Abortion is Wrong?

[Nobel Hobos]

No, I am in favour of people having the choice. There is a significant difference.

Yes, you are in favor of people having the choice to abortions.
You are for abortions.

Nope, I do not like the idea of an abortion. For one because it is an unpleasant medical procedure for the woman in question.
I do however not oppose her right to choose it anyway.

You find abortion distasteful, regardless of whether it "unpleasant" for the woman.

You do, don't you ?

To make it easier for you to answer ... so do I.

As do I, but I can see the necessity.

It is distasteful.

Although not a woman, I am persuaded that it is also unpleasant for the woman. Perhaps no more than other surgical procedures, or medication, but both are things better avoided.

So, we very likely agree that contraception and sex education reduce the need for abortion, and are thus good things ?

Very much so. However, as noted repeatedly previously on this thread, contraception CAN fail, therefore banning abortion should not happen.

We agree! Oh happy day!

[Central Slavia]

Aha! Hidden assumption exposed.
but people do not live forever ...
ergo if F>500L where L is lifetime requirement for the average person, it stops being a limiting factor on their life expectancy

Even then, the five-hundred people will die after one lifetime, while the fifty will be able to reproduce for the next ten generations. It doesn't matter how big the resource stockpiles actually are. Whether the world has more or less resources than either of us think it does, those resources cannot support a large population for as long as a smaller one.

And now we are pushing it - in reality the resource situation looks much different - as for now the resources are so much bigger that even the amount of generations is an unimportant number.
Besides sun outputs energy all the time, regardless of usage for example.
As i already said we have energy resources for tens of thousands of years

Yes, but a smaller population could have them for hundreds of thousands.

and for no population the resources last for an infinite time
Am i the only one who does not care

[Hartsellia]

It's obviously different if your killing single cell organisms then if you kill a living baby.

[Nobel Hobos]

It's obviously different if your killing single cell organisms then if you kill a living baby.

"living" is redundant, because no one can kill what does not live.

Define "baby" please.

[The Adrian Empire]

The final form of dependent/host relationship is the one I disagree with termination in, when the host willingly accepts the dependent despite ways of avoiding it, (ie. contraception or indeed, abstinence even just from reproductive sex) then because of the dependents affects on the host and pains seeks to destroy the dependent in order to live in the same way they have before. Termination in this scenario is not ethical, as there was other viable options to totally avoid the dependent.

The bolded is a problem, clearly it's not 'willingly' when it's a negative action - failing to take precautions - as opposed to a positive action. So essentially you're saying..

'Why shouldn't we punish women for a mistake by either forcing them to carry the foetus to term or creating a situation where she is forced to resort to unsafe alternative methods for abortion?'

Having sex is a positive action, one does not have to have sex, while having consensual sex isn't wrong, it shouldn't be taken lightly that a child can result from it. Not using protection on top of this is just plain irresponsible, I see no reason why we as a society should be legitimizing irresponsibility that leads to the death of a human being.

The initial cause is a positive action, as you are not required to ever have sex. The willing consent to sex is in essense the willing consent to the process of reproduction, when one decides not to use contraception that is a negative action on a positive. So indeed, it is willing accepting the dependent since you committed the process of reproduction. The fact that you then choose to not use contraception is just a failure to use a failsafe.
And yes we should require women to give birth to human life they have willingly created, since there is no other law on Earth that says if someone benefits from my mistake I am allowed to kill them.

[Grave_n_idle]

The only logic fail I see, is from you, as always.

And yet, you can't show it.

Because I'm not the one making inconsistent arguments.

No just stupid ones. Several people have time and again shown how stupid your arguments [and some other users are] you just chosse to remain blind. You know, like blind to the fact terminating the baby, is the point in terminating pregnancy, for certain effects un-wanted possibly be person. Logic died in your agruments, which you never expand on. It's like me trying to say Apple=Orange.

The argument is not stupid just because you either can't understand it, or can't work out how to respond to it.

Terminating a baby is NOT the point to terminating pregnancy.

If girls could get abortions that removed the foetus intact, and kept it ina magic little jar, to be handed to someone else who actually wanted it? Very few of them would choose to destroy the foetus anyway. What they want ended - is the pregnancy. The foetus is an inconvenient obstacle, nothing more.

[Grave_n_idle]

If your car is out of control, and you need to stop, and you swerve off the road and hit a tree... was destroying the tree the PURPOSE of the exercise, or just an unfortunate complication?

By driving a car, you recognize that you may incidentally or intentionally cause damage to other inanimate objects, living things, etc. Same as with a pregnancy. The woman has a right to choose not to have sex. By engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of how "safe" it is, the woman is waiving the right not to be pregnant.

When you climb in a car, do you 'waive your right' to not be killed in a horrible car wreck?

Do you think you should be refused the option of medical care, in the event of that wreck, because you CHOSE to get in the car?

This is just stupid. In this point abortion necessarily results in the death of the foetus while car driving does not necesarily entice a crash.
Driving stupidly would be a better analogy, and in that case the medical care is an act of misericordy not a right in my opinion

You're apparently misunderstanding the point.

According to the 'pro-life' side, apparently, consenting to sex (the action), is the same as consenting to pregnancy (the risk), and thus abortion (the medical treatment for the results) should not be allowed.

If this logic holds true, the same people should argue the same steps be held to in different circumstances - and my example is getting into a car (the action), should be accepted as consenting to being in a car wreck (the risk), and that such people should be refused medical treatment (the medical treatment for the result) - based on the exact same logic as in the abortion debate.

It's surprising how FEW people that push that logic for abortion arguments, are willing to push the exact same logic for other things (especially things they actually do, themselves).

[The Adrian Empire]

The only logic fail I see, is from you, as always.

And yet, you can't show it.

Because I'm not the one making inconsistent arguments.

No just stupid ones. Several people have time and again shown how stupid your arguments [and some other users are] you just chosse to remain blind. You know, like blind to the fact terminating the baby, is the point in terminating pregnancy, for certain effects un-wanted possibly be person. Logic died in your agruments, which you never expand on. It's like me trying to say Apple=Orange.

The argument is not stupid just because you either can't understand it, or can't work out how to respond to it.

Terminating a baby is NOT the point to terminating pregnancy.

If girls could get abortions that removed the foetus intact, and kept it ina magic little jar, to be handed to someone else who actually wanted it? Very few of them would choose to destroy the foetus anyway. What they want ended - is the pregnancy. The foetus is an inconvenient obstacle, nothing more.

I will support abortions when this can be done. While I still wouldn't agree with them, simply because of the irresponsibility of their necessity, but they would at least no longer be violating any human's rights as per my belief, and at the point where it violates no one's rights I bow out my personal opinions for other's personal choices.
So I will hope for that, otherwise, I'm going to have to put expanding balloons in uncomfortable places alla the challenge

[Central Slavia]

The only logic fail I see, is from you, as always.

And yet, you can't show it.

Because I'm not the one making inconsistent arguments.

No just stupid ones. Several people have time and again shown how stupid your arguments [and some other users are] you just chosse to remain blind. You know, like blind to the fact terminating the baby, is the point in terminating pregnancy, for certain effects un-wanted possibly be person. Logic died in your agruments, which you never expand on. It's like me trying to say Apple=Orange.

The argument is not stupid just because you either can't understand it, or can't work out how to respond to it.

Terminating a baby is NOT the point to terminating pregnancy.

If girls could get abortions that removed the foetus intact, and kept it ina magic little jar, to be handed to someone else who actually wanted it? Very few of them would choose to destroy the foetus anyway. What they want ended - is the pregnancy. The foetus is an inconvenient obstacle, nothing more.

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.
your hypothetical example means nothing - for many murders it is also true that if the person could send the other one in another dimension he/she would not kill him/her (think for example murders because of insurance money)

[Grave_n_idle]

Interesting challenge.

You will take that amount of pain, in order to save a foetus from termination?

Well - you say you will...

For the sake of parallel, you're going to have to come up with something that is uncomfortable, has serious potential risks, is excessively painful to complete, and is likely to leave you with genital damage.

Perhaps something to do with those expansion balloons under the skin (that they use for grafts)? Also - you should probably be treated with something you're allergic to, throughout the term, to simulate morning sickness. Whatever you have implanted is going to have to be removed by surgery - but you're going to have to be very selective about what kind of anaesthetic you're 'allowed'. And then there's the genital mutilation - to mirror pregnancy, shears and/or ripping should have a high probability of being involved.

You could make a website where you documented it all.


To be honest - I think you're on to a winner here. I think if you REALLY did something like that, you'd prevent thousands of abortions.


So - then - the question is, are you just blowing smoke, or did you mean it?

Ouch, that would be quite the painful simulation, I'll admit I don't want to... but with the lives saved, if lives were to be saved, (I would need proof, perhaps signatures) I'd be willing... But considering my age, I will likely have to wait a few years. If simply because my parents wouldn't agree. I will do it though if this was to be done.

You need signatures? Do you think that a woman choosing between pregnancy (and it's risks) and abortion (and it's risks) gets any kind of assurance of success?

I'd be very impressed to see someone actually make such a stand, to be honest - that really WOULD be showing the courage of conviction, something I usually see as sadly lacking on the side of the abortion debate that doesn't have to make those decisions anyway.

[Good Atheists]

It's not a baby, It's a fetus. A fetus is part of a womans body, they should get to do what they want with it.

[Grave_n_idle]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective - if you want to use emotive language, it's just a casualty on the road TO the objective.

[United Russian State]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective.

[Central Slavia]

If your car is out of control, and you need to stop, and you swerve off the road and hit a tree... was destroying the tree the PURPOSE of the exercise, or just an unfortunate complication?

By driving a car, you recognize that you may incidentally or intentionally cause damage to other inanimate objects, living things, etc. Same as with a pregnancy. The woman has a right to choose not to have sex. By engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of how "safe" it is, the woman is waiving the right not to be pregnant.

When you climb in a car, do you 'waive your right' to not be killed in a horrible car wreck?

Do you think you should be refused the option of medical care, in the event of that wreck, because you CHOSE to get in the car?

This is just stupid. In this point abortion necessarily results in the death of the foetus while car driving does not necesarily entice a crash.
Driving stupidly would be a better analogy, and in that case the medical care is an act of misericordy not a right in my opinion

You're apparently misunderstanding the point.

According to the 'pro-life' side, apparently, consenting to sex (the action), is the same as consenting to pregnancy (the risk), and thus abortion (the medical treatment for the results) should not be allowed.

If this logic holds true, the same people should argue the same steps be held to in different circumstances - and my example is getting into a car (the action), should be accepted as consenting to being in a car wreck (the risk), and that such people should be refused medical treatment (the medical treatment for the result) - based on the exact same logic as in the abortion debate.

It's surprising how FEW people that push that logic for abortion arguments, are willing to push the exact same logic for other things (especially things they actually do, themselves).

Except that the point of driving a car is to get from one place to other while doing some business, while the point of sexual activity is reproduction.
It can be used for other purposes but the chance of pregnancy is high if no protection is used, Besides it is not like it serves any worthy purpose - it is just needless risk just like unsafe driving in this case and that is why the person should not expect that some foetus should be killed just for not to inconvenience her

[The Adrian Empire]

If your car is out of control, and you need to stop, and you swerve off the road and hit a tree... was destroying the tree the PURPOSE of the exercise, or just an unfortunate complication?

By driving a car, you recognize that you may incidentally or intentionally cause damage to other inanimate objects, living things, etc. Same as with a pregnancy. The woman has a right to choose not to have sex. By engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of how "safe" it is, the woman is waiving the right not to be pregnant.

When you climb in a car, do you 'waive your right' to not be killed in a horrible car wreck?

Do you think you should be refused the option of medical care, in the event of that wreck, because you CHOSE to get in the car?

This is just stupid. In this point abortion necessarily results in the death of the foetus while car driving does not necesarily entice a crash.
Driving stupidly would be a better analogy, and in that case the medical care is an act of misericordy not a right in my opinion

You're apparently misunderstanding the point.

According to the 'pro-life' side, apparently, consenting to sex (the action), is the same as consenting to pregnancy (the risk), and thus abortion (the medical treatment for the results) should not be allowed.

If this logic holds true, the same people should argue the same steps be held to in different circumstances - and my example is getting into a car (the action), should be accepted as consenting to being in a car wreck (the risk), and that such people should be refused medical treatment (the medical treatment for the result) - based on the exact same logic as in the abortion debate.

It's surprising how FEW people that push that logic for abortion arguments, are willing to push the exact same logic for other things (especially things they actually do, themselves).

If, you were to get into a car without a seatbelt and be hit in a front-end crash with a distracted driver causing you to be paralysed, regardless of whether the driver was at fault you cannot sue them for personal damages, since you yourself are at fault for not wearing a seatbelt.

I would not go so far as to say that a women who had performed a back-alley abortion should be denied medical treatment, certainly not a women who has done that needs immediate treatment, as similarly I would not deny a criminal medical access were he wounded while committing his crime. Or more lightly a person who intentionally hurt themselves should not be denied medical access.

[Grave_n_idle]

The only logic fail I see, is from you, as always.

And yet, you can't show it.

Because I'm not the one making inconsistent arguments.

No just stupid ones. Several people have time and again shown how stupid your arguments [and some other users are] you just chosse to remain blind. You know, like blind to the fact terminating the baby, is the point in terminating pregnancy, for certain effects un-wanted possibly be person. Logic died in your agruments, which you never expand on. It's like me trying to say Apple=Orange.

The argument is not stupid just because you either can't understand it, or can't work out how to respond to it.

Terminating a baby is NOT the point to terminating pregnancy.

If girls could get abortions that removed the foetus intact, and kept it ina magic little jar, to be handed to someone else who actually wanted it? Very few of them would choose to destroy the foetus anyway. What they want ended - is the pregnancy. The foetus is an inconvenient obstacle, nothing more.

I will support abortions when this can be done. While I still wouldn't agree with them, simply because of the irresponsibility of their necessity, but they would at least no longer be violating any human's rights as per my belief, and at the point where it violates no one's rights I bow out my personal opinions for other's personal choices.
So I will hope for that, otherwise, I'm going to have to put expanding balloons in uncomfortable places alla the challenge

I also hope for that. I hope that science reaches a point where it is not only possible but ECONOMICALLY possible to prevent pregnancy without destroying the uterine contents - think of the benefits possible in such a science, not just in the desire for abortion, but in it's contribution to fertility treatment (you might be able to simply 'store' a viable foetus until someone wants it, in theory), the redistribution of population density... the ability of the SAME parents to re-adopt their OWN foetus at a later date (when they can better afford to keep it).

I'm pro-choice, but I don't like abortion. Most people who are pro-choice probably agree with my position.

If the science we're talking about ever arrives, almost the whole abortion debate disappears.

[Sorentos (Ancient)]

You all do realize the abortion debate these days is no longer a debate but just a ploy to encourage and/or cement political party loyalty, right?

I mean, no one in government or society at large is going to DO anything about abortion anytime soon. If they did, there goes a huge voting block, off to care about some other issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

If your car is out of control, and you need to stop, and you swerve off the road and hit a tree... was destroying the tree the PURPOSE of the exercise, or just an unfortunate complication?

By driving a car, you recognize that you may incidentally or intentionally cause damage to other inanimate objects, living things, etc. Same as with a pregnancy. The woman has a right to choose not to have sex. By engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of how "safe" it is, the woman is waiving the right not to be pregnant.

When you climb in a car, do you 'waive your right' to not be killed in a horrible car wreck?

Do you think you should be refused the option of medical care, in the event of that wreck, because you CHOSE to get in the car?

This is just stupid. In this point abortion necessarily results in the death of the foetus while car driving does not necesarily entice a crash.
Driving stupidly would be a better analogy, and in that case the medical care is an act of misericordy not a right in my opinion

You're apparently misunderstanding the point.

According to the 'pro-life' side, apparently, consenting to sex (the action), is the same as consenting to pregnancy (the risk), and thus abortion (the medical treatment for the results) should not be allowed.

If this logic holds true, the same people should argue the same steps be held to in different circumstances - and my example is getting into a car (the action), should be accepted as consenting to being in a car wreck (the risk), and that such people should be refused medical treatment (the medical treatment for the result) - based on the exact same logic as in the abortion debate.

It's surprising how FEW people that push that logic for abortion arguments, are willing to push the exact same logic for other things (especially things they actually do, themselves).

Except that the point of driving a car is to get from one place to other while doing some business, while the point of sexual activity is reproduction.
It can be used for other purposes but the chance of pregnancy is high if no protection is used, Besides it is not like it serves any worthy purpose - it is just needless risk just like unsafe driving in this case and that is why the person should not expect that some foetus should be killed just for not to inconvenience her

The point of sexual intercourse is sexual intercourse.

Reprodution is SOMETIMES a desired outcome, but for the most part, it's a risk, not the goal.

The same is true of driving your car. Sometimes, someone might WANT to wreck (maybe they are stuntdrivers), but most of the time - it's just a risk, not the goal.

[Cabra West]

if you want cut your balls, dont make children, but nobody can tell me how many children i will make. if i want 1, if i want 100

I really hate to break it to you, sugar, but since you're male, it will be women who decide how many children you will make. Not you.

[Grave_n_idle]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective.

Sadly, that's your most constructive response so far.

[Central Slavia]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective - if you want to use emotive language, it's just a casualty on the road TO the objective.

Murder is not about a killing it is about a goal to be achieved by it. The death of the obstacle is just a casualty on the road to the objective.

[The Adrian Empire]

It's not a baby, It's a fetus. A fetus is part of a womans body, they should get to do what they want with it.

A parasite is not considered a part of your body, similarly a foetus which has unique human DNA is not a part of it's host body merely borrowing nutrients and air from it.

Granted, that you can kill a parasite living in your body, but the point remains that a parasite is not your body. I would argue that despite acting as a parasite, this separate human life should not be legal to kill.
However were there an ability to terminate the pregnancy without ending this individual human life, I would not argue against such a procedure, and would actually like to see it legal, though I would still prefer it not used

[Grave_n_idle]

Shouldn't the laws be made to be as fair as possible?

I really don't see how giving the father any control would be fair. Biology treats the two genders differently with respect to reproduction. Logically, so should the law.

So, the father should have no say, it takes two to create a baby.

And the point at which both parents have to endure the risks of pregnancy, is the point at which both should have equal rights to match their equal responsibility.

[United Russian State]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective.

Sadly, that's your most constructive response so far.

In the eyes of someone who hasn't written any constructive responses, talkiking to those who do, and treying to say extermination of baby foetus has nothing to do with termination of pregnancyy [just an "unfortante side effect, onw which they bring on to themsleves?

....????

[United Russian State]

Shouldn't the laws be made to be as fair as possible?

I really don't see how giving the father any control would be fair. Biology treats the two genders differently with respect to reproduction. Logically, so should the law.

So, the father should have no say, it takes two to create a baby.

And the point at which both parents have to endure the risks of pregnancy, is the point at which both should have equal rights to match their equal responsibility.

If they play an active role in the partners life, supporting them, shouldn't have a say? It his child too.