point being that if you don't want to raise a kid, please let it be adopted by another family instead...

Wings Don't Cry
August 25th, 2009, 07:22 PM
If I got a girl pregnant I'd never tell her to get an abortion or put it up for adoption.

Åzurε
August 25th, 2009, 08:09 PM
Well, point one:

Keep. It. In. Your. Pants.

But aside from that, adoption would be best for everyone involved. Abortion for something as superficial as maintaining appearances or because it was an "accident" is stupid and selfish, and keeping the child would at least give the people involved an opportunity to learn something, in addition to letting a kid keep it's life. If the dad was trying to run away, I'd say hang on to him like an angry terrier, because this is his fault too. If it's rape we're talking about, keep the child, there's advanced enough surgery to keep you pretty much safe, and chances are the man responsible will be found out sooner or later. There are people who will help you if you can't support him/her or think it's too hard put the child up for adoption.
I view abortion as infanticide because of people like Starchild in the above post. It's still a form of murder to me.
If the argument is "it's not really alive yet," You could put it in these terms: The people involved in performing an abortion are quashing life where it has the chance to appear, which is keeping someone from living, which is in essence killing someone. I may elaborate further, later, if I need to.

God
August 25th, 2009, 09:18 PM
Look, depends on how old you are. If you were 15, for instance, then there would be some legal complications but they can't make you kill the child, no one can. But if you were 16+, then it'd be your choice on whether you keep the baby or not.

Jakuri
August 25th, 2009, 10:08 PM
Abortion is the same as "Suicide" in my opinion. It is a cowards way out.
If my life had to end to save the child's life, I would have it, hoping that it would have a chance with an adoptive family or the father, etc.
And, on the account of being "raped" I won't comment, since I've already dealt with this situation with someone who's already posted in this topic, and it just tears me apart the emotional strain it brings.
So, to sum it up. I will NEVER abort. Adoption at most.

Esper
August 25th, 2009, 10:27 PM
Adoption gives the child the chance to actually live while abortion denies them that simple right.

Well, to settle it, abortion is just like getting rid of a child. Adoption is you want the kid to have a life and it's better off being with another family ... You'll never know what they would've become, or what they'd be like.


If the argument is "it's not really alive yet," You could put it in these terms: The people involved in performing an abortion are quashing life where it has the chance to appear, which is keeping someone from living, which is in essence killing someone. I may elaborate further, later, if I need to.
Like Luck has said, the belief that egg+sperm or a fetus = human life/person is a belief and not supported with evidence. Not everyone shares it and you can't expect everyone to.

I simply don't see the potential for human life as the same thing as actual human life. Eggs and flour are not the same thing as a cake even if they're made of the same stuff. Quashing life? If I never have children am I denying the right to life of all the kids I could potentially have, but don't? Of course not. I hold the same stance when it comes to a couple of human cells. Yes, they can become a full human being, but it is the desire to create and nurture a human life that makes those handful of cells a future human being. They aren't yet a person in my view, just the ingredients. Some people have the desire, some don't.

Amachi
August 25th, 2009, 10:55 PM
Like Luck has said, the belief that egg+sperm or a fetus = human life/person is a belief and not supported with evidence. Not everyone shares it and you can't expect everyone to.

I simply don't see the potential for human life as the same thing as actual human life. Eggs and flour are not the same thing as a cake even if they're made of the same stuff. Quashing life? If I never have children am I denying the right to life of all the kids I could potentially have, but don't? Of course not. I hold the same stance when it comes to a couple of human cells. Yes, they can become a full human being, but it is the desire to create and nurture a human life that makes those handful of cells a future human being. They aren't yet a person in my view, just the ingredients. Some people have the desire, some don't.
What? No evidence? I think you meant to say, "Well it doesn't look like a person so it's alright to kill it."

Even though the child has human DNA, formed at the very moment of conception, when the sperm fertilises the egg, and thus is human. It's not an issue of views and opinions, it's not a belief or a matter of faith - it is human.

Or isn't that enough evidence for you? Perhaps it's too logical or something, idk. I mean, whatever makes you comfortable with murder is fine, right?

I think it goes without saying that I'm strongly against abortion (unless if the mother's life is in danger, and in such a case the child probably wouldn't survive anyway). Adoption would be an option, but I'd rather keep the child.

Timbjerr
August 25th, 2009, 11:04 PM
Well, point one:

Keep. It. In. Your. Pants.

I couldn't agree with this more. The best way to avoid this debate is to avoid doing the no-pants dance if you're not ready for a child.

Of course, this topic is about the hypothetical situation pointing to the contrary....but I'm just saying. XD

Like Luck has said, the belief that egg+sperm or a fetus = human life/person is a belief and not supported with evidence. Not everyone shares it and you can't expect everyone to.

I simply don't see the potential for human life as the same thing as actual human life. Eggs and flour are not the same thing as a cake even if they're made of the same stuff. Quashing life? If I never have children am I denying the right to life of all the kids I could potentially have, but don't? Of course not. I hold the same stance when it comes to a couple of human cells. Yes, they can become a full human being, but it is the desire to create and nurture a human life that makes those handful of cells a future human being. They aren't yet a person in my view, just the ingredients. Some people have the desire, some don't.

A very scientific and logical approach to the issue indeed. However, consider this: most women that become pregnant, accidentally or otherwise, will tell you that they formed an emotional bond with their child just weeks after conception. Does this not fulfill the emotional requirement for a fetus to be considered as human life? Or is it the maternal instincts in the mother making her insane?

poopnoodle
August 25th, 2009, 11:51 PM
A very scientific and logical approach to the issue indeed. However, consider this: most women that become pregnant, accidentally or otherwise, will tell you that they formed an emotional bond with their child just weeks after conception. Does this not fulfill the emotional requirement for a fetus to be considered as human life? Or is it the maternal instincts in the mother making her insane?A) I'd like to see this poll that proves that most women become attached to their unborn babies, B) That is just...not surprising. You also said most, not all. I would not call them crazy, I just would not be surprised. C) That would be the MOTHER experiencing emotions, not the fetus...so no, it does not fulfill the emotional requirement for a fetus to be considered human life. I, like Scarf, believe that the fetus is not YET a human but a mass of tissue.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that (most) women don't just go around getting knocked up then abort for funsies...that sometimes the situation doesn't call for either an abortion or no abortion, but an abortion or dead woman. I must say I value the life of a fully ~blossomed~ human being over a bundle of cells. Also, people like me go out of their way to avoid pregnancy...but hey, rape happens. My stance is, I refuse to bring another child into the world when there are so many going without care...and I fear that if I did put the baby up for adoption, whoever I'd give the baby to would be less loving than I'd be. And raising it myself...I don't know if I could even look at the child whose father raped me, being reminded of the experience every single day of my life. Both of our lives would probably be miserable...and just not being alive sounds more pleasant than that.

(I'm not trying to impose my views, just present another viewpoint. This issue, like most topics of interests, are two-sided...please keep that in mind. And before you judge an entire lot of women for choosing to abort, try to consider every possible scenario that could result in taking such measures.)

scyfer
August 26th, 2009, 12:09 AM
i would take the child under my wing...... it would be the beginning of my army >:D

Gold warehouse
August 26th, 2009, 12:32 AM
I think abortion is in many cases the best way, why bring another child into this already overpopulated world when s/he is not wanted? Even though I find the idea of murdering your own unborn child to be terrible.
Adoption is a wonderful concept, but how many people are actually willing to adopt a child? Think about how awful it would be for those children who are never adopted, who spend their entire childhood in an orphanage without ever having any parents.

But seeing as I am male, I don't think I deserve any say in the matter.

As for the 'mum and dad' issue, I really couldn't care less what they think; it's my life, it's my body, it's my child.

Esper
August 26th, 2009, 06:18 AM
What? No evidence? I think you meant to say, "Well it doesn't look like a person so it's alright to kill it."

Even though the child has human DNA, formed at the very moment of conception, when the sperm fertilises the egg, and thus is human. It's not an issue of views and opinions, it's not a belief or a matter of faith - it is human.

Or isn't that enough evidence for you? Perhaps it's too logical or something, idk. I mean, whatever makes you comfortable with murder is fine, right?

I think it goes without saying that I'm strongly against abortion (unless if the mother's life is in danger, and in such a case the child probably wouldn't survive anyway). Adoption would be an option, but I'd rather keep the child.
Not too logical, but too simplistic. I've said a human being is more than the sum of its genetic material. Please don't put words into my mouth.

LEXAcide
August 26th, 2009, 06:45 AM
if you have a child what would you do will put it up for adoption or get an abortion. what do you think your mom and dad will do would they kick you out or what.

Abortion FTW

I dont want a kid at 18

Luck
August 26th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Well, I guess, what you're saying is moral is ...... bad? I'm not the most moral, goody-goody person you'll ever meet but I have 1 last point to make. The same people who are for abortion are the same people who don't believe in the death sentence, hypocritical much? Like you'll kill these innocent lives, but you refuse to kill off the guilty, evil ones.

*Facepalm*
Morals are subjective, and the fetus isn't classified as a human, just as the sunflower seed isn't classified as a sunflower. And I don't see you going to your local meat farm and protesting for the cows, chickens, lamb, and pigs. I mean, they kill animals that are unaware of their existence. Strangely enough, the same people who are pro-life are FOR capital punishment, war, and many other things that involve killing innocent people that ARE aware of their existence. This is the same capital punishment that killed people who proven innocent later.
What? No evidence? I think you meant to say, "Well it doesn't look like a person so it's alright to kill it."

Even though the child has human DNA, formed at the very moment of conception, when the sperm fertilises the egg, and thus is human. It's not an issue of views and opinions, it's not a belief or a matter of faith - it is human.

Or isn't that enough evidence for you? Perhaps it's too logical or something, idk. I mean, whatever makes you comfortable with murder is fine, right?

I think it goes without saying that I'm strongly against abortion (unless if the mother's life is in danger, and in such a case the child probably wouldn't survive anyway). Adoption would be an option, but I'd rather keep the child.

There are many mutations that happen during the 9 months in the womb. And although your argument makes sense, it wouldn't work that much. Sunflower seeds aren't sunflowers. They may have come from sunflowers, but they aren't sunflowers.

Alpha King
August 26th, 2009, 02:51 PM
*Facepalm*
Morals are subjective, and the fetus isn't classified as a human, just as the sunflower seed isn't classified as a sunflower. And I don't see you going to your local meat farm and protesting for the cows, chickens, lamb, and pigs. I mean, they kill animals that are unaware of their existence. Strangely enough, the same people who are pro-life are FOR capital punishment, war, and many other things that involve killing innocent people that ARE aware of their existence. This is the same capital punishment that killed people who proven innocent later.


There are many mutations that happen during the 9 months in the womb. And although your argument makes sense, it wouldn't work that much. Sunflower seeds aren't sunflowers. They may have come from sunflowers, but they aren't sunflowers.


That's right, facepalm yourself to knock some real sense into you.
What I'm saying is of course we end innocent lives on death row, and I do regret that it wasn't further investigated, but for the most part, for the guilty killers, who cares if they knew their own existence?! THEY ENDED SOMEONE ELSE'S EXISTENCE!! They deserve what they get, because unlike what you think, because they think doesn't make them any more good-nature, does it? War, unfortunately, is the sad reality to end things. I do not like violence, but sometimes I wanna go over to Iraq and kick the crap out of those terrorists! Maybe I don't protest chickens and cows, but is that supposed to be a good point?? The fact is we are, the way God made us,higher on the food chain, and we need our protein to survive. Even you eat chicken and beef, but we don't EAT our children, you just changed it to make it look bad, but all you're doing is making yourself look stupid.

While fetuses aren't fully developed, they are still human life.
JUST BECAUSE THEY AREN'T BORN YET, IT'S ALRIGHT TO KILL THEM?! HOW OBLIVIOUS TO REALITY CAN YOU BE? "Let's just kill the babies cuz we couldn't keep our things where they are meant to be." Irresponsible, selfish, evil. The best ways to describe abortion. The only case I believe abortion is necessary is when a girl is raped and becomes pregnant, because she can't control what he did to her. But anyway, abortion is obviously wrong, whether it be morally or scientifically, it all equals wrong.
Once you can finally get this in your thick skulls will be the day the light is revealed.

Abortion FTW

I dont want a kid at 18


Wow. How selfish and stupid and you know what? How extremely ridiculous that you would ever consider killing young babies "For the win"
You evil little---- UGGGGGGGHHH!! NO CUSS WORDS ON THE ThREADS!!

poopnoodle
August 26th, 2009, 03:33 PM
*Sigh*

Wow. How selfish and stupid and you know what? How extremely ridiculous that you would ever consider killing young babies "For the win"
You evil little---- UGGGGGGGHHH!! NO CUSS WORDS ON THE ThREADS!! Please, let's debate rationally.

What I'm saying is of course we end innocent lives on death row, and I do regret that it wasn't further investigated, but for the most part, for the guilty killers, who cares if they knew their own existence?! THEY ENDED SOMEONE ELSE'S EXISTENCE!!Tbh, I think the culprits should have to live with what they've done in a cold cell with nothing to do. It's like being dead, only conscious. I think death is a privilege to those living in monotony.

JUST BECAUSE THEY AREN'T BORN YET, IT'S ALRIGHT TO KILL THEM?! HOW OBLIVIOUS TO REALITY CAN YOU BE? "Let's just kill the babies cuz we couldn't keep our things where they are meant to be." Irresponsible, selfish, evil. The best ways to describe abortion. The only case I believe abortion is necessary is when a girl is raped and becomes pregnant, because she can't control what he did to her. But anyway, abortion is obviously wrong, whether it be morally or scientifically, it all equals wrong.That is an extremely ignorant, one-sided view of what defenders of the idea of abortion believe. It is not just rape that results in abortion, but health issues, or the mother's position (whether it be financial, healthwise, whatever). Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest. I don't know how many times Luck has to repeat him/herself, so let me restate. Sunflower seed does not equal sunflower.

Side note: You can get as frustrated as you want, but you cannot expect everyone to see things your way.

Alpha King
August 26th, 2009, 03:42 PM
*Sigh*



Please, let's debate rationally.


Tbh, I think the culprits should have to live with what they've done in a cold cell with nothing to do. It's like being dead, only conscious. I think death is a privilege to those living in monotony.



That is an extremely ignorant, one-sided view of what defenders of the idea of abortion believe. It is not just rape that results in abortion, but health issues, or the mother's position. Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest. I don't know how many times Luck has to repeat him/herself, so let me restate. Sunflower seed does not equal sunflower.

Side note: You can get as frustrated as you want, but you cannot expect everyone to see things your way.

I never expected anyone to see it all my way, and I know we are all entitled to our opinions. I kinda... forgot about the sickness one so that's another reason. I understand perfectly what Luck was saying so there's no need for you to restate it. Anyway about the killer thing, I do agree with the cell, cold, locked up with nothing, but anyway, in this one of few situations, an eye for an eye is the way it should be done, to me.

twocows
August 26th, 2009, 04:29 PM
Whatever she decided, I'd stick by her. If she asked me what I thought, I'd recommend abortion (yes, I know she could adopt; I have my reasons, and I'm not going to get into a pointless debate about morality, since I know what I believe is right). If she chose to have it, I'd drop out of college and get a job. Parents would probably be disappointed, but it wouldn't be their decision. They're hardy paying anything for my education, anyway; I'm getting by almost 100% on scholarships.

BHwolfgang
August 26th, 2009, 04:43 PM
If I ever get a girl pregnant, then I'll raise it, even without support. I can't just kick it away; the little fella is my blood and bones. o_o

Timbjerr
August 26th, 2009, 05:14 PM
Abortion FTW

I dont want a kid at 18

I'm glad to see that you put all of two seconds of thought into it. Next time, try for at least three...that's how debates usually work. XD

Amachi
August 26th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Not too logical, but too simplistic. I've said a human being is more than the sum of its genetic material. Please don't put words into my mouth.
Please don't change the definition of what is human to suit your agenda.

"It's a fetus"
"It's a clump of cells"
"It's not human"

Arguments like that are often given in an attempt to desensitise oneself and others on the issue, and it works. But that's not a good thing.


*Facepalm*
Morals are subjective, and the fetus isn't classified as a human, just as the sunflower seed isn't classified as a sunflower. And I don't see you going to your local meat farm and protesting for the cows, chickens, lamb, and pigs. I mean, they kill animals that are unaware of their existence. Strangely enough, the same people who are pro-life are FOR capital punishment, war, and many other things that involve killing innocent people that ARE aware of their existence. This is the same capital punishment that killed people who proven innocent later.


There are many mutations that happen during the 9 months in the womb. And although your argument makes sense, it wouldn't work that much. Sunflower seeds aren't sunflowers. They may have come from sunflowers, but they aren't sunflowers.
The fetus is human. It has human DNA. Pregnant women aren't walking around with an alien inside of them that magically turns into a human when she starts pushing.

Those aren't people, what is wrong with you?

You realise that a child in the womb is probably as innocent as a human can be, right? The baby has done nothing wrong, except people seem to have some sort of problem with it's existence. Why aren't you opposed to that?

Yes they are, they just don't look like one yet. What you've just said also implies that at different stages of human development, our DNA changes drastically, which is definitely not the case. Our DNA does not change, whether it be from child to teenager, teenager to adult, and yes, even in the 9 month development stage in the womb. It is a human, stop lying to yourself. Your analogy is incorrect.
You evil little---- UGGGGGGGHHH!! NO CUSS WORDS ON THE ThREADS!!
You shouldn't let yourself get so agitated, it doesn't help anyone.
*Sigh*

Please, let's debate rationally.

Tbh, I think the culprits should have to live with what they've done in a cold cell with nothing to do. It's like being dead, only conscious. I think death is a privilege to those living in monotony.

That is an extremely ignorant, one-sided view of what defenders of the idea of abortion believe. It is not just rape that results in abortion, but health issues, or the mother's position (whether it be financial, healthwise, whatever). Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest. I don't know how many times Luck has to repeat him/herself, so let me restate. Sunflower seed does not equal sunflower.

Side note: You can get as frustrated as you want, but you cannot expect everyone to see things your way.

"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."
"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."
"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."

W-What? Did I read that correctly? Did you just say that killing a baby is often in the best interests of the child? Really?

Also, thanks. I don't think I'll forget that statement for as long as I live :)

jwexler
August 26th, 2009, 09:20 PM
if youre not ready abortion is the way to go

Åzurε
August 26th, 2009, 09:25 PM
^Amachi's post: That's going in my "common counterpoints repertoire". =/

But yeah. Even the sunflower seeds are still sunflowers, simply immature as an organism.

If we are indeed more than the sum of our parts, how does one know if that abortion released that "something" (Soul or consciousness in layman's terms, I'd guess)?

Murkat
August 27th, 2009, 03:42 AM
seeing as im 13 years old.....i obviously find the idea of intercourse revolting.....no offence to anyone who might take offence. but i do want a child. so i think i would adopt. if i ever DID get pregnant....if i was young i would abort, and if i was older and i wanted it then i would have it anyway. btw im hetero-sexual (straight)
oh yeah and another reason i don't want to have s** is cos it hurts to give birth.
oh well.....i'll think about it another time....maybe....not....pffft.

btw that was not a fart.

Mitchman
August 27th, 2009, 03:44 AM
Keep it and follow through. I am responsible for this and as so its only right I follow through. Not to mention abortion is worse then pregnancy here and all.

poopnoodle
August 27th, 2009, 05:25 AM
W-What? Did I read that correctly? Did you just say that killing a baby is often in the best interests of the child? Really?Yes, I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest, if the life is to be miserable (whether that's due to health status or the condition of the environment it would be brought into) and neglected. For example, if I had unprotected sex from which I got AIDS, hell yes I would abort because there is a chance that the disease spread to the baby and that would be horribly selfish to nurture a life that can't be sustained.

But yeah. Even the sunflower seeds [B]are still sunflowers, simply immature as an organism.

If we are indeed more than the sum of our parts, how does one know if that abortion released that "something" (Soul or consciousness in layman's terms, I'd guess)?That is something I simply do not believe. My disbelief and your theory are the essence of both sides of the debate, obviously, so I'm entitled to my stance, as you are to yours.

1KewlDude
August 27th, 2009, 06:52 AM
In answer to the original question... being male and only sixteen I don't feel that it's my choice as to what happens to the child. I would support the mother no matter what because it would have been my fault (well it takes two to tango lol but it was partly my fault).

When the time comes and Ii'm ready to start a family with the woman I love, I would love to have children =]
Please don't change the definition of what is human to suit your agenda.

"It's a fetus"
"It's a clump of cells"
"It's not human"

Arguments like that are often given in an attempt to desensitise oneself and others on the issue, and it works. But that's not a good thing.

The fetus is human. It has human DNA. Pregnant women aren't walking around with an alien inside of them that magically turns into a human when she starts pushing.

Those aren't people, what is wrong with you?

You realise that a child in the womb is probably as innocent as a human can be, right? The baby has done nothing wrong, except people seem to have some sort of problem with it's existence. Why aren't you opposed to that?

Yes they are, they just don't look like one yet. What you've just said also implies that at different stages of human development, our DNA changes drastically, which is definitely not the case. Our DNA does not change, whether it be from child to teenager, teenager to adult, and yes, even in the 9 month development stage in the womb. It is a human, stop lying to yourself. Your analogy is incorrect.

You shouldn't let yourself get so agitated, it doesn't help anyone.


"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."
"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."
"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."

W-What? Did I read that correctly? Did you just say that killing a baby is often in the best interests of the child? Really?

Also, thanks. I don't think I'll forget that statement for as long as I live :)In regards to this debate... again it's not my body so I would never force this choice or advise against it with anyone... but I do believe that abortion is murder and that every child has a right to life, I don't believe that we have the right to decide whether a child lives or dies.

I do understand that in these circumstances the life of the child may turn out badly... but since none of us can tell the future (as far as I know) and it isn't our life to be deciding whether or not the child dies I just don't agree with abortion. If I were in a situation where I had gotten someone pregnant, I would state my beliefs and just let her know how I feel, but I would never pressure her and I would support any and every choice she makes.

I don't think there's a point in this argument because people just have different beliefs and that's just the way it. It's nice to see some really supportive guys around though, I feel like I'm alone in the world sometimes lol

twocows
August 27th, 2009, 08:21 AM
Here was my take on the abortion debate in a conversation I had with some YouTuber about half a year ago. He argued the typical "it grows into a human" line, and I then asked if castration would be murder, since sperm has the potential to grow into a human. He responded that sperm were simply cells (which, I might note, is what many pro-choice advocates argue a fetus is). I wrote a page or two in response, and my final conclusion was that since we have no way of knowing specifically when a fetus develops a level of consciousness (which I feel should be the primary factor in defining what is or is not a human), we should focus instead on the well-being of the mother over the well-being of the (what may or may not be a) baby. Specifically, I argued that the circumstances should be considered before allowing an abortion. I may not have said it in the attachment, but I do believe that if adoption is viable (though there are many cases in which it is not), then abortion should be disallowed.

The discussion is attached; his initial reply to my castration line is listed first, followed by my reply.

Alpha King
August 27th, 2009, 11:21 AM
Yes, I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest, if the life is to be miserable (whether that's due to health status [baby OR mother] or the condition of the environment it would be brought into) and neglected. For example, if I had unprotected sex from which I got AIDS, hell yes I would abort because there is a chance that the disease spread to the baby and that would be horribly selfish to nurture a life that can't be sustained.
The child's best interest..
Wow, so you think that killing it would be best, not to mention the cases that are excusable and the ones that are irresponsible. It's in the best interest of the child to get killed? Like Amachi did:

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"


That is disgusting! You think it not living a life would be privilege to the child? TO NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE WONDERS! THE HORRORS? TO GAIN STRENGTH THROUGH IT?! SOMETHING EVEN YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WOULD NEVER DREAM OF?






That is something I simply do not believe. My disbelief and your theory are the essence of both sides of the debate, obviously, so I'm entitled to my stance, as you are to yours.


It's really no longer about what you think but what you believe and what is "right" to you. This isn't about "opinions" anymore, it's about death, and killing innocent helpless children. In a nature whereas, it's the responsibility of the parent to, whether or not intended, take care of the child no matter what the mother goes through. Death, despite what people think, IS worse than harm or injury. We only have one life, and once you take it away, there's no replacing it..

Noah Ridgewood
August 27th, 2009, 11:28 AM
You're.... arguing over one's belief in a thread that's just asking for mixed beliefs and then saying how wrong it is for one to believe such a thing? What?

poopnoodle
August 27th, 2009, 11:28 AM
Wow, so you think that killing it would be best, not to mention the cases that are excusable and the ones that are irresponsible. It's in the best interest of the child to get killed?

You seem to have completely ignored the rest of the sentence after "I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest."
Re-read it, comprehend it, then respond.

Noah Ridgewood
August 27th, 2009, 11:39 AM
Despite the fact that I would find it incredibly difficult to have an abortion if I were the mother due to having a connection with the child only mothers can have, if your life just isn't what you want it to be, you don't have the money, you live day to day struggling, and then suddenly you're pregnant, I can honestly see why someone would abort. I don't know about everyone else, but I would not want to have my child suffer life. There's a chance that in such a living situation, that the baby wouldn't be raised the way you would like it, or something could go wrong and the baby's life could be in danger or actually end due to such problems since you don't have the money to send it to a doctor and get rightful medical treatment. I would never want my child to have to go through problems like that, so I think in the minds of others, they feel that it would be a lot easier for them and everyone else to cope with if the child itself was never brought into the world living. You know?

Now, a few posts back, I shared my beliefs on what I would do if I was having a child, and said something completely different along the lines of never aborting, but within reasonable situations, I don't find it at all to be "absolutely disgusting" for abortion to come to mind, but then again, there's always adoption. If you could find a good family for your child who is willing to allow you to see him or her, then that would solve many of the problems that are going on with your life. So abortion to me would seem to be a last resort if you can't find a family willing to respect your rights (not legal rights) to the child as the biological mother.

Alpha King
August 27th, 2009, 11:45 AM
You seem to have completely ignored the rest of the sentence after "I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest."
Re-read it, comprehend it, then respond.



Oh, I read it, I agree with the few exceptions, okay? I did lose my cool a couple times now, and I know this is about opinions, but I stick with the base of my decision with what this thread is all about. So I'll make this very simple. Adoption (if the circumstance is a healthy baby), though I'd probably keep it anyway.

Luck
August 27th, 2009, 01:04 PM
The fetus is human. It has human DNA. Pregnant women aren't walking around with an alien inside of them that magically turns into a human when she starts pushing.

Just thought I'd say something. The fetus doesn't have "human" DNA, but DNA from other animals. This is counting that the earth wasn't created in 7 days, but in fact billions of years through many generations. Unless you deny the blatantly obvious evidence of course.
You realise that a child in the womb is probably as innocent as a human can be, right? The baby has done nothing wrong, except people seem to have some sort of problem with it's existence. Why aren't you opposed to that?
Until it is responsible for the death of the mother of course.
And are you even aware of what pain the carrier of the fetus goes through? I can't believe I didn't say this in my original post.
Fatigue, nausea, backaches, headaches, mood swings, strees, and oh, I didn't even mention the giant baby at the point of conception.
There is also the destruction of childhood dreams that most parents have because of their expensive baby. The fact that the baby is unaware of what it is doing does no good either. At least if I punch an innocent woman constantly in the stomach for nine months, among those symptoms, I feel guilty. What makes a fetus exempt from the critique and judgment of humans? We all know that it can't be that it's unaware, because many serial killers are unaware that they are doing wrong, or even anything at all.
Yes they are, they just don't look like one yet. What you've just said also implies that at different stages of human development, our DNA changes drastically, which is definitely not the case. Our DNA does not change, whether it be from child to teenager, teenager to adult, and yes, even in the 9 month development stage in the womb. It is a human, stop lying to yourself. Your analogy is incorrect.
I never said that it changes drastically, but there are still a lot of changes that go through.
And why do we need more humans into this world? China holds almost 20% of the world's population. The only thing that can prevent it is self control, and you can see how well that works with the hormonal teenagers walking around in America.
Now please, tell me, would you let a child live if it was going to suffer its whole life? Look at Africa and you can see the effects of that, especially after the pope said that condoms increase the chance of STD's.
W-What? Did I read that correctly? Did you just say that killing a baby is often in the best interests of the child? Really?
Maybe it's just me, but I would prefer not having lived at all then having lived a completely miserable life. It is just me, so this doesn't have much to do with it.

Just to point something out, I don't classify the fetus as alive, even though it parasites off of the host. I classify it as non-living, although it lives as soon as it takes it's first breath outside of the womb. So telling me that this supposed child murder won't work, unless you can find me a watertight definition on what is alive and what is dead. So with this being said, I don't think you can kill what isn't alive.

poopnoodle
August 27th, 2009, 01:13 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I would prefer not having lived at all then having lived a completely miserable life. It is just me, so this doesn't have much to do with it.That's exactly how I feel. Life isn't wasted if it was terminated before it began, it's wasted if it was lived in misery. In my opinion.

aurevesque
August 27th, 2009, 03:59 PM
hmm... interesting topic. As for me, i'd have it adopted, cause being raised by a 16 mother or whatever maybe be worse than abortion(maybe). Cause the kid would be more likely to keep that sad cycle going. Yeah, i'd go wiht adoption. I'm an adoptee so i can definitely vouch for it.

Åzurε
August 27th, 2009, 09:00 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I would prefer not having lived at all then having lived a completely miserable life. It is just me, so this doesn't have much to do with it.

Just to point something out, I don't classify the fetus as alive, even though it parasites off of the host. I classify it as non-living, although it lives as soon as it takes it's first breath outside of the womb. So telling me that this supposed child murder won't work, unless you can find me a watertight definition on what is alive and what is dead. So with this being said, I don't think you can kill what isn't alive.

Well, I can't say anything conclusively for your particular case, of course, but If you had a chance and a conscious decision to live, knowing everything you know now, would you take it?

And why wouldn't you classify the child as alive? If you'll give me a definitive reason for the basis of your opinion, It can work from there.

Zeta Patchouli
August 27th, 2009, 09:54 PM
Albeit it is rare, there is someone who doesn't hav an overpowering urge for sex. (Me.) Not interested, the sad thing is, that I'm 15, in a place where 11 year olds are having sex. And I wouldn't be able to conceive a child, seeing as I'm male. However, if I did get someone knocked up, then I would consider the following.

Chances of survival for both the baby and mother.
Willingness on the mother's part.
And... well, coupled with a few other things that I won't mention. I am against abortion, I really am. But, if my wife could possibly die, then... I would allow her to get the abortion, if she wanted to. Sure, I would feel bad for the rest of my life, but... losing someone that I would love would hurt me even more. But, her opinion counts just as much as mine, if not more so since she's carrying the baby.

(And I'm not kidding about the sex thing. I just don't want any right now. Especially since I am underaged.)

poopnoodle
August 28th, 2009, 12:35 AM
And why wouldn't you classify the child as alive? If you'll give me a definitive reason for the basis of your opinion, It can work from there. I don't classify the fetus as alive (fundamentally) because it doesn't have a central nervous system developed enough to make decisions or feel pain ( the necessary nerve pathways are not constructed enough for the fetus to feel pain until after at least 28 weeks. I've never heard of an abortion being done past 20 weeks, but the fetus CAN be anesthetized), it's not conscious of its existence, it has no will to live.

While I'm mentioning this, I would just like to state that the removal of the embryo is a natural, monthly occurance for most women (AKA the menstrual cycle). I'm not asking this in a condescending way, I honestly would like to hear your standpoint (you being whoever): Do you classify the embryo alone as a human? It is, after all, a potentiality for human life.

Luck
August 28th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Well, I can't say anything conclusively for your particular case, of course, but If you had a chance and a conscious decision to live, knowing everything you know now, would you take it?

And why wouldn't you classify the child as alive? If you'll give me a definitive reason for the basis of your opinion, It can work from there.

Please, call it the fetus next time.
I consider it alive when it passes the "life test", which means it must pass these 7 terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology) in biology.
I don't remember the fetus having homeostasis, as I have never heard a baby that sweats. I also classify it as living if it has a working brain and heart. And it doesn't adapt to it's environment, most likely because it would die in an environment outside of the womb. Please name one animal that has none of these, because that would surely break my hypothesis. However, do remember that "life" does not have a solid meaning. It is different in biophysics and many other areas of science. This is merely an opinion for the most part from me.
I don't classify the fetus as alive (fundamentally) because it doesn't have a central nervous system developed enough to make decisions or feel pain ( the necessary nerve pathways are not constructed enough for the fetus to feel pain until after at least 28 weeks. I've never heard of an abortion being done past 20 weeks, but the fetus CAN be anesthetized), it's not conscious of its existence, it has no will to live.

While I'm mentioning this, I would just like to state that the removal of the embryo is a natural, monthly occurance for most women (AKA the menstrual cycle). I'm not asking this in a condescending way, I honestly would like to hear your standpoint (you being whoever): Do you classify the embryo alone as a human? It is, after all, a potentiality for human life.

I want to classify it as a human, because it has the DNA that a human has, but that alone is a flawed argument. Not all humans have the same genetic code, and most of them are different. And the chimpanzee has more than 95% DNA similarity to us, yet the chimpanzee isn't classified as a human. Would a human with less than 90% DNA similarity to the regular human not be considered a human? I hate these hypothetical threads >:(

Alpha King
August 28th, 2009, 02:20 PM
Please, call it the fetus next time.
I consider it alive when it passes the "life test", which means it must pass these 7 terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology) in biology.
I don't remember the fetus having homeostasis, as I have never heard a baby that sweats. I also classify it as living if it has a working brain and heart. And it doesn't adapt to it's environment, most likely because it would die in an environment outside of the womb. Please name one animal that has none of these, because that would surely break my hypothesis. However, do remember that "life" does not have a solid meaning. It is different in biophysics and many other areas of science. This is merely an opinion for the most part from me.




No! No matter what your stupid "science" tells you, it's human life, and should be treated as such, not roadkill.

Luck
August 28th, 2009, 02:30 PM
No! No matter what your stupid "science" tells you, it's human life, and should be treated as such, not roadkill.

You just don't get it. First you say that science and morals agree that it is wrong to kill babies, and now you decide to call science stupid? Are you even aware that science supported the information for the computer that you are typing on? How about the fact that science offers you proper plumbing? Science doesn't demand you worship it, and neither do I, but I'd prefer that you do not be so ignorant of the fact that you are using creations of science. But I guess our stupid science only improved our understanding of the universe, and that's not anything major, right?/sarcasm

Now you are just getting into emotional fits and subjective thoughts. And you are doing nothing to refute my points, you are just calling my personal opinion evil and leaving it at that. Do you really think that you'll make people think otherwise by throwing insults?
Please answer me this then. When does the fetus get rights? Is it as soon as it forms? If so, then why are you not going against the morning after pill? And even then, why doesn't the sperm and egg have the same right? After all, they do form the fetus. Does it get rights when it gets a beating heart? Or about during conception? Where do we draw the line?
And don't give me that emotional flailing again, because that is just another way for you to ignore the question and think you are answering the question.

poopnoodle
August 28th, 2009, 02:40 PM
I want to classify it as a human, because it has the DNA that a human has, but that alone is a flawed argument. Not all humans have the same genetic code, and most of them are different. And the chimpanzee has more than 95% DNA similarity to us, yet the chimpanzee isn't classified as a human. Would a human with less than 90% DNA similarity to the regular human not be considered a human? I hate these hypothetical threads >:(I probably should have stated that differently. My objective was, at what point do you (again, I'm speaking to whoever is reading this) declare the beginning of human life? If you believe that humanity begins at conception, why? Let me point out that conception is not instantaneous, it is a process, not a precise moment. And what makes the zygote any different from the individual sperm or the individual egg? Like I said, they are both potentiality for human life. As Twocows argued in the attachment he posted, "arguing that anything that grows into a human is, in fact, a human, is the same as arguing that a sperm or egg is such." Arguing that the termination of any potential life form automatically declares castration and menstruation manslaughter. If a zygote should be preserved because it came from a human being, shouldn't we also preserve every single sperm and egg (in addition to skin cells because they can replace the sperm in the creation of a human being) because they can form a zygote? That is not only impractical in my opinion, but unachievable.

And as Luck said, many pro-lifers aren't out there protesting animal cruelty. What makes an unborn, unaware collection of cells more valuable than a different species?

No! No matter what your stupid "science" tells you, it's human life, and should be treated as such, not roadkill.



Well, let's try to be civil and understanding here. Like I've said before, this is a two-sided topic, and you can't expect everyone to submit to your views. There's nothing wrong with opposing ideas, there's no reason to express your opinion in a patronizing / bitter fashion. This discussion has become repetitious...I keep reading the same arguments over and over again. Your being dogmatic does not draw me to your side of the debate.

Amachi
August 28th, 2009, 04:40 PM
Yes, I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest, if the life is to be miserable (whether that's due to health status or the condition of the environment it would be brought into) and neglected. For example, if I had unprotected sex from which I got AIDS, hell yes I would abort because there is a chance that the disease spread to the baby and that would be horribly selfish to nurture a life that can't be sustained.

That is something I simply do not believe. My disbelief and your theory are the essence of both sides of the debate, obviously, so I'm entitled to my stance, as you are to yours.

There are many, many people living today who suffer, whether it be from AIDS, a disability, or something else.

What you're saying is that it's basically better, for them, to be dead.

I mean, perhaps you should ask those who suffer about whether or not they want to live. Heck, there are people who have survived abortions - ask them if they want to live, knowing that their mother tried to kill them while they were still in the womb.

And I don't think it's selfish to want to love and care for someone, because that's all parents want really (that, and the baby bonuses :P)
In answer to the original question... being male and only sixteen I don't feel that it's my choice as to what happens to the child. I would support the mother no matter what because it would have been my fault (well it takes two to tango lol but it was partly my fault).

When the time comes and Ii'm ready to start a family with the woman I love, I would love to have children =]
In regards to this debate... again it's not my body so I would never force this choice or advise against it with anyone... but I do believe that abortion is murder and that every child has a right to life, I don't believe that we have the right to decide whether a child lives or dies.

I do understand that in these circumstances the life of the child may turn out badly... but since none of us can tell the future (as far as I know) and it isn't our life to be deciding whether or not the child dies I just don't agree with abortion. If I were in a situation where I had gotten someone pregnant, I would state my beliefs and just let her know how I feel, but I would never pressure her and I would support any and every choice she makes.

I don't think there's a point in this argument because people just have different beliefs and that's just the way it. It's nice to see some really supportive guys around though, I feel like I'm alone in the world sometimes lol
I know you're pro-life, but that "it's my body" argument just always gets me, because the child in the womb is a different person. Yes, it may depend on the mother for food and protection, but that's no different to many children up to the age of 18 anyway, hahaha.

Just thought I'd say something. The fetus doesn't have "human" DNA, but DNA from other animals. This is counting that the earth wasn't created in 7 days, but in fact billions of years through many generations. Unless you deny the blatantly obvious evidence of course.

Until it is responsible for the death of the mother of course.
And are you even aware of what pain the carrier of the fetus goes through? I can't believe I didn't say this in my original post.
Fatigue, nausea, backaches, headaches, mood swings, strees, and oh, I didn't even mention the giant baby at the point of conception.
There is also the destruction of childhood dreams that most parents have because of their expensive baby. The fact that the baby is unaware of what it is doing does no good either. At least if I punch an innocent woman constantly in the stomach for nine months, among those symptoms, I feel [B]guilty. What makes a fetus exempt from the critique and judgment of humans? We all know that it can't be that it's unaware, because many serial killers are unaware that they are doing wrong, or even anything at all.

I never said that it changes drastically, but there are still a lot of changes that go through.
And why do we need more humans into this world? China holds almost 20% of the world's population. The only thing that can prevent it is self control, and you can see how well that works with the hormonal teenagers walking around in America.
Now please, tell me, would you let a child live if it was going to suffer its whole life? Look at Africa and you can see the effects of that, especially after the pope said that condoms increase the chance of STD's.

Maybe it's just me, but I would prefer not having lived at all then having lived a completely miserable life. It is just me, so this doesn't have much to do with it.

Just to point something out, I don't classify the fetus as alive, even though it parasites off of the host. I classify it as non-living, although it lives as soon as it takes it's first breath outside of the womb. So telling me that this supposed child murder won't work, unless you can find me a watertight definition on what is alive and what is dead. So with this being said, I don't think you can kill what isn't alive.
That's not even relevant. Our DNA may be similar, but it's not the same.

In Western countries, maternal deaths as a result of child birth have been reduced drastically. It doesn't even compare to the amount of children being killed in the womb.
Are you serious? Are we all terrible people because our mother's had to ENDURE THE PAIN of carrying us for 9 months? Are you seriously trying to justify the murder of a defenceless child? That's like saying "I killed a kid because they kicked me in the shin. It's not my fault because they hit me first." Get out.

No, the DNA doesn't change, the child just matures. Don't talk about what you don't know. Oh wow, the overpopulation argument. Why don't we just go around sterilising everyone then? Never mind that an aging population isn't really a good thing and unnaturally restricting our ability to reproduce is just insane considering that it reduces the survivability of the human race. Furthermore, if Earth were to hypothetically become overpopulated, and assuming food shortages would follow, then the female body would put a halt to the menstrual cycle when deprived of food for a long period of time, so there are already checks in place for such an occurrence.

Would you kill someone who's suffering now? Would you at least ask for their permission first or just lunge at them with a knife?

Welllllllllll, you see, the condom can't guarantee the prevention of HIV/AIDS being transmitted. It's actual prevention rate is 85%, leaving a 15% chance of getting the disease. By encouraging condom usage (instead of abstinence, which really is the only way to guarantee the prevention of STDs), you're only misleading the public into thinking that they'll be perfectly safe if they use a condom.

You must be living a pretty crappy life right now then if you think that, seriously.

You are wrong. You can't just redefine what life so it suits you and your morals. It has biological functions, a rock does not. It's alive, a rock isn't. Your turn.
That's exactly how I feel. Life isn't wasted if it was terminated before it began, it's wasted if it was lived in misery. In my opinion.
You too. Go outside and have some fun, cheer the hell up.
I don't classify the fetus as alive (fundamentally) because it doesn't have a central nervous system developed enough to make decisions or feel pain ( the necessary nerve pathways are not constructed enough for the fetus to feel pain until after at least 28 weeks. I've never heard of an abortion being done past 20 weeks, but the fetus CAN be anesthetized), it's not conscious of its existence, it has no will to live.

While I'm mentioning this, I would just like to state that the removal of the embryo is a natural, monthly occurance for most women (AKA the menstrual cycle). I'm not asking this in a condescending way, I honestly would like to hear your standpoint (you being whoever): Do you classify the embryo alone as a human? It is, after all, a potentiality for human life.
Again, redefining what life is to suit your agenda. It is alive from conception, since at that point the biological processes start occurring. It is alive throughout the entire pregnancy. It doesn't just go from being non-living to living randomly.

Dude, abortions can happen at any time throughout the pregnancy. I find the abortions that occur later on to be the most horrifying of them all.

Please watch the video in the spoiler. I know it's a long video, but it's very informative.
Note: It can be quite graphic, so if you're young or easily disturbed, maybe get someone to watch it with you, read the text beneath the video, or only watch the first part, before they actually perform an abortion.
EkD0PcIsM3U
The Silent Scream - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.

Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.
That video, to me, shows that the foetus can feel pain and it does have a will to live. Not that such a point has any merit, since it's not like you can justify someone's murder by saying they felt no pain and didn't want to live anyway. What's wrong is still wrong.
Please, call it the fetus next time.
I consider it alive when it passes the "life test", which means it must pass these 7 terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology) in biology.
I don't remember the fetus having homeostasis, as I have never heard a baby that sweats. I also classify it as living if it has a working brain and heart. And it doesn't adapt to it's environment, most likely because it would die in an environment outside of the womb. Please name one animal that has none of these, because that would surely break my hypothesis. However, do remember that "life" does not have a solid meaning. It is different in biophysics and many other areas of science. This is merely an opinion for the most part from me.

I want to classify it as a human, because it has the DNA that a human has, but that alone is a flawed argument. Not all humans have the same genetic code, and most of them are different. And the chimpanzee has more than 95% DNA similarity to us, yet the chimpanzee isn't classified as a human. Would a human with less than 90% DNA similarity to the regular human not be considered a human? I hate these hypothetical threads >:(
Why should I call it that? So I can desensitise myself to the issue and make the child easier to kill? No thanks.
omg lol. You are pretty foolish, and absolutely wrong. Did you even read the link or any related links? Did you go do any further research, or even a quick Google search so as to ensure that I don't completely own you?

Glucose homeostasis in human fetuses (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p6876841513j17m6/)
Plants don't have those organs, are they non-living? Besides, ave you tried looking for an animal that fits those criteria? It'll take you seconds. SECONDS.
Do you even know what "hypothesis" means? Do you even go to school?

So would you say that people which have slightly different genetic codes aren't actually "people"? Why not just exclude people of different skin colour too while we're at it :D.
Man, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're actually making stuff up as you go along, it's quite incredible and irritating at the same time.

I probably should have stated that differently. My objective was, at what point do you (again, I'm speaking to whoever is reading this) declare the beginning of human life? If you believe that humanity begins at conception, why? Let me point out that conception is not instantaneous, it is a process, not a precise moment. And what makes the zygote any different from the individual sperm or the individual egg? Like I said, they are both potentiality for human life. As Twocows argued in the attachment he posted, "arguing that anything that grows into a human is, in fact, a human, is the same as arguing that a sperm or egg is such." Arguing that the termination of any potential life form automatically declares castration and menstruation manslaughter. If a zygote should be preserved because it came from a human being, shouldn't we also preserve every single sperm and egg (in addition to skin cells because they can replace the sperm in the creation of a human being) because they can form a zygote? That is not only impractical in my opinion, but unachievable.

And as Luck said, many pro-lifers aren't out there protesting animal cruelty. What makes an unborn, unaware collection of cells more valuable than a different species?
Life starts at fertilisation. There, the life created is unique, not the mother, not the father, but the result of the union of sperm and egg. That's how it is different.

The zygote doesn't have the potential to become a human life - it is a human life.

Besides, this doesn't take away from the fact that you're killing babies.

Are we discussing animal cruelty? Why are you trying to change the topic and make moral comparisons? Animals aren't equal to humans, such a thought is absurd.

Besides, doesn't such a comparison work both ways? If we're here making broad, generalised statements, then I can say that there are many animal activists out there that don't oppose abortion.

But yeah, they are more valuable. So what?

Also, you guys talk about how selfish it is to have a child that's sick or disabled when really, the most selfish ones are usually those that decide upon the abortion. Most abortions are performed because the child is an inconvenience.

Alpha King
August 28th, 2009, 06:19 PM
You just don't get it. First you say that science and morals agree that it is wrong to kill babies, and now you decide to call science stupid? Are you even aware that science supported the information for the computer that you are typing on? How about the fact that science offers you proper plumbing? Science doesn't demand you worship it, and neither do I, but I'd prefer that you do not be so ignorant of the fact that you are using creations of science. But I guess our stupid science only improved our understanding of the universe, and that's not anything major, right?/sarcasm

Now you are just getting into emotional fits and subjective thoughts. And you are doing nothing to refute my points, you are just calling my personal opinion evil and leaving it at that. Do you really think that you'll make people think otherwise by throwing insults?
Please answer me this then. When does the fetus get rights? Is it as soon as it forms? If so, then why are you not going against the morning after pill? And even then, why doesn't the sperm and egg have the same right? After all, they do form the fetus. Does it get rights when it gets a beating heart? Or about during conception? Where do we draw the line?
And don't give me that emotional flailing again, because that is just another way for you to ignore the question and think you are answering the question.


Listen bud, I'm not here to insult anyone, but I'm justifying my acts and stating what I think. There is nothing here about emotional fit except my outburst at that ignorant "FTW" person.

Btw, I'm not here to be interrogated okay?
So, let's set this straight:
I believe that all human life starts at conception. All living forms inside a human is human and should have the rights like a normal child would. Second off, the "morning after pill" is a form of abortion, which is generally spoken in terms when I say "abortion". The sperm and egg are used to conceive, and the female is the one who gives the birth. That being said, the egg is inside the woman, and she has more the rights with an egg than men do with a sperm. Yeah, now I know you're gonna say "then why shouldn't the female have the right to choose to abort?" the answer is because, these rights have nothing to do with abortion, being that they conceive naturally and they don't kill the fetus, which I will once again return to the term child.
The child should get its rights at conception, though some circumstances would force the child to die, or if the mother is raped then it would never have rights (of course, if the abortion is planned). After it is born, it would have more rights then within the stomach of the mother. If this doesn't answer the questions, then I'm not sure how to. Anyway, no "emotional fits" this time... Happy?


Please watch the video in the spoiler. I know it's a long video, but it's very informative.
Note: It can be quite graphic, so if you're young or easily disturbed, maybe get someone to watch it with you, read the text beneath the video, or only watch the first part, before they actually perform an abortion.
EkD0PcIsM3U
The Silent Scream - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.

Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.



This is.... The saddest thing I've ever seen. It makes me sick and made me start to cry.... It's...... horrible, it can't be put into words. So, this is what abortion really is? And I never thought that they'd actually scream! It's..... horrible................

michele
August 28th, 2009, 06:30 PM
i'm SO against abortions, it's not even funny. i could go on for days about why people would even think about choosing it.
i'm sure my parents would support me and help me through it [my sister is pregnant atm and we're all doing the most we can to help out].
but if worse comes to worse, i'd put it up for adoption.

Spinor
August 28th, 2009, 06:31 PM
This...is...madness...

And no, it is not Sparta either, this is plain stupidity, madness, senseless debating.

As a guy, I'd personally leave the choice up to the mother. For now it is in HER body and laws say it is part of HER and it's HER choice. There is not a damn thing the guy can do in the world to stop that decision (without getting imprisoned or something of course).

Besides, I am not gonna take any damn side and get fought on and scratched by the pro-choice and pro-life fighting nutheads. I don't mean ALL the people who take a side, but pretty much most who put more than 3 exclamation marks in their post, bold more than 1 word, or have a size exceeding size 3.


The child's best interest..
Wow, so you think that killing it would be best, not to mention the cases that are excusable and the ones that are irresponsible. It's in the best interest of the child to get killed? Like Amachi did:

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"


That is disgusting! You think it not living a life would be privilege to the child? TO NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE WONDERS! THE HORRORS? TO GAIN STRENGTH THROUGH IT?! SOMETHING EVEN YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WOULD NEVER DREAM OF?





Quote:
Originally Posted by poopnoodle http://www.pokecommunity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=5041700#post5041700)
That is something I simply do not believe. My disbelief and your theory are the essence of both sides of the debate, obviously, so I'm entitled to my stance, as you are to yours.


It's really no longer about what you think but what you believe and what is "right" to you. This isn't about "opinions" anymore, it's about death, and killing innocent helpless children. In a nature whereas, it's the responsibility of the parent to, whether or not intended, take care of the child no matter what the mother goes through. Death, despite what people think, IS worse than harm or injury. We only have one life, and once you take it away, there's no replacing it..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf http://www.pokecommunity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=5038294#post5038294)
Not too logical, but too simplistic. I've said a human being is more than the sum of its genetic material. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Please don't change the definition of what is human to suit your agenda.

"It's a fetus"
"It's a clump of cells"
"It's not human"

Arguments like that are often given in an attempt to desensitise oneself and others on the issue, and it works. But that's not a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck http://www.pokecommunity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=5039420#post5039420)


*Facepalm*
Morals are subjective, and the fetus isn't classified as a human, just as the sunflower seed isn't classified as a sunflower. And I don't see you going to your local meat farm and protesting for the cows, chickens, lamb, and pigs. I mean, they kill animals that are unaware of their existence. Strangely enough, the same people who are pro-life are FOR capital punishment, war, and many other things that involve killing innocent people that ARE aware of their existence. This is the same capital punishment that killed people who proven innocent later.


There are many mutations that happen during the 9 months in the womb. And although your argument makes sense, it wouldn't work that much. Sunflower seeds aren't sunflowers. They may have come from sunflowers, but they aren't sunflowers.

The fetus is human. It has human DNA. Pregnant women aren't walking around with an alien inside of them that magically turns into a human when she starts pushing.

Those aren't people, what is wrong with you?

You realise that a child in the womb is probably as innocent as a human can be, right? The baby has done nothing wrong, except people seem to have some sort of problem with it's existence. Why aren't you opposed to that?

Yes they are, they just don't look like one yet. What you've just said also implies that at different stages of human development, our DNA changes drastically, which is definitely not the case. Our DNA does not change, whether it be from child to teenager, teenager to adult, and yes, even in the 9 month development stage in the womb. It is a human, stop lying to yourself. Your analogy is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weight of the World http://www.pokecommunity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=5039737#post5039737)
You evil little---- UGGGGGGGHHH!! NO CUSS WORDS ON THE ThREADS!!

You shouldn't let yourself get so agitated, it doesn't help anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopnoodle http://www.pokecommunity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=5039909#post5039909)
*Sigh*

Please, let's debate rationally.

Tbh, I think the culprits should have to live with what they've done in a cold cell with nothing to do. It's like being dead, only conscious. I think death is a privilege to those living in monotony.

That is an extremely ignorant, one-sided view of what defenders of the idea of abortion believe. It is not just rape that results in abortion, but health issues, or the mother's position (whether it be financial, healthwise, whatever). Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest. I don't know how many times Luck has to repeat him/herself, so let me restate. Sunflower seed does not equal sunflower.

Side note: You can get as frustrated as you want, but you cannot expect everyone to see things your way.

"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."
"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."
"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."

W-What? Did I read that correctly? Did you just say that killing a baby is often in the best interests of the child? Really?

Also, thanks. I don't think I'll forget that statement for as long as I live :)
[/I]]You evil little---- UGGGGGGGHHH!! NO CUSS WORDS ON THE ThREADS!!




Oh dear, oh my.

poopnoodle
August 28th, 2009, 06:56 PM
There are many, many people living today who suffer, whether it be from AIDS, a disability, or something else.

What you're saying is that it's basically better, for them, to be dead.

Some who suffer really would rather be dead instead of living in agony. Aborting the baby for that reason is preventing it from being susceptible to a life of suffering.

I mean, perhaps you should ask those who suffer about whether or not they want to live. Heck, there are people who have survived abortions - ask them if they want to live, knowing that their mother tried to kill them while they were still in the womb.

And I don't think it's selfish to want to love and care for someone, because that's all parents want really (that, and the baby bonuses :P) My (foster) father suffered from lung cancer, and before he died he told me, "If I live, that would be great. And if I die, that would be great." I have a friend who suffers from Bi-Polar Disorder and clinical depression, who is constantly threatening to take her own life. I know two others suffering from terminal illness who are not only in states of severe depression, but have admitted that they are ready to die.

I am a survivor of abortion. If I was aborted, I would be indifferent to my mother's decision since I wouldn't be alive.

It's only natural to want to love and care for someone, but if that means subjecting them to miserable conditions, that's what I would call selfish. (Again, my opinion.)


You too. Go outside and have some fun, cheer the hell up.I would seriously appreciate it if you abstain from talking down to those with contrasting views. You don't know us or how we spend our time, and we have yet to disrespect your stance. I'll say it once more: You cannot expect everyone to submit to your beliefs. It's not hard to provide your argument with civility.


Again, redefining what life is to suit your agenda. It is alive from conception, since at that point the biological processes start occurring. It is alive throughout the entire pregnancy. It doesn't just go from being non-living to living randomly.

Dude, abortions can happen at any time throughout the pregnancy. I find the abortions that occur later on to be the most horrifying of them all.

Please watch the video in the spoiler. I know it's a long video, but it's very informative.
Note: It can be quite graphic, so if you're young or easily disturbed, maybe get someone to watch it with you, read the text beneath the video, or only watch the first part, before they actually perform an abortion.


That video, to me, shows that the foetus can feel pain and it does have a will to live. Not that such a point has any merit, since it's not like you can justify someone's murder by saying they felt no pain and didn't want to live anyway. What's wrong is still wrong.
Not "redefining what life is to suit my agenda," only stating my views. I don't believe it is alive according to my interpretation of the word "living." It is growing, yes, but I don't believe that it has the capacity to feel or think. My opinion only changes when the baby is developed enough to survive outside the mother's body.

I know that abortion can happen whenevs, I only said I've never heard of it happening past 20 weeks. (And like I said, the baby CAN be anesthetized.)

Now, I cannot defend the intentions of every abortion clinic. Many care more about the money than the women.


Life starts at fertilisation. There, the life created is unique, not the mother, not the father, but the result of the union of sperm and egg. That's how it is different.

The zygote doesn't have the potential to become a human life - it is a human life.

Besides, this doesn't take away from the fact that you're killing babies. I accept and agree with your belief that the zygote = human life, but I won't classify it as a person, because to me the difference between a human and a person is consciousness. I now recognize your belief that abortion is murder by definition, and I must agree, but I don't believe murder is always wrong. I think the world is too complex and circumstances are often too extensive to label conclusions to a moral dilemma simply right or wrong.


Are we discussing animal cruelty? Why are you trying to change the topic and make moral comparisons? Animals aren't equal to humans, such a thought is absurd.

Besides, doesn't such a comparison work both ways? If we're here making broad, generalised statements, then I can say that there are many animal activists out there that don't oppose abortion.

But yeah, they are more valuable. So what?I said "many," not "all."

That is your opinion. I personally don't place myself above animals (since we are classified as animals), a zebra fetus is as important to me as a human fetus.

Alpha King
August 28th, 2009, 07:06 PM
Some who suffer really would rather be dead instead of living in agony. Aborting the baby for that reason is preventing it from being susceptible to suffering.


Okay, So, you didn't watch the vid? Then, I should tell you:
The abortionist uses a tube to destroy and suck out all the baby's body except the head. The head is then crushed and sucked into a jar. The abortion is complete by then and the baby IS in fact, killed.
The abortionist that did the abortion for the documentary and quit his job right then and there. The woman who did the abortion saw this and never spoke a word about abortion ever again. In fact, the women don't even know that this is the method used. Once they find out, it's distressing. To know you're baby was just crushed and sucked through a tube, how would you feel? This is murder, plain and simple. And it is not even always the mother's fault, cuz under the circumstances knowing what they were about to do to the human, yes it is as explained by 2 doctors in this video, they probably wouldn't go through with it. There's the truth..

poopnoodle
August 28th, 2009, 07:10 PM
Okay, So, you didn't watch the vid? Then, I should tell you:
The abortionist uses a tube to destroy and suck out all the baby's body except the head. The head is then crushed and sucked into a jar. The abortion is complete by then and the baby IS in fact, killed.
The abortionist that did the abortion for the documentary and quit his job right then and there. The woman who did the abortion saw this and never spoke a word about abortion ever again. In fact, the women don't even know that this is the method used. Once they find out, it's distressing. To know you're baby was just crushed and sucked through a tube, how would you feel? This is murder, plain and simple. And it is not even always the mother's fault, cuz under the circumstances knowing what they were about to do to the human, yes it is as explained by 2 doctors in this video, they probably wouldn't go through with it. There's the truth..

You did not read my entire post.

*sigh*

I will no longer be responding to contemptuous or dense comments, if you want to speak to me sensibly and openly, I'd be happy to exchange views privately.

Alpha King
August 28th, 2009, 07:15 PM
You did not read my entire post.


I most certainly did... I don't know why you want to tell me this, because nothing in your last post supports what I said.

twocows
August 28th, 2009, 07:32 PM
Okay, So, you didn't watch the vid? Then, I should tell you:
The abortionist uses a tube to destroy and suck out all the baby's body except the head. The head is then crushed and sucked into a jar. The abortion is complete by then and the baby IS in fact, killed.
The abortionist that did the abortion for the documentary and quit his job right then and there. The woman who did the abortion saw this and never spoke a word about abortion ever again. In fact, the women don't even know that this is the method used. Once they find out, it's distressing. To know you're baby was just crushed and sucked through a tube, how would you feel? This is murder, plain and simple. And it is not even always the mother's fault, cuz under the circumstances knowing what they were about to do to the human, yes it is as explained by 2 doctors in this video, they probably wouldn't go through with it. There's the truth..
[/COLOR][/FONT]
So because it's disgusting, it should be disallowed? Surgery is messy, especially surgery in or around the intestines. Should people with colon cancer be forced to die because the procedure to solve the problem is revolting?

Also, have you ever watched an animal get neutered? I job shadowed a vet in junior high, and watched a cat get neutered. It was absolutely horrifying, yet I don't deny that the animal was far better off having the procedure done.

Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). The method is irrelevant and has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. Yes, it's gruesome; so are a lot of things. Just because it's not something I'd want to watch over dinner doesn't mean it might not be necessary or preferred.

Alpha King
August 28th, 2009, 07:35 PM
So because it's disgusting, it should be disallowed? Surgery is messy, especially surgery in or around the intestines. Should people with colon cancer be forced to die because the procedure to solve the problem is revolting?

Also, have you ever watched an animal get neutered? I job shadowed a vet in junior high, and watched a cat get neutered. It was absolutely horrifying, yet I don't deny that the animal was far better off having the procedure done.

Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). The method is irrelevant and has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. Yes, it's gruesome; so are a lot of things. Just because it's not something I'd want to watch over dinner doesn't mean it might not be necessary or preferred.

I don't feel like arguing over a small, not thought out enough comment like this, okay? Got any problems with it PM me, and we'll have a real discussion.

twocows
August 28th, 2009, 07:44 PM
There are many, many people living today who suffer, whether it be from AIDS, a disability, or something else.

What you're saying is that it's basically better, for them, to be dead.
I disagree with him on that. It is not tolerable to abort a fetus solely because it may experience some degree of suffering; quality of life is not objective, and as you said, most would prefer to live regardless of that particular metric. Instead, I believe that it is tolerable to abort a fetus because it has not yet had any meaningful experiences, and because it has no reasonable level of intelligence. No person should have any real attachments to it besides the mother (and possibly the father); thus, the decision should be theirs to make.

I don't feel like arguing over a small, not thought out enough comment like this, okay? Got any problems with it PM me, and we'll have a real discussion.
I'm not sure if you're saying your comment was not well-thought out (in which case, I have no opinion, for or against; I'm not a judge), or if mine was not well-thought out (in which case, I take offense, as it clearly was meant to be).

In the end, I honestly don't care what other people think, so long as they don't force their opinions on others. If you wish to think of those who have abortions as "murderers," I'm not going to stop you. However, if I was in the situation, and both my partner and I decided to abort, and you tried to force your morals down our throat; that is when I would take issue with you. Morality is not clearly defined in every instance, and if we were to feel that abortion was the correct decision, you've no right to interfere.

Åzurε
August 28th, 2009, 08:59 PM
I'm honestly kind of saddened at the lack of sense being made on "my side". It's all being replaced by anger and a closed-minded mentality. I feel even I could have made better points, which is what usually happens to my a day or so after I post.

On the subject of abortion being moral, I hold firmly to abortion being immoral, but having sex before both people involved are ready is what causes all this drama in the first place. As for impressing one's beliefs upon others, force is not the way to do it for either side of ANY discussion. If you are to convince someone else of what you believe, you need to use a gentler method than insults. Generally, finding a logical flaw accepted by the person is vastly more effective, but if someone is truly closed-minded, there may be nothing you can do. Try your hardest, but know when the other man's head is harder.

A bit of a tangent, but take this into consideration.

Esper
August 29th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Argh. I couldn't stay away from this thread after all.

Would you kill someone who's suffering now? Would you at least ask for their permission first or just lunge at them with a knife?If I had their permission I would kill someone who is suffering (and I mean real suffering, not "I just got dumped and I can't take the pain of living anymore"), or not try to stop them from killing themselves. Obviously I wouldn't use a knife. There are painless ways to die.

Welllllllllll, you see, the condom can't guarantee the prevention of HIV/AIDS being transmitted. It's actual prevention rate is 85%, leaving a 15% chance of getting the disease. By encouraging condom usage (instead of abstinence, which really is the only way to guarantee the prevention of STDs), you're only misleading the public into thinking that they'll be perfectly safe if they use a condom.Everyone who has sex without insisting their partner gets tested beforehand is engaging in risky behavior. Most people who have HIV/AIDS will tell you if you're already at that stage of your relationship. Knowing who you are having sex with and taking necessary precautions (not just a condom, but a combination of this and other contraceptives such as the pill for women [still waiting for the men's pill] and spermicide) is what it takes to have safe sex. So safe sex is possible.

Dude, abortions can happen at any time throughout the pregnancy. I find the abortions that occur later on to be the most horrifying of them all.I am similarly horrified, but mostly by the thought that the woman could have been trying to get an abortion much earlier and been prevented (by family, laws, etc.) from doing so. Or, much worse, trying to use protection in the first place but being misinformed (deliberately or otherwise) about safe sex practices.

The zygote doesn't have the potential to become a human life - it is a human life.Human (by nature of its genetic code), yes. Life (having cells, etc.), yes. Person (having self-awareness), not in my opinion.

Sperm is alive. An egg is alive. Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, newborns, adults - all made of cells, all alive. Not all of them have personhood, however. I think we all agree that sperm and eggs don't and that newborns and adults do. Whether zygotes, embryos and fetuses do is the point of contention, yes?

Are we discussing animal cruelty? Why are you trying to change the topic and make moral comparisons? Animals aren't equal to humans, such a thought is absurd.Not the exact same thing, no, but there are several very intelligent species such as gorillas and dolphins so a comparison isn't absurd, since cruelty to animals could also be (this is quite iffy territory and I'm not going to make a definitive statement here as there is a lack of information) cruelty to self-aware species. I am a vegetarian in part because of the cruelty many animals suffer and hope that I can reduce, if only in a small way, the total suffering in the world. For this reason I would like to see fewer abortions and more preventative education, but as abortion can also help prevent suffering in some cases I oppose any effort to ban it.

Alpha King
August 29th, 2009, 07:53 AM
I disagree with him on that. It is not tolerable to abort a fetus solely because it may experience some degree of suffering; quality of life is not objective, and as you said, most would prefer to live regardless of that particular metric. Instead, I believe that it is tolerable to abort a fetus because it has not yet had any meaningful experiences, and because it has no reasonable level of intelligence. No person should have any real attachments to it besides the mother (and possibly the father); thus, the decision should be theirs to make.


I'm not sure if you're saying your comment was not well-thought out (in which case, I have no opinion, for or against; I'm not a judge), or if mine was not well-thought out (in which case, I take offense, as it clearly was meant to be).

In the end, I honestly don't care what other people think, so long as they don't force their opinions on others. If you wish to think of those who have abortions as "murderers," I'm not going to stop you. However, if I was in the situation, and both my partner and I decided to abort, and you tried to force your morals down our throat; that is when I would take issue with you. Morality is not clearly defined in every instance, and if we were to feel that abortion was the correct decision, you've no right to interfere.

I can't consider the women "murderers" because they don't know how the abortionist is gonna kill the baby, in which case the abortionist doesn't know the severity of his actions. The baby does in fact, know what's going to happen to it. And yes, that was actually intended for my comment and yours.

twocows
August 29th, 2009, 09:21 AM
I can't consider the women "murderers" because they don't know how the abortionist is gonna kill the baby, in which case the abortionist doesn't know the severity of his actions.
As I have said, the method of the abortion does not affect whether it would be considered murder or not.
murder (plural murders)
# (countable) An act of deliberate killing of another human being.

There have been ten unsolved murders this year alone.

# (uncountable) (law) The crime of deliberate killing.

The defendant was charged with murder.Poisoning someone is as much murder as the most gruesome ways of killing someone.

The baby does in fact, know what's going to happen to it. And yes, that was actually intended for my comment and yours.The baby does not know what is going to happen to it. It lacks self-recognition until some point after birth; it doesn't even know it exists (though I suppose I could get existential here and ask who does know that). However, I won't argue that this knowledge (or lack thereof) is, in itself, relevant. Someone who has been hit with a shovel and knocked unconscious would not know if they were killed, either. The point I make is that the fetus lacks any human-like intelligence at all (and for most of the pregnancy, lacks any intelligence). A study that I happened across a while back (unfortunately, I can't find it now, so feel free to deny its existence) stated that chimpanzees were more intelligent than humans during the first few years of life. It wasn't until about 2 or 3 years old where the human children progressed past the chimps in terms of intelligence. I won't use this to argue that newborns might be killed (see further down about where I draw the line), but it does support my previous statement (that the fetus lacks a human-like intelligence).

If I had to draw a line as to what point I feel that it was tolerable to abort a fetus, I would draw it at the point where the fetus could be kept alive outside of the womb. I feel that's the least arbitrary point that I could pick for such a thing; if it can live outside of the womb, its brain has probably developed enough that it can feel pain on some instinctual level.

Esper
August 29th, 2009, 09:54 AM
A study that I happened across a while back (unfortunately, I can't find it now, so feel free to deny its existence) stated that chimpanzees were more intelligent than humans during the first few years of life. It wasn't until about 2 or 3 years old where the human children progressed past the chimps in terms of intelligence.
It might not be the study you're referring to, but I found this article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14224459) which states that 2-year old children have equal intelligence to chimpanzees except when it comes to 'social' intelligence (which I gather from the article means learning by example), in which case they were much smarter.

twocows
August 29th, 2009, 10:09 AM
It might not be the study you're referring to, but I found this article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14224459) which states that 2-year old children have equal intelligence to chimpanzees except when it comes to 'social' intelligence (which I gather from the article means learning by example), in which case they were much smarter.
I believe this one was more recent (late 2008, IIRC), but thank you for looking.

Alpha King
August 29th, 2009, 11:43 AM
As I have said, the method of the abortion does not affect whether it would be considered murder or not.
Poisoning someone is as much murder as the most gruesome ways of killing someone.

The baby does not know what is going to happen to it. It lacks self-recognition until some point after birth; it doesn't even know it exists (though I suppose I could get existential here and ask who does know that). However, I won't argue that this knowledge (or lack thereof) is, in itself, relevant. Someone who has been hit with a shovel and knocked unconscious would not know if they were killed, either. The point I make is that the fetus lacks any human-like intelligence at all (and for most of the pregnancy, lacks any intelligence). A study that I happened across a while back (unfortunately, I can't find it now, so feel free to deny its existence) stated that chimpanzees were more intelligent than humans during the first few years of life. It wasn't until about 2 or 3 years old where the human children progressed past the chimps in terms of intelligence. I won't use this to argue that newborns might be killed (see further down about where I draw the line), but it does support my previous statement (that the fetus lacks a human-like intelligence).

If I had to draw a line as to what point I feel that it was tolerable to abort a fetus, I would draw it at the point where the fetus could be kept alive outside of the womb. I feel that's the least arbitrary point that I could pick for such a thing; if it can live outside of the womb, its brain has probably developed enough that it can feel pain on some instinctual level.

Actually it did. In the abortion (real) video, the child new what was coming because it felt its fortress being met, and moved around violently, and once it broke it tried its hardest to keep away from the instruments.

aurevesque
August 29th, 2009, 12:21 PM
umm... is it safe to come out now? i haven't been here in a long time. Judging from the last comments ,i guess we're talking about our veiws of abortion. Yes i think it's killing. and don't some women regret what they did for the rest of their life?
i think God sends the babies down here for a reason and we really shouldn't question why. Unless, seriously dire situations like rape or something. AM i making myself clear? i don't know. that's why i'm asking y'all.

twocows
August 29th, 2009, 12:22 PM
Actually it did. In the abortion (real) video, the child new what was coming because it felt its fortress being met, and moved around violently, and once it broke it tried its hardest to keep away from the instruments.
A bacteria, when prodded, will move in the other direction. We develop instincts far before we develop intelligence. However, I'd assume the linked video is a late-term abortion from your description; I am less tolerant of those.

Alpha King
August 29th, 2009, 12:47 PM
A bacteria, when prodded, will move in the other direction. We develop instincts far before we develop intelligence. However, I'd assume the linked video is a late-term abortion from your description; I am less tolerant of those.

Okay, good, because those are about to be born in the first place.

poopnoodle
August 29th, 2009, 02:01 PM
i think God sends the babies down here for a reason and we really shouldn't question why. Unless, seriously dire situations like rape or something. AM i making myself clear? i don't know. that's why i'm asking y'all.I'm not religious. But to my understanding of Christianity, God knows all. With all due respect towards your faith, why would God create a human being if He (I use that pronoun loosely) knew it would just be aborted? And personally, I feel that the argument that "God's will is unfathomable and not to be questioned" is a cop-out. But...that's just one girl's opinion.

http://www.pokecommunity.com/images/templates/pichusquared/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=5051151#post5051151) A bacteria, when prodded, will move in the other direction. We develop instincts far before we develop intelligence. However, I'd assume the linked video is a late-term abortion from your description; I am less tolerant of those.
Yes, according to the description it was 28 weeks old.

The baby does in fact, know what's going to happen to it.
Like I said before, the necessary nerve pathways are not constructed enough for the fetus to feel pain until after at least 28 weeks. It's improbable that the baby knows what's coming, but at the point where its nervous system is developed enough, it most likely does feel pain. And like Twocows, that's where my opinion on abortion changes. However, if the situation inevitably resulted in an abortion in the third trimester, I pity the baby and the mother.

Owl
August 29th, 2009, 02:14 PM
If I ever knocked up a girl, I would help her take care of it. Idc what my parents would say.

Alli
August 29th, 2009, 04:53 PM
if you have a child what would you do will put it up for adoption or get an abortion. what do you think your mom and dad will do would they kick you out or what.

Touchy subject. I personally don't like either choice. I'd prefer adoption over abortion (I strongly oppose abortion, and that's another subject that I'm not going to spark) seeing that there are a lot of families that can't have their own children, but hey, that's not up to me.

Rich Boy Rob
August 30th, 2009, 01:49 AM
Well if I got someone pregnant at this age, I'd let her decide, although I would try to persuade her not to keep it. Baby + GCSEs = Bad.

If by some freak of nature I got pregnant (or if I was a girl) I would get an abortion. It's cruel to bring a child into the world with parents that can't look after it and I think it would be incredibly hard to give up a baby once you've given birth to it.

The Darkest Gale
August 30th, 2009, 02:00 AM
I don't plan to marry anyway. Kids are rascals these days...
not true only a small amount =P all of which seem to be very bad

on the subject I'm 11 =P I'm STILL young so I haven't made any decisions really
june nmext year I pick my subjects at my school/academy lol so I have enough decision making the now : P

Åzurε
August 30th, 2009, 08:46 PM
I remember 'Noodle saying something about "If God knew the kid would be aborted, why allow the kids in the first place," paraphrasing of course. My take on it is that even though He knows all even before it happens, He's given us all free will, and allows us to do whatever we want with what we're given, including the lives of other people. At any given time, you or I could, if we really wanted to, murder someone. Honestly, it would be easy if they didn't know what was coming. So, we have the ability to do what we want with what we have, including unborn children. It's simply our fault if we screw up, and I believe abortion is a moral crew-up.

Yuoaman
August 30th, 2009, 09:08 PM
Depending on the age of both me and the mother, the situation could change drastically. At the moment, for example, I'd most likely want her to either have an abortion or put the child up for adoption - it would be her choice in the end, of course - and if she decided to keep the child I would end up giving all the assistance raising them as I could.

Cartmic
September 10th, 2009, 12:29 AM
I agree with this point more than anything.

Let me share a secret. I'm the product of a difficult pregnancy. When my mother was carrying me, I was given a 5% chance of survival, and she was given somewhere around 30%. Even though her doctor advised that she get me aborted, she refused. You could argue that she was being selfish because I know my mom and there's nothing she loves in this world more than being a mother. It wasn't an easy decision for her, and it was even harder for my dad to accept it. She went through with her pregnancy putting 100% faith in God, and lo and behold, I was born. I was undersized and had only one functional lung, but I was born. Now I may not be a shining example of happiness and joy today, but I am thankful for having life, knowing everything that my parents went through during my birth. I'm aware that I may be coming off a little like a Christian missionary, but my point is, you can't give up on a life, even if doctors tell you that it's a lost cause. Miracles do happen, and abortion is never the answer.

Totally awesome man. Praise God!

The Scientist
September 10th, 2009, 04:18 AM
It's threads like these that make me feel like I'm too old to be here.

Since I have a relatively stable career, I'd just take care of him/her.

That was simple.

Yingxue
September 10th, 2009, 08:17 AM
Children are a burden, not only that, but I have some seriously bad problems that I inherited from my mum, and I don't ever want to have a child go through what I did as a young person. I'd avoid being pregnant at all costs. I don't hate kids, but honestly, there are people who shouldn't even think of having any, and I'm aware that I am one of those people. :3

Angela
September 11th, 2009, 05:00 AM
I'd keep the baby.. I'm already older then my mom was when she had her first baby.. So as long as me and the baby are healthy she would be ok + She adores little babies.. She's already told me that if I ended up getting pregnant I could live with her and she'd help me out... I don't have a dad, he died 01 so I don't really know what he would say...

Ageless Irony
September 11th, 2009, 05:07 AM
I would have an abortion.

Men get abortions when they don't want kids
right?