should abortion be legal?

[Neutraligon]

Part of this is a problem though. If he wants a baby, and she doesn't, in no way shape or form should she be forced to have the baby. If she wants an abortion, it's an abortion. That should be absolute. It's the other side I'm curious on.

This was what I was referring to.

Ah sorry, I forgot to add but she decides to keep it.

[Individuality-ness]

Apparently it's a state in which you experience something called REM and have hallucinations. What's up with that?

That sounds scary, I really don't want to hallucinate. Ah well, I don't have to worry about it anyway.

*nod* We're Generalites, we don't need sleep!

[The Emerald Dawn]

This was what I was referring to.

Ah sorry, I forgot to add but she decides to keep it.

Gotcha. That makes more sense now.

[Neutraligon]

Ah sorry, I forgot to add but she decides to keep it.

Gotcha. That makes more sense now.

Sorry, went back and made correction. Oh and i meant she decides to keep it free of coercion. Yay consistency.

[Kamchastkia]

Alright, I'm back

Anyone got any highlights from this shitslinging match?

(Read that as I'm black but okay)

Well, someone said, Yes, abortion should be legal, and a couple other said NOOOOO BADBADBAD! Or something like that.

[Neutraligon]

Alright, I'm back

Anyone got any highlights from this shitslinging match?

(Read that as I'm black but okay)

Well, someone said, Yes, abortion should be legal, and a couple other said NOOOOO BADBADBAD! Or something like that.

Well, we also said bad bad bad to a poster who never claimed abortion should be illegal, but did use an argument typical for one would say abortion should be legal. Oh and we started to get into paper abortions.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Gotcha. That makes more sense now.

Sorry, went back and made correction. Oh and i meant she decides to keep it free of coercion.

And that's another scary part with many relationships I've found. The guy pressuring her to keep the baby, or saying that he'll leave her if she gets an abortion (leading to her feeling like she'd be deemed a failure, or summat), or just straight physical abuse.

That's why I stressed that zero-tolerance thing with women. She wants it out, out it goes. But it always seems that even the staunchest abortion-rights advocates refuse even an inch of ground on the concept of a man being forced into financial servitude.

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

I think that abortion is wrong except when the mother's life is at risk. Every unborn child has the potential to live a happy and fulfilling life and surely, regardless of whether you are religious or atheist, it is wrong to deny them that.

Some may say that if the child is handicapped then it is a kindness to kill them. However I don't think we can kill somebody just because we have taken it upon ourselves to judge whether their life will be worth living or not.

What I find most interesting and also disturbing about the matter of abortion is the use of euphemistic words to justify it. When abortion is discussed it seems that words such as "killing" are omitted and replaced with words that sound more acceptable to us. The word "fetus" (and I accept that this is the scientific term but the point still stands) is used instead of "unborn child" as it emotionally detaches us from them. Tactics like this are often used in the justification of terrible things. For example, I watched a documentary on the Stanford Prison Experiment today and one of the tactics employed by the doctor in making the guards feel morally secure in their treatment of the prisoners was to take away the prisoner's names. A name is a personal thing and when it was taken away and the prisoners were referred to by their numbers the guards saw them as being less human. This made it easier for them to treat them is such an appalling manner

So too is this tactic used to dehumanize the unborn. The word "baby" contains for most people an emotional connection. We know what babies are; they are those adorable cuddley things that you want to protect and take care of. "Fetus" does not contain any emotional connection despite that it is the same thing but a few weeks younger and thus hasn't been born yet. Abortion is never described as "killing a fetus" or "killing an unborn child" either and is instead referred to as "abortion" which sounds better despite being essentially the same thing. I think it is rather worrying how easily a change in words can persuade us to accept something so blatantly wrong.

I notice that the right of a woman to have a say in the matters of her body is important but so is the right to life. Unborn children are independent lifeforms, not an extension of their mother's body. Even if the carrying and birth of that child are horrendous (and forgive me if I'm coming across as insensitive here) the product of it is a human life that could last many years. The child could grow up, feel love, have children and grandchildren and great grandchildren that live on long after the mother of that child is dead and gone.

Thank you to anyone who reads this.

[Mavorpen]

What I find most interesting and also disturbing about the matter of abortion is the use of euphemistic words to justify it. When abortion is discussed it seems that words such as "killing" are omitted and replaced with words that sound more acceptable to us. The word "fetus" (and I accept that this is the scientific term but the point still stands) is used instead of "unborn child" as it emotionally detaches us from them. Tactics like this are often used in the justification of terrible things. For example, I watched a documentary on the Stanford Prison Experiment today and one of the tactics employed by the doctor in making the guards feel morally secure in their treatment of the prisoners was to take away the prisoner's names. A name is a personal thing and when it was taken away and the prisoners were referred to by their numbers the guards saw them as being less human. This made it easier for them to treat them is such an appalling manner

Other way around dude. It's the pro-lifers who are the ones trying to mess with emotions by employing nonsensical and oxymoronic terms such as "unborn child" that are meant to invoke emotion in order to get people to agree that taking rights away from women is perfectly fine.

So too is this tactic used to dehumanize the unborn. The word "baby" contains for most people an emotional connection. We know what babies are; they are those adorable cuddley things that you want to protect and take care of. "Fetus" does not contain any emotional connection despite that it is the same thing but a few weeks younger and thus hasn't been born yet. Abortion is never described as "killing a fetus" or "killing an unborn child" either and is instead referred to as "abortion" which sounds better despite being essentially the same thing. I think it is rather worrying how easily a change in words can persuade us to accept something so blatantly wrong.

You can't dehumanize something that isn't very human to begin with. "Killing a fetus" isn't synonymous with abortion, and to claim so is intellectually dishonest.

I notice that the right of a woman to have a say in the matters of her body is important but so is the right to life. Unborn children are independent lifeforms, not an extension of their mother's body. Even if the carrying and birth of that child are horrendous (and forgive me if I'm coming across as insensitive here) the product of it is a human life that could last many years. The child could grow up, feel love, have children and grandchildren and great grandchildren that live on long after the mother of that child is dead and gone.

So I have the right to force you to donate a part of your lung to me if I'm dying, even if you do not consent?

[Towlensk]

1. Define when life begins.
2. The majority of the world believes in an immortal soul. Now define when that enters the body.
3. Abortion is trending more toward some form of hindsight birth control than anything else.
4. The father of the child, should he choose, should have a say in it as well.
5. How long does it really take to decide if you want to keep the baby or not?

Should abortion be legal? Yes: and only in extraordinary circumstances, such as rape or risk of death to the mother. Late term abortions should be illegal UNLESS the woman is at risk of death to continue the pregnancy, even then the child should be saved if possible.

All you people touting unquestioned support for abortion would benefit from watching how it's actually done. It's sickening. We treat pedophiles and war criminals with more humanity than a human fetus.

[Neutraligon]

Sorry, went back and made correction. Oh and i meant she decides to keep it free of coercion.

And that's another scary part with many relationships I've found. The guy pressuring her to keep the baby, or saying that he'll leave her if she gets an abortion (leading to her feeling like she'd be deemed a failure, or summat), or just straight physical abuse.

That's why I stressed that zero-tolerance thing with women. She wants it out, out it goes. But it always seems that even the staunchest abortion-rights advocates refuse even an inch of ground on the concept of a man being forced into financial servitude.

I believe that similar logic can be used for the man as for the woman. He had sex with her yes, but he like she did not consent to pregnancy. However, unlike her, he does not have the ability or right to terminate the pregnancy because it is not his body he is affecting. Thus, with a few exceptions I do not think he should be forced to pay for a pregnancy he did not agree to in the first place. I do not have a problem with him trying to convince her to keep the pregnancy, but only as far as it doesn't become coercive. I still believe that children from such a circumstance need to be supported, and thus I turn to another party who has a vested interest in the child, the state. I think the state has a vested interest in ensuring the child grows up healthy and well educated, as do tax payers. Although, I am not sure how I would treat a repeat "offender".

[United Marxist Nations]

If they don't have the forethought to realize having sex could likely lead to pregnancy, that's not my fault. Sex is designed to achieve pregnancy. Sidewalks are not designed to be hit by a car while walking. Again, never said it should be completely banned.

In humans, sex is not designed to achieve pregnancy. Hence why human females have varying levels of fertility. Lrn2biology

I agree that abortion should be legal, but source?

[Neutraligon]

1. Define when life begins.
2. The majority of the world believes in an immortal soul. Now define when that enters the body.
3. Abortion is trending more toward some form of hindsight birth control than anything else.
4. The father of the child, should he choose, should have a say in it as well.
5. How long does it really take to decide if you want to keep the baby or not?

Should abortion be legal? Yes: and only in extraordinary circumstances, such as rape or risk of death to the mother. Late term abortions should be illegal UNLESS the woman is at risk of death to continue the pregnancy, even then the child should be saved if possible.

All you people touting unquestioned support for abortion would benefit from watching how it's actually done. It's sickening. We treat pedophiles and war criminals with more humanity than a human fetus.

I have seen how an abortion is done due to having a doctor for a mother who showed it to me (she is pro-choice). I believe that the mother's right to bodily sovereignty is more important the the fetuses "right to life." Considering the fetus is not a person (it is human but not a person), I do not think the fetus has that right. I believe fetuses have rights only as far as the mother is willing to give them (hence why a believe fetal homicide is a crime). Proof of number 2. The father may be able to try and convince the woman, but it is her body we are dealing with. As to number 4, depends how long it takes for the person to realize she is pregnant, and whether she believes she is able to deal with a child. Oh, and whether the state itself is preventing her from having an abortion.

[Ifreann]

Sometimes people want to do other things. Things like sleep.

What is this word, I've never heard it before. S-l-e-e-p

It's a period of unconsciousness in which you have freakish hallucinations.

---

I think that abortion is wrong except when the mother's life is at risk. Every unborn child has the potential to live a happy and fulfilling life and surely, regardless of whether you are religious or atheist, it is wrong to deny them that.

They also have the potential to be Hitler. So what?

Some may say that if the child is handicapped then it is a kindness to kill them. However I don't think we can kill somebody just because we have taken it upon ourselves to judge whether their life will be worth living or not.

Good thing there are better reason for abortion to be legal and available to all women.

What I find most interesting and also disturbing about the matter of abortion is the use of euphemistic words to justify it. When abortion is discussed it seems that words such as "killing" are omitted and replaced with words that sound more acceptable to us. The word "fetus" (and I accept that this is the scientific term but the point still stands) is used instead of "unborn child" as it emotionally detaches us from them. Tactics like this are often used in the justification of terrible things. For example, I watched a documentary on the Stanford Prison Experiment today and one of the tactics employed by the doctor in making the guards feel morally secure in their treatment of the prisoners was to take away the prisoner's names. A name is a personal thing and when it was taken away and the prisoners were referred to by their numbers the guards saw them as being less human. This made it easier for them to treat them is such an appalling manner

One could just as easily criticise the anti-abortion position for using terms such as "unborn child" or "baby" in order to gender emotional attachment.

So too is this tactic used to dehumanize the unborn. The word "baby" contains for most people an emotional connection. We know what babies are; they are those adorable cuddley things that you want to protect and take care of. "Fetus" does not contain any emotional connection despite that it is the same thing but a few weeks younger and thus hasn't been born yet. Abortion is never described as "killing a fetus" or "killing an unborn child" either and is instead referred to as "abortion" which sounds better despite being essentially the same thing. I think it is rather worrying how easily a change in words can persuade us to accept something so blatantly wrong.

As above, have you ever considered that you only think it's wrong because you're thinking about it as killing a baby instead of removing an embryo?

I notice that the right of a woman to have a say in the matters of her body is important but so is the right to life. Unborn children are independent lifeforms, not an extension of their mother's body.

Quite irrelevant. I have a right to life. I do not have the right to use someone else's body to preserve my life against their wishes. If I do not have that right, why should the unborn?

Even if the carrying and birth of that child are horrendous (and forgive me if I'm coming across as insensitive here) the product of it is a human life that could last many years. The child could grow up, feel love, have children and grandchildren and great grandchildren that live on long after the mother of that child is dead and gone.

So?

[Individuality-ness]

I think that abortion is wrong except when the mother's life is at risk. Every unborn child has the potential to live a happy and fulfilling life and surely, regardless of whether you are religious or atheist, it is wrong to deny them that.

All pregnancies risk a mother's life. Unless you're suggesting that you draw a line to say whose's life is much more dire and deserving of an abortion?

Some may say that if the child is handicapped then it is a kindness to kill them. However I don't think we can kill somebody just because we have taken it upon ourselves to judge whether their life will be worth living or not.

Obviously we should not, eugenics is dumb. But a fetus is a potential life, it is NOT a life.

However, you're stating that you're willing to put a value on the life of the mother forced to carry her child. How is that any different?

What I find most interesting and also disturbing about the matter of abortion is the use of euphemistic words to justify it. When abortion is discussed it seems that words such as "killing" are omitted and replaced with words that sound more acceptable to us.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It is not a murder. It is not a premeditated killing. The fetus is not a person. There is no malice aforethought.

The word "fetus" (and I accept that this is the scientific term but the point still stands) is used instead of "unborn child" as it emotionally detaches us from them.

Because it is a fetus. "Unborn child" is a loaded term used by anti-abortionists in order to appeal to emotion and is intellectually dishonest.

Tactics like this are often used in the justification of terrible things. For example, I watched a documentary on the Stanford Prison Experiment today and one of the tactics employed by the doctor in making the guards feel morally secure in their treatment of the prisoners was to take away the prisoner's names. A name is a personal thing and when it was taken away and the prisoners were referred to by their numbers the guards saw them as being less human. This made it easier for them to treat them is such an appalling manner

Fetuses might be biologically human but they are not persons. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that HeLa cells are human.

So too is this tactic used to dehumanize the unborn.

Fetuses are not persons.

The word "baby" contains for most people an emotional connection. We know what babies are; they are those adorable cuddley things that you want to protect and take care of.

Correct. That's why anti-abortionists use that term to appeal to emotion.

"Fetus" does not contain any emotional connection despite that it is the same thing but a few weeks younger and thus hasn't been born yet.

It is a scientific term, and hence our use of the term is correct. Fetuses are not children, they are not babies.

Abortion is never described as "killing a fetus" or "killing an unborn child" either and is instead referred to as "abortion" which sounds better despite being essentially the same thing.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Death of the fetus is a side effect.

I think it is rather worrying how easily a change in words can persuade us to accept something so blatantly wrong.

I think it's rather worrying that anti-abortionists are using appeals to emotion and twisting the definitions of terms to force their morality on other people.

I notice that the right of a woman to have a say in the matters of her body is important but so is the right to life. Unborn children are independent lifeforms, not an extension of their mother's body.

They are not. They cannot survive independent of the mother.

Even if the carrying and birth of that child are horrendous (and forgive me if I'm coming across as insensitive here) the product of it is a human life that could last many years. The child could grow up, feel love, have children and grandchildren and great grandchildren that live on long after the mother of that child is dead and gone.

Thank you to anyone who reads this.

Appeal to emotion. Fetuses are possibilities, possibilities =! life.

[Neutraligon]

In humans, sex is not designed to achieve pregnancy. Hence why human females have varying levels of fertility. Lrn2biology

I agree that abortion should be legal, but source?

Women are fertile for a limited time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Human_fertility

[United Marxist Nations]

In humans, sex is not designed to achieve pregnancy. Hence why human females have varying levels of fertility. Lrn2biology

I agree that abortion should be legal, but source?

Women are fertile for a limited time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Human_fertility

What I meant was that:
A) It's biology, it can't be designed in the first place
B) The sole purpose of sex is pregnancy.

I should have said what I meant, I apologize for not stating it clearly the first time.

[Mavorpen]

Women are fertile for a limited time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Human_fertility

What I meant was that:
A) It's biology, it can't be designed in the first place
B) The sole purpose of sex is pregnancy.

I should have said what I meant, I apologize for not stating it clearly the first time.

A) I didn't say it can.
B) No it isn't, considering humans have sex outside of times when females are most fertile.

[Neutraligon]

Women are fertile for a limited time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Human_fertility

What I meant was that:
A) It's biology, it can't be designed in the first place
B) The sole purpose of sex is pregnancy.

I should have said what I meant, I apologize for not stating it clearly the first time.

A Ah, we are not using designed as in by a creator, but designed as in the system itself is not set up solely to achieve pregnancy. B sex is also social. It allows couples to form a closer bond to one another, even if pregnancy does not result. By having that closer bond, couples are more likely to stay together and thus raise any children they do have or might eventually have better. Even if they do not have children strengthening of the bond probably has other positive affects, including better social cohesion as a whole.

[Vaklor]

In humans, sex is not designed to achieve pregnancy. Hence why human females have varying levels of fertility. Lrn2biology

I agree that abortion should be legal, but source?

Women are fertile for a limited time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Human_fertility

Well yes, but sex is still based around pregnancy (by pregnancy I mean continuation of our species). If the human race was dying out due to varying levels of fertility and decreased fertility with age then I'm sure that would change.

[Individuality-ness]

1. Define when life begins.

Life begins when a person is born, when it is self aware and can live independently of the mother.

2. The majority of the world believes in an immortal soul. Now define when that enters the body.

Irrelevant. Appeal to emotion.

3. Abortion is trending more toward some form of hindsight birth control than anything else.

Source.

4. The father of the child, should he choose, should have a say in it as well.

Women should not be forced to carry a child against their will. But yes, fathers should have a say.

5. How long does it really take to decide if you want to keep the baby or not?

As long as she needs.

Should abortion be legal? Yes: and only in extraordinary circumstances, such as rape or risk of death to the mother.

All pregnancies involve the risk of death to the mother.

Late term abortions should be illegal UNLESS the woman is at risk of death to continue the pregnancy, even then the child should be saved if possible.

All women are at risk of death in a pregnancy. Unless you're suggesting that we should decide whether one's life is dire enough to warrant an abortion?

All you people touting unquestioned support for abortion would benefit from watching how it's actually done. It's sickening.

I do know how it's done, and I still think that abortions should be legal. That's irrelevant, appeal to emotion.

We treat pedophiles and war criminals with more humanity than a human fetus.

Human fetuses are not persons. Stop treating them as such.

[United Marxist Nations]

What I meant was that:
A) It's biology, it can't be designed in the first place
B) The sole purpose of sex is pregnancy.

I should have said what I meant, I apologize for not stating it clearly the first time.

A Ah, we are not using designed as in by a creator, but designed as in the system itself is not set up solely to achieve pregnancy. B sex is also social. It allows couples to form a closer bond to one another, even if pregnancy does not result. By having that closer bond, couples are more likely to stay together and thus raise any children they do have or might eventually have better. Even if they do not have children strengthening of the bond probably has other positive affects, including better social cohesion as a whole.

Wouldn't that be to serve the purpose of pregnancy?

[Neutraligon]

Women are fertile for a limited time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Human_fertility

Well yes, but sex is still based around pregnancy (by pregnancy I mean continuation of our species). If the human race was dying out due to varying levels of fertility and decreased fertility with age then I'm sure that would change.

No again, it is based around social bonding. Sex can also be about pregnancy. At this point, with our ability to artificially inseminate, the later does not matter. Actually, the limited fertility thing may be an evolutionary advantage.

[Mavorpen]

Women are fertile for a limited time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Human_fertility

Well yes, but sex is still based around pregnancy (by pregnancy I mean continuation of our species). If the human race was dying out due to varying levels of fertility and decreased fertility with age then I'm sure that would change.

Which means that sex is not "designed to achieve pregnancy."

[Zweite Alaje]

Abortion, no.
Suicide, depends.
Clothes, whatever.

Why not? It's the woman's body, so she should be able to do what she wants with it. You don't know what it's like, so you can't legislate this in a reasonable and informed manner.

I don't know what it's like to be a serial killer either, so I guess I can't legislate on that either. I find it suprising you're on the liberal side of this issue.