Abortion.

[wardon561]

Don't feel good if your not prepared to be good?

 

[aspie3000]

This isn't synonymous to the Holocaust because the Holocaust was one man killing millions of fully grown people that everyone agrees are human beings due to their religion/ethnicity. Abortion is women making the choice not to carry a fetus to term.

1. It is an accepted fact that the people killed in the Holocaust are separate human beings from the Nazis that killed them. It is not an accepted fact that fetuses are separate human beings from the mother that is nourishing them.
2. People were murdered in the Holocaust not for any logical reason on the part of the Nazis, but because they were Jewish or a gypsy or an ethnicity they didn't approve of. Women have abortions for various reasons, most of them completely legitimate, logical reasons ("I don't have the money", "I have panic attacks when I see my stomach because I was traumatized by rape", etc).
3. In the Holocaust, millions were marched to concentration camps, tortured, forced to work and then submitted to painful deaths. None of that applies to abortion.

Interesting fact: Prenatal care for a fetus is about $2,000. What if you don't have the money to even be pregnant, let alone take care of the child when it's born? That child should be paid for by the government to be born, so it can be paid for by the government to be raised, so it can be unwanted in pregnancy and birth? In the United States, 120,000 children are adopted a year, and over 250,000 children go into foster care. (Source 1 | Source 2). Of those children, "an estimated 78 percent (78.3) suffered neglect, an estimated 18 percent (17.6) were physically abused, an estimated 9 percent (9.2) were sexually abused, an estimated 8 percent (8.1) were psychologically maltreated, and an estimated 2 percent (2.4) were medically neglected. In addition, an estimated 10 percent of victim (10.3) experienced "other" types of maltreatment such as "abandonment," "threats of harm to the child," and "congenital drug addiction."" (Source) There are enough abused, neglected children in this world, if I can't afford a child, took all the precautions against having one, and still got pregnant due to something going drastically wrong, I wouldn't bring another child into that.

So... The fact that they're not separated from their mother makes them okay to kill? I don't see your logic. They're only connected to them by their umbilical cord. Other than that they have separate hearts, brains, etc developing inside them. And I'm not arguing that the adoption system doesn't a serious overhaul. It's almost impossible to adopt an American child and that's wrong. There are other problems with it that I won't go into, but killing them is not the answer.

Any cluster of cells can become a human being. The sperm and egg separately are clusters of cells that will become a human being. The hundreds of millions of sperm lost in a single ejaculation and the eggs lost to menstrual cycles; those too are clusters of cells that will become human beings. Even fertilized eggs will become human being, but not all of them make it to the womb and are flushed out during menstrual cycles. Are women and men taking lives every single day? And again, if you don't value human life that's already been born, what's your rationale for being so against abortion? Every child wanted and every parent willing isn't that radical of a concept.

Yes but those sperm and eggs won't just become human beings on their own. They have to fertilize and be fertilized. When a human is already developing their life becomes a sure thing and should not be taken away because they aren't wanted. And READ why I support the death penalty and you will see that I DO value unborn life.

 

[Karma Police]

Interesting fact: Prenatal care for a fetus is about $2,000. What if you don't have the money to even be pregnant, let alone take care of the child when it's born? That child should be paid for by the government to be born, so it can be paid for by the government to be raised, so it can be unwanted in pregnancy and birth?

As far as I know, the government doesn't pay you any money if a child is born in my country. A few reasons I can think of are that the population is already high, and that giving money to every couple who has a child is insane because then all the money in the country would get dried up.

The only problem my country faced when abortion was introduced was that there was a significant increase in sex-selective abortion. Killing the girl child is still pretty common here, (only in villages and certain backward places, mind you) and it's a fact that is still fought against. In fact, that is one of the reasons I actually prefer abortion being legal in my country. Mainly because prenatal tests are illegal, so there is no way of telling whether the child is a boy or a girl until he/she is born. And since that's the only way of finding out the gender, the child is killed right after birth. Sometimes they drown the child in water/milk or smash a rock on the baby's head. These methods are a lot more brutal and there's not a lot that can be done to stop this because of the poor law enforcement here, so abortion here is better imo. But this doesn't mean I support female foeticide at all, it just means that if a couple really doesn't want the child abortion during the early weeks is a better option than illegal abortion or killing after the baby is born. Female foeticide shouldn't exist in the first place, and if a couple doesn't want a baby they should take proper precautions anyways beforehand.

Not a lot of people use abortion here anyways. The general mindset is that people are ready to raise over 12 children if they get pregnant. Which is pretty stupid because so many people live below the poverty line, so they're unable to properly feed themselves let alone 12 kids. Other than that, the government generally started promoting the use of condoms and pills much more than abortion, which is a pretty good step and I think it happens in other countries as well.

Anyways, that's just the opinion I have based about things I've seen in my country. I don't have a lot of an opinion about America or anywhere else though...

 

[jpp8]

The fact that they are not separated means that it is still part of the mother's body and she has full right to control what's going on in her body. Sure, the only thing connecting them is that umbilical cord, but remove it and the fetus would not be able to function without it. It is not yet an independent being. While it is living off of her body, the mother has full control over what goes on in it. Whether or not she supports it is her CHOICE. The only one who should have any say in what goes on in their uterus is the uterus owner. Nobody else.

I brought up the point of fertilized eggs being lost during menstrual cycles. Are women who had more than one period serial killers?

Sure thing? Miscarriage. It's not a "sure thing".

Also, I must've missed that edit. Apologies. In any case, I did not explicitly say "children who were products of rape do not deserve to live," I said that the if the mother does not want a permanent reminder of the traumatizing act of her rape, then she has all the power not to. If she does want it, then go right ahead; just don't force that viewpoint onto others. If you feel that rape and the stress it entails does not justify one's choice to get an abortion, that's trivializing rape to a "had unprotected sex without permission" instead of the feelings of helplessness and breaking that rape truly is. (Really though, abortion shouldn't have be "justified" by anything other than the fact that it is her body and her choice.)

 

[aspie3000]

It doesn't matter if it's a part of her body, it's a separate entity. A human one at that. What gives the mother the right to kill it? When a human life is growing inside of your body it has rights too. This "women should have a right to their body" is a flawed argument because of this. I'm going to leave now. I've already spent too much time arguing with people who obviously aren't going to change their minds. Good bye, and may God bless you.

 

[jpp8]

A separate entity that is essentially a parasite living off of her body until it is born. It cannot make any form of rational thought or decision. It is part of the woman's body, who just happens to be a human being! (It's seems as though it's you dehumanizing women, disregarding their feelings and choice on the subject and treating them as mere incubators for teh babiez.) Her rights as a human being are the same as any other human beings: That no person can legally control her body without her permission. That's how it works for blood, bone, and organ donations. That's how it works with fetuses. Not your body, not your business.

 

[Karma Police]

It doesn't matter if it's a part of her body, it's a separate entity. A human one at that. What gives the mother the right to kill it? When a human life is growing inside of your body it has rights too. This "women should have a right to their body" is a flawed argument because of this. I'm going to leave now. I've already spent too much time arguing with people who obviously aren't going to change their minds. Good bye, and may God bless you.

I don't see how people shouldn't have right to their bodies. According to the strict definitions, a foetus is not a parasite, but it's functions to a certain extent meet the requirements. And what I feel is that abortion is also for those who feel they cannot take care of a baby both mentally and financially. If the person cannot support the baby, there's no point in having the baby and having to bear the burden of a child for nine whole months, only to give the child for adoption. It's just unnecessary pressure on the mind of the mother.

In order to truly feel about the fact how women handle kids, you'll have to give birth to a kid and feel all the pain yourself. There's a reason they've given the right to the woman, who is the one who is taking care of the child. It's pretty easy to say "It's not right to abort children and all women who get pregnant should bear the child" when you're a man or a woman who has never raised a baby, but you should look at the side of the people who get abortions. It's not a cakewalk taking of a baby or its expenses.

 

[droomph]

For: Because what ^ said.

Against: Because Pregnancy is a divine punishment for sin. ("Since Eden gave the Apple to Adam, Eden was cursed with the pain of Childbirth.")

Now, not to be rude, but if it's a RELIGIOUS tradition, you should have the choice to do it or not, since there's no country in particular where everyone's of the same exact religion. And what if there's a cult that says you should abort every second baby because of "an ancient curse", we shouldn't really respect that but we can't do anything about it, since it's a right of theirs to have religious freedom, even if it violates someone else's.

 

[Karma Police]

For: Because what ^ said.

Against: Because Pregnancy is a divine punishment for sin. ("Since Eden gave the Apple to Adam, Eden was cursed with the pain of Childbirth.")

Now, not to be rude, but if it's a RELIGIOUS tradition, you should have the choice to do it or not, since there's no country in particular where everyone's of the same exact religion. And what if there's a cult that says you should abort every second baby because of "an ancient curse", we shouldn't really respect that but we can't do anything about it, since it's a right of theirs to have religious freedom, even if it violates someone else's.

If you're referring to what goes on in my country, then no, female foeticide is not a religious tradition nor is it some tradition of a cult, as far as I know. It's just the general mindset of people that men are better than women and every family needs at least one man to support it.

 

[droomph]

China or India I assume?

Well no, I'm just saying, if it's a tradition, go ahead, because everyone has the right to religion.

But if you don't (because you live in some other country that doesn't entitle religious freedom to the inhabitants), then go ahead and violate the people's rights as you wish (who am I to judge?), but I'd rather that not happen if I had the choice.

Again, I'm not saying it's good or anything. I'm just saying, it's their choice.

 

[Karma Police]

China or India I assume?

Well no, I'm just saying, if it's a tradition, go ahead, because everyone has the right to religion.

But if you don't (because you live in some other country that doesn't entitle religious freedom to the inhabitants), then go ahead and violate the people's rights as you wish (who am I to judge?), but I'd rather that not happen if I had the choice.

Again, I'm not saying it's good or anything. I'm just saying, it's their choice.

Yuuuup it's India.

But no, it's not a tradition, it's just a belief. Sexism, I think that's the right word for it. Anyways, I guess I'm going offtopic here.

Another point I have to bring up to counter some of Aspie's arguments, is Vanishing Twin Syndrome. Will it still be considered murder of an innocent child?

 

[droomph]

yes because we're like that

Well no, it's a natural process, and thus the nature of the syndrome caused the other twin to absorb it. No conscious thought was put into completing the action, so no one is at fault, only luck/fate/whatever.

However I do believe we should have a new class of consciousness for the fetuses and all but that's for another thread.

I have no other ideas of what to say about it. haha chimeras

 

[Oryx]

While I am pro-choice, I can see why, if you believe this way, then you would argue against it being legal. Yes, it's a religious belief. But if you truly believed every woman that had an abortion was murdering a child, then wouldn't you want to make it illegal too? It's not a matter of "don't force your religion on me" if it's murder.

 

[droomph]

WELLL FFFFFFFF

So what I mean is...

It's a case-to-case thing. If it was an unwanted pregnancy, who is to prevent her from getting one?

However if it's just because the baby turned out the wrong gender and not based on the financial ability to raise the baby, then yeah.....

I don't know...? Yeah...

 

[TRIFORCE89]

WELLL FFFFFFFF

So what I mean is...

It's a case-to-case thing. If it was an unwanted pregnancy, who is to prevent her from getting one?

I'd say time. If you don't want it, then remove it before it is becomes more developed, "human-like", and can feel pain. I'm going to rule out the economic argument, because where I'm from abortions are covered by our publicly funded universal health insurance system.

After that point though, I think it should only occur out of medical necessity or at the digression of a medical professional. So, the case described in that article posted earlier where the law forced the parents to watch their child die... that wouldn't have happened because they would have been able to abort since a medical professional recommended it.

 

[droomph]

Yeah that's what I meant.

Instead of Government setting rules with no exceptions they should just allow the professional to decide whether or not to let it slide. This also applies to every aspect of medicine, as nothing is set in stone with a person's health (who is to say I'll get prostate cancer the day I turn 42?). And finances, but that's just going over the line with off-topic-ness.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Yeah that's what I meant.

Instead of Government setting rules with no exceptions they should just allow the professional to decide whether or not to let it slide. This also applies to every aspect of medicine, as nothing is set in stone with a person's health (who is to say I'll get prostate cancer the day I turn 42?). And finances, but that's just going over the line with off-topic-ness.

I only mentioned the financial aspect because other times I brought up having restrictions and exceptions here, others would respond with there should absolutely be no time limit because maybe someone might not have funds to have an abortion by the deadline. So, only pointing out that where I live, that's not an issue.

But yes, I agree with the rest of your comment. I prefer compromise and the "grey area" to absolutes.

 

[droomph]

No crap darn it.

And financial sciences (or something like that), that's unpredictable. That's what I meant

But yeah you do have a point with that.

 

[ceremony]

I don't like abortion.

That being said, I don't understand why we'd take away a women's right to an abortion. It's her body, yes, but she is the one that carries the risk. The man doesn't. That's why a woman should have more say than a man.

The thing that sickens me is how society can judge a woman for an abortion. It is her choice, and they (most of the time) do not know the circumstance. I actually JUST watched a documentary last night. It was about a doctor that was assassinated for performing abortions. A very religious man went and shot a doctor in the eye and killed him. Why? "He was killing others so I killed him." That is a bogus answer.

That is why I'm upset with the religious right. It seems like they only care about you when you're in the fetus. Once you're born, then to Hell with you, we don't care about you at all. And if you're going by the Bible, why follow through with somethings but ignore others?

"Instead, we're a nation of heretics in which most people still associate themselves with Christianity but revise its doctrines as they see fit, and nobody can agree on even the most basic definitions of what Christian faith should mean."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/douthat-in-2012-no-religious-center-is-holding.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

This also applies to every aspect of medicine, as nothing is set in stone with a person's health (who is to say I'll get prostate cancer the day I turn 42?). And finances, but that's just going over the line with off-topic-ness.

Well, if the government doesn't step in, what happens when you get leukemia and the insurance company you paid tells you you ran out of benefits?

You die.

Why? Because of the for-profit system. These corporations couldn't care LESS that you're sick. Well, they do if you're wealthy and can pay them. If you're not, then tough luck.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I actually JUST watched a documentary last night. It was about a doctor that was assassinated for performing abortions. A very religious man went and shot a doctor in the eye and killed him. Why? "He was killing others so I killed him." That is a bogus answer.

That is why I'm upset with the religious right. It seems like they only care about you when you're in the fetus. Once you're born, then to Hell with you, we don't care about you at all. And if you're going by the Bible, why follow through with somethings but ignore others?

I don't find the religious right all that religious. Compassion and forgiveness seems to have flown out the window.

And someone who murders in the name of any god, isn't religious. Just deranged. Or rather, they may act in the name of religion but aren't following their faith appropriately. I'd say religion was a cause just as much as the Beatles were cause for the Manson murders. Which is to say, not at all. Justification from a crazy person.