Abortion is Wrong?

[Cabra West]

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.

I just had to say... I love your signature.

[JJ Place]

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.

Sex isn't a positive or negative action; all actions are interpreted differently by all individual beings; there truly is no "Good or Bad Action". We can have our personal thoughts on what a good action is, and there very well might be an action that an overwelming majority of people might agree be Good or Bad; and that very well might be the case; However, the prior point still takes presidence.

I do agree with you on the next point; irresponsibility is a major problem; however, no law is every going to change this. In fact, repealing laws would be alot better for society for improving our responsibility. People should always use contraceptives; it's the most pr thing to do, it just makes sense that we'd use what we had available to us to make our lives better; especially when said product available has no down sides to it, if used correctly.

What I do not agree with is your stance on what is and what is not life. I'll agree with you on one thing; babies and children should not be allowed to be messed with when in life; even by they're parents. The thing is, before born, the fetus is nothing. It's not human life; it's not even life. It's a organism that feeds off of it's host; in other words a parasite. Also, one more thing to ponder: Before born, when a fetus is physically dependent on it's host for support, if, before birth, the fetus is removed, the organism will not survive on it's own. I don't mean as in "It wouldn't be able to find food for itself." I'm meaning, literally, the fetus just will not be able to survive.

[The Adrian Empire]

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.

I regretfully have to trend pro-choice here, the father doesn't get a say, sorry bub, you made a deposit the bank can't cash, if you wanted a baby then you should have waited until she was ready. Or found another woman who is ready.

[Cabra West]

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.

Really? I am sort of hoping for one of the bigger parties to take up the issue again and have another referendum, if only to stop Michael O'Leary from getting richer of girls going for abortions....

[Grave_n_idle]

If someone burns down a Ford factory... are thyey guilty of arson, or of taking away unbuilt cars?

Fully constructed cars have rights in and of themselves?

Not to argue one side or the other, just explaining that this comparison is pretty lacking.

Not at all.

If we're going to call everything from the point of fertilisation onwards 'an unborn child', then a stack of bricks is an unbuilt house, and a pile of sheet metal is an unbuilt car. A pig is just unsliced bacon.

Not quite, a stack of bricks in this case will always become a house, barring unforeseen circumstance, it is more akin to a pile of bricks, a building plan and a bunch of home contractors being an unbuilt house. A pile of sheet metal on a car assembly line arranged in order to make a car with car manufacturing robots and workers next to it would indeed be an unbuilt car.
Until a women gives live-birth to a duck with a human mother and father, your counter-analogy is incorrect.

No, because you're simply arguing that the foetus will become a human because you're retro-engineering.

When you look in the uterus and see a fertilised egg - can you tell it will one day be a person? Can you somehow tell whether or not it will be one child, two, or three? Or none? Can you tell if that fertilised egg is going to be one of the approximately TWo-THIRDS of fertilised eggs that NEVER make it throughout the full term of pregnancy even WITHOUT artificial abortion?

No - you can't. The whole thing is a gamble. That's why some women who want babies miscarry, and lots of pregnancies end before anyone knows the fertilisation even occurred.

You're starting from the endpoint (it WILL be a baby) in SOME of the cases, and claiming it means that the endpoint in EVERY case is a fully functioning autonomous unit. It's no different to my assumption that the stack of bricks will become a house, or the pile of metal will become a car.

[JJ Place]

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

Exactly; a fetus is not human life because it's physically independent on it's host for survival; it has not yet lived independently, and therefore is classified as having the potential for life; not being human life. Also, your not terminating human life, as there is no human life within a fetus that can be proved.

[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.

I regretfully have to trend pro-choice here, the father doesn't get a say, sorry bub, you made a deposit the bank can't cash, if you wanted a baby then you should have waited until she was ready. Or found another woman who is ready.

Ideally, this goes for both men AND women - don't have sex until you're willing to deal with all the possible risks. But guys basically get out of pregnancy easy - they do their few minutes of contribution, and all the real work takes place inside the mother for the next nine months. Verty few fathers die in childbirth. Very few fathers suffer the adverse effects, in later life, of the developing foetus competing with their own body for nutrition. Very few men ever know the joy of having a midwife take a big pair of shears and enlarge a tearing gentital membrane to allow a lump the size of a melon to slide out of a hole usually about the side of a lemon.

There's a fundamental inequity at work in childbirth, and that's no one's fault - it's biology - but it can't be rectified simply by blaming the woman. (Well, it can, and it has been for thousands of years... but that's not actually rectifying it, it's just sweeping it under the carpet).

[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.

Really? I am sort of hoping for one of the bigger parties to take up the issue again and have another referendum, if only to stop Michael O'Leary from getting richer of girls going for abortions....

It would be nice, but even if one side really wanted to settle the issue (so to speak), it probably isn't feasible due to the controversy (I'm not sure about that, though, being somewhat ignorant of what the first referendum was). A hypothetical referendum in the current political environment would be very interesting and probably fun to watch, although possibly disgusting to watch at the same time.

[Cabra West]

It would be nice, but even if one side really wanted to settle the issue (so to speak), it probably isn't feasible due to the controversy (I'm not sure about that, though, being somewhat ignorant of what the first referendum was). A hypothetical referendum in the current political environment would be very interesting and probably fun to watch, although possibly disgusting to watch at the same time.

Why? With elections coming up, it would be just the right time... before the next coalition is formed, and things settle down again.
And latest surveys show that the population has definitely changed its stance on the issue.

[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.

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?

....????

Unfortunately, it's true. Women who abort are very rarely looking for the destruction of a foetus as their prime motivator, if ever. They just don't want to be pregnant (statistically, they don't want to be pregnant AGAIN, since statistically, women that abort TEND to already be mothers) or they don't want to carry a pregnancy to full term (i.e. bring a person into the world that they can't provide for).

You keep mocking, but that's all you have to offer. Can you show me any reason to believe that abortion is about a desire to break foetuses?

[Muravyets]

I need to go to bed, but I will put my case as plainly as I can:

If we make laws preventing abortion, we take on responsibility for unwanted children. By relying on our government to prevent abortion, we also invest in our government to deal with the consequences.

I'm for big government. 50% GDP, about that. But even as a big-government advocate, I am very concerned at the level of investment, by government, which would be required to provide parentage to all unwanted children who are aborted under the current system.

I haven't caught up with the whole thread yet, and don't plan to get back into until later, but I want to add before I forget:

If we make laws preventing abortion and forcing women to carry pregnancies and give birth whether they want to or not, then not only must society/government take on responsibility for the care of all those unwanted and orphaned children, but also responsibility for all the financial and medical expenses and care of all the women who lose work and income due to unwanted pregnancies, and who suffer illness and injury as a result of unwanted pregnancies.

So that at least doubles (assuming no multiple births) the number of people the state must support and pay for now, due to injuries, illnesses and lost worker productivity which the state inflicted on people who otherwise would never have suffered any of it if they were not forced to carry pregnancies.

[Sorentos (Ancient)]

It would be nice, but even if one side really wanted to settle the issue (so to speak), it probably isn't feasible due to the controversy (I'm not sure about that, though, being somewhat ignorant of what the first referendum was). A hypothetical referendum in the current political environment would be very interesting and probably fun to watch, although possibly disgusting to watch at the same time.

Why? With elections coming up, it would be just the right time... before the next coalition is formed, and things settle down again.

Good point. An election is definitely the best time for something like this to happen. My only problem with the abortion issue in politics these days is that it is such a wedge issue, and when people start talking about it other issues tend to become less important all of a sudden. But you're right, an election season is the best time for it.

[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.

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

If the father opts out iof the picture completely, the mother still has to carry the pregnancy (unless she aborts). If the father opts out, the mother still has to raise the child (unless adoption is an option) .

At every stage, the burden of responsibility DEFAULTS to the biological mother. And, at every stage, society in general attempts to REMOVE choices from the mother (such as illegalising abortion, or making abandonment difficult, or illegal).

When male parents actually have an equal share of the burden of responsibility, I might be willing to discuss whether or not they should have more 'rights' in the matter. But, even then, I can't see an argument good enough to enslave a mother who wants an abortion to a man that doesn't.

[Grave_n_idle]

I need to go to bed, but I will put my case as plainly as I can:

If we make laws preventing abortion, we take on responsibility for unwanted children. By relying on our government to prevent abortion, we also invest in our government to deal with the consequences.

I'm for big government. 50% GDP, about that. But even as a big-government advocate, I am very concerned at the level of investment, by government, which would be required to provide parentage to all unwanted children who are aborted under the current system.

I haven't caught up with the whole thread yet, and don't plan to get back into until later, but I want to add before I forget:

If we make laws preventing abortion and forcing women to carry pregnancies and give birth whether they want to or not, then not only must society/government take on responsibility for the care of all those unwanted and orphaned children, but also responsibility for all the financial and medical expenses and care of all the women who lose work and income due to unwanted pregnancies, and who suffer illness and injury as a result of unwanted pregnancies.

So that at least doubles (assuming no multiple births) the number of people the state must support and pay for now, due to injuries, illnesses and lost worker productivity which the state inflicted on people who otherwise would never have suffered any of it if they were not forced to carry pregnancies.

Except we actually know what happens in areas where abortion is incredibly hard to get - infant abandonment increases. If you force someone to bear against her will, you're effectively encouraging infanticide.

[United Russian State]

Unfortunately, it's true. Women who abort are very rarely looking for the destruction of a foetus as their prime motivator, if ever. They just don't want to be pregnant (statistically, they don't want to be pregnant AGAIN, since statistically, women that abort TEND to already be mothers) or they don't want to carry a pregnancy to full term (i.e. bring a person into the world that they can't provide for).

You keep mocking, but that's all you have to offer. Can you show me any reason to believe that abortion is about a desire to break foetuses?

What do you think the main "ill-effects" comes from during pregnancy that one would want to advoid...Oh I don't know...the cild they have created? Not to mention, they liekly don't want to raise a child they have created, so they terminate the pregnancy, so they....umm...don't have to raise their child!

[Muravyets]

Wait. A "person" who is pregnant, makes the decision to have (or not to have) an abortion. Tell me what is the responsible choice THEN, not back when they "made a decision".

I'm on the case. I'm blind rotten drunk, hungry and horny, but I have the scent of the problem here. It is causality. It's about blaming a person for all of the consequences of their decision ... while we make decisions every day which we do not know the consequences of.

We are butterflies, flapping madly in a cyclone machine. To hold each other responsible for the consequences of action is to add ignorance to chaos.

Than, the responsible decision is to care for their child. If they are unable to care for it, they can give it a differnt faimly or Government/privite programs.

Um, no.

If you are in favour of "adoption before abortion" then you must also be prepared to pay for orphanages. You must be prepared to pay for lifetime support of severely disabled children (and adults who grow from them).

Why? Because without abortion there would be many many more unwanted children. Who is going to care for those children?

If you advocate a LAW which makes birth of those children obligatory, you must also take responsibility for those children.

Leaving it to charity isn't good enough. If that's the law you would make, you must take responsibility for the orphans you make.

I'd say you also should be forced to pay for all the medical expenses incurred as a result of pregnancy, as well as paying out benefits to a woman's family members if she dies in childbirth, as well as insuring her a source of income if she is forced to miss work due to pregnancy/childbirth.

If I'm going to be forced to function as an incubator for The State, then why on Earth should the State expect me to foot the bill for the pregnancy they are forcing upon me?

Hell, if I'm going to be made to do it, I expect to be compensated for my time and expenses, plus lost wages and hazard pay. That should put my compensation a good bit higher per hour than the fees of my attorney, whose fees, if I need him to sue the state on my behalf, will also be paid by the state, along with court costs.

So...$250/hour for the lawyer...plus how much more than that for me...

[Muravyets]

And flamebaiting? calling someone a murderer for pleasure?
Your arguments are not only ignorant and selfish, they are embarassing. Smilies are not a substitute for a real argument. Insulting people is not a substitute for a real argument. "Because I said so" is not a substitute for a real argument.

You know it's kind of hard to agure people who are having sex soley for pleasure, are willing to kill a life formed in them [you know by sex]. Lets time I checked people personally don't need to have sex in order to surive.

That's only what they tell you because it's more polite than the real reason they won't fuck with you.

[The Southern Dictators]

This thread is still going on, really ?

[Grave_n_idle]

Than, the responsible decision is to care for their child.

Why ? Why is that more responsible than deciding to not let it come into being ?

Your other option, is the one where you run away from the results of your actions, by killing it. By giveing birth to the child you take responsibility for your actions, and maybe you will learn a lesson or two. It's responsible and morally correct.

Abortion is 'taking responsibility', also.

Taking responsibility =/= doing things YOU like.

[Sorentos (Ancient)]

This thread is still going on, really ?

Best point I've heard yet, honestly.

[Muravyets]

you are big egoists. would you think so(if you you could think) if your mothers had thrown you in embrion period because you are not a potential life

I answered this nonsense pages ago. I notice you seem to enjoy posting little drive-by shout-outs and then never engaging in debate. Go find my response to you from way back and try countering it, if you can.

[Muravyets]

there are many strange people. they will kill their children because they want to eat, to drink and live easily instead of take responsibility

Bear in mind that they're also making sure you can eat, drink and live easily since you're not having to share the Earth's limited resources with yet another person. I'd call resource management a pretty responsible thing, to be honest...

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

How selfish of you.

[Dempublicents1]

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

it isn't his body. He can't use the woman as an unwilling incubator, just as he cannot use her body for any other purpose against her will.

What do you think the main "ill-effects" comes from during pregnancy that one would want to advoid...

How about the myriad of irreversible physical changes? The risk of multiple medical complications, both during the pregnancy and years down the road? The time off work that could lead to a woman losing her job or otherwise being unable to support herself and her family? And so on....

[Grave_n_idle]

Unfortunately, it's true. Women who abort are very rarely looking for the destruction of a foetus as their prime motivator, if ever. They just don't want to be pregnant (statistically, they don't want to be pregnant AGAIN, since statistically, women that abort TEND to already be mothers) or they don't want to carry a pregnancy to full term (i.e. bring a person into the world that they can't provide for).

You keep mocking, but that's all you have to offer. Can you show me any reason to believe that abortion is about a desire to break foetuses?

What do you think the main "ill-effects" comes from during pregnancy that one would want to advoid...Oh I don't know...the cild they have created? Not to mention, they liekly don't want to raise a child they have created, so they terminate the pregnancy, so they....umm...don't have to raise their child!

So - still nothing then?

I'm guessing you're being deliberately obtuse to prove a point.

Are you anti-ADOPTION?

You should be, if you really object to people opting out of taking care of 'children' they made.

[Zoharland]

Should any one living being be forced against its will to give of itself for another living being?

This is the only question that matters in any debate about abortion (seriously). If you are an authoritarian (you believe in things like taxes, welfare, 'wealth redistribution', and the like) Then this will probably come up as a yes for you, because you believe in making people sacrifice themselves and their wealth for the good of others. If you are a free person, a thinking person, and/or a compassionate person, you know that these things are complete and utter bullshit. This list includes a person. It does not matter how a foetus came into the woman's body, if she expresses a wish at any time to have it removed, and she has the cash to do it, it can be done.

The only moral way of living is to stay out of other's lives and let them do what they feel is best for themselves.

Abortion is an important part of freedom and self-determination.