why abortion is good.

[Ashmoria]

no its not wrong to kill an embryo. its not wrong to kill a fetus that would result in a handicapped child its not wrong to decide that you are unwilling or unable to bring another child into the world.

It's wrong. There's other options to abortion. And handicapped children are people too. If you're not willing to have a child, or to keep one, don't have sex.

"dont have sex" is what anti sex advocates have said for thousands of years. it hasnt worked in all that time its silly to advocate it today.

cheap available birth control and cheap easy early abortion is what makes women free of being slaves to their reproductive system

and that is good.

[Norstal]

The baby lives in a situation where it is not wanted, the woman goes through a traumatic experience where every other aspect of her life is pushed to the sidelines. Having a baby when the parent is not prepared is the epitome of irresponsibility.

The baby could be put up for adoption and brought into a family where it will be loved and cared for. Once the baby is born, theres a lot that can be done for it. The personal irresponsibility of the parents should not dictate whether the baby lives or dies. And once the mother realizes she's pregnant, she has several months for preparation.

You wish it was that easy, don't you? What happens if the baby is born defective and she has to give birth to it anyways because you became a dictator and made anti-abortion laws? What happens if the baby gets abused by the adoptive family? Etcetra et nauseam?

Please for the love of god, just leave women alone.

[Four-sided Triangles]

The intention is totally different. They're not thinking "women don't deserve rights, let's subjugate them."

Intention is irrelevant. The women are harmed either way.

Abortion is the epitome of irresponsibility.

No, it's not. It's no more irresponsible than someone getting medical treatment after getting in an automobile accident. What? You knew the risks of driving a car. Why should a doctor bother saving your lifer? You knew that car crashes could happen and that they can kill people. Seriously take responsibility for your actions.

Does that make any sense? No? Then neither does calling abortion "irresponsible."

[Ninjopolis]

I never said fetuses could reason. Regardless of whether it can reason, it is still a living human being. There are circumstances in life where people lose the ability to reason0 does that make people in a coma or with disabilities less of a person?

Is a human in a persistent vegetative state with less cognitive capacity than a gerbil less of a person? Yes, obviously.

See, this is your problem. You want all humans to be treated special (except pregnant women, of course), but you don't want ANY rights for animals. There are animals far more intelligent than many people in comas. If you're opposed to euthanizing cortically dead people in comas, then you must also oppose eating meat. Otherwise, you're just engaging in special pleading. Humans get magical special treatment for no other reason than simply being human.

Humans have the ability to reason to an extent that no animal can reach. Animal intelligence is a result of operant conditioning, while a person can make logical connections to circumstances. A person's learning capacity supremely exceeds that of any other animal. And as a person, I'd say that killing another person is wrong.

[Desperate Measures]

The baby lives in a situation where it is not wanted, the woman goes through a traumatic experience where every other aspect of her life is pushed to the sidelines. Having a baby when the parent is not prepared is the epitome of irresponsibility.

The baby could be put up for adoption and brought into a family where it will be loved and cared for. Once the baby is born, theres a lot that can be done for it. The personal irresponsibility of the parents should not dictate whether the baby lives or dies. And once the mother realizes she's pregnant, she has several months for preparation.

Possibly the child will be adopted out of thousands going through the process. And then maybe that will be a loving home.

What irresponsibility? In the personal case of my ex, she took every precaution and then became pregnant. She made a responsible and thoughtful decision to abort. Because of this she was able to have a child after graduating college and the welfare of our daughter is dramatically improved. We live in an age where sex is more than about procreation. That is not going to change.

[Ninjopolis]

The baby could be put up for adoption and brought into a family where it will be loved and cared for. Once the baby is born, theres a lot that can be done for it. The personal irresponsibility of the parents should not dictate whether the baby lives or dies. And once the mother realizes she's pregnant, she has several months for preparation.

You wish it was that easy, don't you? What happens if the baby is born defective and she has to give birth to it anyways because you became a dictator and made anti-abortion laws? What happens if the baby gets abused by the adoptive family? Etcetra et nauseam?

Please for the love of god, just leave women alone.

The baby is still a person. And chances are, the adoptive parents will not be abusive. "The baby MIGHT have a miserable life" is no reason to kill it.

[Norstal]

Humans have the ability to reason to an extent that no animal can reach. Animal intelligence is a result of operant conditioning, while a person can make logical connections to circumstances. A person's learning capacity supremely exceeds that of any other animal. And as a person, I'd say that killing another person is wrong.

You don't know that. Have you ever been an octopus? An eagle? An owl? these animals show greater mental and reasoning capability than the average human.

[Desperate Measures]

You wish it was that easy, don't you? What happens if the baby is born defective and she has to give birth to it anyways because you became a dictator and made anti-abortion laws? What happens if the baby gets abused by the adoptive family? Etcetra et nauseam?

Please for the love of god, just leave women alone.

The baby is still a person. And chances are, the adoptive parents will not be abusive. "The baby MIGHT have a miserable life" is no reason to kill it.

I make humans responsibly, not willy-nilly.

[Norstal]

You wish it was that easy, don't you? What happens if the baby is born defective and she has to give birth to it anyways because you became a dictator and made anti-abortion laws? What happens if the baby gets abused by the adoptive family? Etcetra et nauseam?

Please for the love of god, just leave women alone.

The baby is still a person. And chances are, the adoptive parents will not be abusive. "The baby MIGHT have a miserable life" is no reason to kill it.

No, I'm arguing about the MENTAL impact on the mother. Like I said, it's not that easy. It's frustrating to have people like you, someone who apparently have no grasp on biology at all, to make insane laws barring abortion for women everywhere. Do try to keep up with the topic.

[Ninjopolis]

The baby could be put up for adoption and brought into a family where it will be loved and cared for. Once the baby is born, theres a lot that can be done for it. The personal irresponsibility of the parents should not dictate whether the baby lives or dies. And once the mother realizes she's pregnant, she has several months for preparation.

Possibly the child will be adopted out of thousands going through the process. And then maybe that will be a loving home.

What irresponsibility? In the personal case of my ex, she took every precaution and then became pregnant. She made a responsible and thoughtful decision to abort. Because of this she was able to have a child after graduating college and the welfare of our daughter is dramatically improved. We live in an age where sex is more than about procreation. That is not going to change.

Killing is never responsible. It never has been or will be a responsible decision. Why should the child not be given a chance to live just because the parents don't want it? there are a lot of people who want to have children and would gladly adopt a baby, and people want to kill theirs because it's not convenient for them.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Humans have the ability to reason to an extent that no animal can reach.

No, humans past the age of 2 with no serious neurological damage have the ability to reason to an extent that no other animal can.

See, this is my problem. You're inconsistent. Your argument that humans have rights is based on capacity. However, you're in favor of giving rights to humans that don't have that capacity. You're against giving rights to animals which have more capacity than some of the humans you want to give rights to.

Your logic is inconsistent.

Animal intelligence is a result of operant conditioning, while a person can make logical connections to circumstances.

Total bullshit. As if only humans can do any reasoning of any kind whatsoever.

A person's learning capacity supremely exceeds that of any other animal.

True, but a human's learning capacity doesn't always.

Fetuses, severely brain damaged humans, and infants born without brains do not have a greater learning capacity than a dog.

And as a person, I'd say that killing another person is wrong.

I agree. Killing persons is wrong. Humans are not always persons, however.

[Ninjopolis]

The baby is still a person. And chances are, the adoptive parents will not be abusive. "The baby MIGHT have a miserable life" is no reason to kill it.

No, I'm arguing about the MENTAL impact on the mother. Like I said, it's not that easy. It's frustrating to have people like you, someone who apparently have no grasp on biology at all, to make insane laws barring abortion for women everywhere. Do try to keep up with the topic.

You realize the woman suffers psychologically after abortions too, right? That's why organizations like Project Rachel exist. It's frustrating to have people like you, who apparently don't care about the rights of innocent children, to make insane laws barring them from living.

[Desperate Measures]

Possibly the child will be adopted out of thousands going through the process. And then maybe that will be a loving home.

What irresponsibility? In the personal case of my ex, she took every precaution and then became pregnant. She made a responsible and thoughtful decision to abort. Because of this she was able to have a child after graduating college and the welfare of our daughter is dramatically improved. We live in an age where sex is more than about procreation. That is not going to change.

Killing is never responsible. It never has been or will be a responsible decision. Why should the child not be given a chance to live just because the parents don't want it? there are a lot of people who want to have children and would gladly adopt a baby, and people want to kill theirs because it's not convenient for them.

Correction: Murder is never responsible. Also, haven't you already seen that our orphanages have more than a surplus. Stop using that argument.

[Ashmoria]

Possibly the child will be adopted out of thousands going through the process. And then maybe that will be a loving home.

What irresponsibility? In the personal case of my ex, she took every precaution and then became pregnant. She made a responsible and thoughtful decision to abort. Because of this she was able to have a child after graduating college and the welfare of our daughter is dramatically improved. We live in an age where sex is more than about procreation. That is not going to change.

Killing is never responsible. It never has been or will be a responsible decision. Why should the child not be given a chance to live just because the parents don't want it? there are a lot of people who want to have children and would gladly adopt a baby, and people want to kill theirs because it's not convenient for them.

of course its responsible.

aborting an unwanted pregnancy at 8 weeks is as harmless a procedure as anyone could ask for. there is no child. there isnt even a fetus.

[Norstal]

No, I'm arguing about the MENTAL impact on the mother. Like I said, it's not that easy. It's frustrating to have people like you, someone who apparently have no grasp on biology at all, to make insane laws barring abortion for women everywhere. Do try to keep up with the topic.

You realize the woman suffers psychologically after abortions too, right?

No.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... drome.html

I realize it might be biased, but it has sources too, so it's a valid research paper.

That's why organizations like Project Rachel exist. It's frustrating to have people like you, who apparently don't care about the rights of innocent children, to make insane laws barring them from living.

WHO THE FUCK WANTS A LAW THAT ABORTS ALL BABIES?

[Mavorpen]

No, I'm arguing about the MENTAL impact on the mother. Like I said, it's not that easy. It's frustrating to have people like you, someone who apparently have no grasp on biology at all, to make insane laws barring abortion for women everywhere. Do try to keep up with the topic.

You realize the woman suffers psychologically after abortions too, right? That's why organizations like Project Rachel exist. It's frustrating to have people like you, who apparently don't care about the rights of innocent children, to make insane laws barring them from living.

For the THOUSANDTH time, a fetus is NOT a child. Children also do NOT have the same rights as adults do. You obviously do not understand how reality works.

[Ninjopolis]

Humans have the ability to reason to an extent that no animal can reach.

No, humans past the age of 2 with no serious neurological damage have the ability to reason to an extent that no other animal can.

See, this is my problem. You're inconsistent. Your argument that humans have rights is based on capacity. However, you're in favor of giving rights to humans that don't have that capacity. You're against giving rights to animals which have more capacity than some of the humans you want to give rights to.

You're logic is inconsistent.

If allowed to live, the child will gain the ability to reason like any other person. They should be allowed to reach this state. Humans have rights specifically from the fact that they're humans, not based on mental capacity. Human rights should encompass all humans.

[Lost Earth]

I agree. Killing persons is wrong. Humans are not always persons, however.

Wait, wait, wait... What are you saying... That the rights of any "being" are based on their sentience, and that if a being baring similarity to another being that has sentience, has sentience to a much lesser degree, that less intelligent being has less rights to the extent that they may be killed if deemed necessary or convenient?

Interesting... I disagree. I also have another question. Would you consider a race of "beings" or even computers that attained a more efficient or capable intelligence than humans to have more fundamental rights or ethical superiority to humans in a utilitarian system?

[Ninjopolis]

Killing is never responsible. It never has been or will be a responsible decision. Why should the child not be given a chance to live just because the parents don't want it? there are a lot of people who want to have children and would gladly adopt a baby, and people want to kill theirs because it's not convenient for them.

Correction: Murder is never responsible. Also, haven't you already seen that our orphanages have more than a surplus. Stop using that argument.

Saying that adoption isn't a solution because the orphanages have a lot of kids is ludicrous. They'll still take care of the child. It's better to let the child live and have a chance at a normal life rather than kill it and give it NO chance.

[Mavorpen]

Lol? The adoption rate would still be horrible. Not only this, but adoptions often don't work out for the adopting family anyway. You want to put children through suffering, destroy the life of a doctor and possibly a mother, just because you feel like you should control the body of said mother?

Nobody's pro life because they want to control women. They want to protect the lives of the innocent children that are being slaughtered in the name of irresponsibility and the misplaced notion of personal liberty.

Slaughtered? Really? Sorry, slaughter is something along the lines of SLAUGHTERhouses or the Holocaust. What do you call destroying an ant hill? What do you call destroying a bee hive? What do you can killing bacteria by taking medicine? A fetus is a bunch of cells that can barely feel pain, can't reason, and is a parasite to the mother. Your argument fails.

[Desperate Measures]

Correction: Murder is never responsible. Also, haven't you already seen that our orphanages have more than a surplus. Stop using that argument.

Saying that adoption isn't a solution because the orphanages have a lot of kids is ludicrous. They'll still take care of the child. It's better to let the child live and have a chance at a normal life rather than kill it and give it NO chance.

Wreak havoc on the woman's body, let the child become a burden on society. Got it. Yeah. No, I like my way better.

[Four-sided Triangles]

If allowed to live, the child will gain the ability to reason like any other person.

Like I said before, you're eventually going to become a corpse. Should I treat you like a corpse NOW because you will eventually become one? No, that's absolutely asinine.

A fetus, if not aborted, MAY become a person. So should we treat it as something it might become rather than treating it like what it is? If so, then I'm going to ask that you get cremated tomorrow.

They should be allowed to reach this state.

Why?

Humans have rights specifically from the fact that they're humans, not based on mental capacity.

See, I knew your speciesm would come out eventually. You don't care about whether the rights make sense. You just want all humans, regardless of capacity, to magically have rights above and beyond all other life because it makes you feel special. How arrogant humans are.

Human rights should encompass all humans.

That's why we shouldn't call them "human" rights. We should call them "personhood" rights. That way, you wouldn't be able to play this silly language game of yours.

[Mavorpen]

Correction: Murder is never responsible. Also, haven't you already seen that our orphanages have more than a surplus. Stop using that argument.

Saying that adoption isn't a solution because the orphanages have a lot of kids is ludicrous. They'll still take care of the child. It's better to let the child live and have a chance at a normal life rather than kill it and give it NO chance.

Are you trolling? You obviously have not lived in an orphanage.

[Ninjopolis]

Nobody's pro life because they want to control women. They want to protect the lives of the innocent children that are being slaughtered in the name of irresponsibility and the misplaced notion of personal liberty.

Slaughtered? Really? Sorry, slaughter is something along the lines of SLAUGHTERhouses or the Holocaust. What do you call destroying an ant hill? What do you call destroying a bee hive? What do you can killing bacteria by taking medicine? A fetus is a bunch of cells that can barely feel pain, can't reason, and is a parasite to the mother. Your argument fails.

The child is a human being who is taken into a clinic and killed uncerimoniously. That sounds like slaughter, no? Bees, ants and bacteria aren't humans. A fetus is a human, and the offspring of the mother, and should thus be allowed to live.

[Ninjopolis]

Saying that adoption isn't a solution because the orphanages have a lot of kids is ludicrous. They'll still take care of the child. It's better to let the child live and have a chance at a normal life rather than kill it and give it NO chance.

Are you trolling? You obviously have not lived in an orphanage.

I'm not trolling, I just prefer to allow the child to survive.