abortion

shadowda · 2016-11-18 03:41:43

it should be allowed up to a certain point.

in the usa it appears to be 24 weeks, as the fetus is viable after this point.

Though i wouldn't mind if the time was cut back a bit.

The fetal heartbeat begins around 6 week so that might be a better cut off.

Men should also have more say. it may be the woman's body, but the fetus is made up of both of their dna. The father should have a say in what happens. if he wants to terminate, he should at least have the right to "legal abortion" that is, to forfeit all rights and responsibility related to the baby or the mother.

Koya

Koya · 2016-11-18 03:46:47

At six weeks it doesn't give you a lot of time to make a decision you are comfortable with, I think the current is fine because the fetus isn't a baby until it can survive alone.

Do agree with the "legal abortion" which should have a sooner deadline than the real abortion encase it influences the real abortion decision - but if the legal abortion was a thing my sister wouldn't have 2 kids who get money from 2 guys

hummerz5 · 2016-11-18 03:59:31

Koya wrote:

ntil it can survive alone

we being the social species, there's some sociological studies done that show we actually do need some guidance so we don't just like die and stuff. Good times y'know.

So can you clarify, perhaps by examining the purpose of your choice of endpoint, why you think it should be drawn at when the baby can "survive alone"

Swarth100

capasha · 2016-11-18 09:23:35

Some years ago. I was together and in love with a girl. I said I don't want a baby.
I think she was ok with this. Then later she said she was pregnant, and said I was the father and she don't want to abort.
I couldn't say anything. She ignored me about abort. Now I have a kid which I don't meet. Because I don't want a kid.

Feels so dumb how girls can choose and not me.

Kaleb · 2016-11-18 09:50:39

capasha wrote:

Some years ago. I was together and in love with a girl. I said I don't want a baby.
I think she was ok with this. Then later she said she was pregnant, and said I was the father and she don't want to abort.
I couldn't say anything. She ignored me about abort. Now I have a kid which I don't meet. Because I don't want a kid.
Feels so dumb how girls can choose and not me.

Well if you guys were in a really close relationship you should have expressed yourself to her about what you felt, but now that it is too late and the kid is here you should spend as much time with him because kids with only a single parent coming up is very difficult for the child so make you son happy and spend as much time with him as you can, also try to build up the relationship with the mother(idk what sorts of issues you guys have) of your child.

I don't know your position on abortion but I think abortion for simply selfish reasons are not good at all and I think there is a fine line to do it.
Like if a couple has sex without protection it is their fault for not preparing and they cant choose to simply "abort" that is just utterly wrong.
Another point is if the women was of course 'raped' then in that case she could choose to have the baby knowing later in life that was going to be the best decision of her life or abort the baby because of the guilt she would feel towards the child.

My personal belief on abortion is that it is wrong an I am Con-abortion.
ty ^.^

Norwee · 2016-11-18 10:45:07

kaleb123 wrote:

Another point is if the women was of course 'raped' then in that case she could choose to have the baby knowing later in life that was going to be the best decision of her life or abort the baby because of the guilt she would feel towards the child.

Best decision in her life? So i assume the rapist would also become a loving father?
I have difficulties imagining such a scenario. It's wrong in general for doctors or other men to decide what women can do with their own body. A study done in Norway 1978 reveals that it was generally men, elders, and people with low education that was against free abortion during the turbulent debates in that time. Those people should be ashamed for trying to dictate how women live their life. Pro-choice all the way.

Swarth100 · 2016-11-18 10:50:17

Disregarding all discussions over religion and the meaning of life, I am personally against abortion for a very simple reason.

Sexual intercourse has one very clear aim: reproduction (i.e. babies,... MOAR babies)

If we use "for fun and amusement" something which is meant to make babies, I'm very sorry, but you are really agreeing to the possible side-consequences.

It''s pretty much like knives: they are meant to cut, and can possibly kill. You wanna play with them? You accept the consequences. You hurt, injure, or even kill someone? YOU MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE!

I really don't understand why people seem to find it right to do WHAT THEY WANT, without ever wanting to face the consequences of their actions.

Doodle

capasha · 2016-11-18 11:39:02

Kaleb123 wrote:

Well if you guys were in a really close relationship you should have expressed yourself to her about what you felt, but now that it is too late and the kid is here you should spend as much time with him because kids with only a single parent coming up is very difficult for the child so make you son happy and spend as much time with him as you can, also try to build up the relationship with the mother(idk what sorts of issues you guys have) of your child.

She said she had protection against getting babies. Still she get pregnant and said I was the father over the baby.
I really got panic when she said she want to have the baby.

Bobithan · 2016-11-18 19:02:52

Swarth100 wrote:

Sexual intercourse has one very clear aim: reproduction (i.e. babies,... MOAR babies)

that's not a universally held belief; why force it onto others?

Napakeun

MBlood · 2016-11-19 03:25:36

Swarth100 wrote:

It''s pretty much like knives: they are meant to cut, and can possibly kill. You wanna play with them? You accept the consequences. You hurt, injure, or even kill someone? YOU MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE!.

You don't have to care, educate and pay for the needs of a knife.
A baby requires a lot of responsibility, because it's for lifetime. It's not like "-Hey do u wnt to mak a baby? -ye lets do a baby"

Abelysk · 2016-11-19 07:14:16

Swarth100 wrote:

Disregarding all discussions over religion and the meaning of life, I am personally against abortion for a very simple reason.
Sexual intercourse has one very clear aim: reproduction (i.e. babies,... MOAR babies)
If we use "for fun and amusement" something which is meant to make babies, I'm very sorry, but you are really agreeing to the possible side-consequences.
It''s pretty much like knives: they are meant to cut, and can possibly kill. You wanna play with them? You accept the consequences. You hurt, injure, or even kill someone? YOU MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE!
I really don't understand why people seem to find it right to do WHAT THEY WANT, without ever wanting to face the consequences of their actions.

What if you get raped?

It feels so wrong having the baby of a sick, twisted man who rapes you without consent.

Pingohits

Swarth100 · 2016-11-19 19:26:40

Bobithan wrote:

Swarth100 wrote:
Sexual intercourse has one very clear aim: reproduction (i.e. babies,... MOAR babies)
that's not a universally held belief; why force it onto others?

I actually believe it is.

Sexual intercourse seeks the reproduction of a species.

When it comes to evolution, the species which could reproduce more were more likely to be selected. Which were the species more likely to reproduce? Those that had mutated genes with which they could feel a greater amount of pleasure from the act. Animals engage in such actions for pleasure as they don't have the means to understand the greater picture; they cannot see they do it to reproduce their species. And the greater the pleasure, the more likely it is for them to engage in the act again and sooner.

An animal engages in sexual intercourse for pleasure.
A human engages in the same act to reproduce its species.

Doodle · 2016-11-24 11:50:40

Abortion holds no virtue, it's not at all a righteous thing to do.

For what gain do you get for aborting a baby? You say a women should not have to bear the pain of having a baby that is not hers. So then really your punishing the baby for the rapist crime by stopping the baby from being born, I.E. killed.
Is it not selfish to say i don't want this baby because the baby is not from my lover?
Indeed it's painful to be pregnant by a baby that is not from your spouse, however even if you don't want the baby that is yours, sad as it is, there are plenty beneficial alternatives to letting the baby live such as, giving the baby to a family that wants to adopt him, orphanage, having someone else you know take care, there are organizations out there to help, etc.. It has always been a void argument to say "there's no way this baby can live and be taken care of" especially in these days.

Responses

hummerz5 wrote:

My question is the assumption that "a life is a life". I try to draw connections to the emotional losses of parents at the loss of a child, or perhaps "society loses something" otherwise I can't explain why we need to preserve this "life."
Where do we get the right to live? Strictly speaking, it's no one's loss to have the abortion. What "could have happened" has nothing to do with it; we cannot answer that question anyway.

You sound as if your saying human life has no value... if so, just asking, are you human? Or are you referring to the baby in the womb assuming there's no life.
At the moment of conception, there is life. If anyone intentionally stops the baby from being born, what do you call that? Murder. That baby is the same as a teenage boy going through the stage of puberty! Would a mother kill her child because she doesn't want to raise him? It's a blessing from God for a women to bare a baby, and to raise him.
The losses are severe, a lost life, and a mother's lost child, being a part of her.

The right to live is an inherited right at the time you live, simple as that. It's a God given right. Oh and what could have happened? The baby could have lived -_-

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

kaleb123 wrote:
Another point is if the women was of course 'raped' then in that case she could choose to have the baby knowing later in life that was going to be the best decision of her life or abort the baby because of the guilt she would feel towards the child.
Best decision in her life? So i assume the rapist would also become a loving father?
I have difficulties imagining such a scenario. It's wrong in general for doctors or other men to decide what women can do with their own body. A study done in Norway 1978 reveals that it was generally men, elders, and people with low education that was against free abortion during the turbulent debates in that time. Those people should be ashamed for trying to dictate how women live their life. Pro-choice all the way.

In abortion, no one tries to control how a women controls her own body. Besides, alot of people need to stop believing that the baby is all hers and not the man's too. Who put the seed into the egg? The man and the women own the baby. And in fact when you have sex with someone, you become one with them, I.E. marriage.

"The point is not how a child was conceived but that he was conceived. He is not a despicable "product of rape." He is a unique and wonderful creation of God. Having and holding an innocent child can do much more good for a victimized woman than the knowledge that an innocent child died in a fruitless attempt to reduce her trauma." -Randy Alcorn in 'Why Pro-Life'?

Bobithan wrote:

Swarth100 wrote:
Sexual intercourse has one very clear aim: reproduction (i.e. babies,... MOAR babies)
that's not a universally held belief; why force it onto others?

Can you tell us then what sexual intercourse is then besides love, and reproduction?

MBlood wrote:

Swarth100 wrote:
It''s pretty much like knives: they are meant to cut, and can possibly kill. You wanna play with them? You accept the consequences. You hurt, injure, or even kill someone? YOU MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE!.
You don't have to care, educate and pay for the needs of a knife.
A baby requires a lot of responsibility, because it's for lifetime. It's not like "-Hey do u wnt to mak a baby? -ye lets do a baby"

If you can't take care of a baby, don't have one. If you accidentally have one, and can't provide for the baby, ask your family for help, seek help (which there is alot out there) or give the baby up for adoption.

If you value life, wouldn't you value a baby's life?

Swarth100

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-24 13:22:43

The worst in the world has always been those who wish to control the lives, and infringing the rights of others, typically women.
The anti-abortion debate is mostly a religious one, and it is completely rejected by the scientific community, as it rightfully should be.

Simply put, human life does NOT begin at the moment of conception; human life requires neural activity, which isn't present in zygotes.

Additionally, there's a very real possibility of pregnancies turning cancerous, such is the case with ectopic pregnancies.
When the egg leaves the ovary, it usually enters the ampulla of the fallopian tube, instead it enters into the abdominal cavity.

The embryo may implant outside of the uterus (i.e. the cervix, bowels, liver or spleen.)
If this occurs, the placenta can, and most likely will result in the mothers death.

The simple-minded and the religious push their conservative agendas too far in this case, and they should be ashamed.

I'm not replying to any quotations of this post, as it's an utter waste of my time to debate poorly educated imbeciles.
Rather than replying to me, please go speak to your biology teacher - they'll happily inform you of your misconceptions.

Different55 · 2016-11-24 15:38:28

XxAtillaxX wrote:

The worst in the world has always been those who wish to control the lives, and infringing the rights of others, typically women.
The anti-abortion debate is mostly a religious one, and it is completely rejected by the scientific community, as it rightfully should be.
Simply put, human life does NOT begin at the moment of conception; human life requires neural activity, which isn't present in zygotes.
Additionally, there's a very real possibility of pregnancies turning cancerous, such is the case with ectopic pregnancies.
When the egg leaves the ovary, it usually enters the ampulla of the fallopian tube, instead it enters into the abdominal cavity.
The embryo may implant outside of the uterus (i.e. the cervix, bowels, liver or spleen.)
If this occurs, the placenta can, and most likely will result in the mothers death.
The simple-minded and the religious push their conservative agendas too far in this case, and they should be ashamed.
I'm not replying to any quotations of this post, as it's an utter waste of my time to debate poorly educated imbeciles.
Rather than replying to me, please go speak to your biology teacher - they'll happily inform you of your misconceptions.

Remember kids, if you say something in an argument then immediately plug your ears and start screeching it means you're right.

Seriously I wasn't even going to post in here, but you can't just post in a debate then refuse to debate. Then it's not a debate, it's just tards screeching at each other. Participate or don't.

Processor, Swarth100, Dencc, N1KF

N1KF · 2016-11-25 00:40:23

XxAtillaxX wrote:

The worst in the world has always been those who wish to control the lives, and infringing the rights of others, typically women.

Lives? I agree that people shouldn't try to control the lives of others (except to those who dangerously do the same), but some would argue that the fetus is a life. Sure, you bring up

Simply put, human life does NOT begin at the moment of conception; human life requires neural activity, which isn't present in zygotes.

but you also speak of abortion as a whole in your post it seems. Because of that, that's what I'll be discussing abortion as a whole in this post. If I'm misunderstanding something, I would like to know.

The anti-abortion debate is mostly a religious one, and it is completely rejected by the scientific community, as it rightfully should be.

The main argument against legalizing abortion is:

fetus's life > mother's option to abort
Therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Science doesn't tell how things should be; it's about how things are. That's philosophy's (and arguably religion's, which is partially philosophy) job, so it can't be answered objectively in any way that I know of. If you think you can find an objective answer as to which takes higher priority, then please let me know, because I haven't found one. However, considering that you've shrugged off most philosophy, as well as any possible responses to your post, I'm not sure that you care. It seems likes there are many people that won't consider others' opinions or ideas, and I hope you aren't one of them.

Ratburntro44 · 2016-11-25 03:23:44

just because something is philosophical doesn't mean it can't be objective jc

if you want actual arguments go read warren or marquis or thomson

sheesh

Different55 wrote:

Remember kids, if you say something in an argument then immediately plug your ears and start screeching it means you're right.
Seriously I wasn't even going to post in here, but you can't just post in a debate then refuse to debate. Then it's not a debate, it's just tards screeching at each other. Participate or don't.

is it really that unreasonable to not respond specifically to someone whose entire argument is a combination of fallacies, vague statements, misinformation, and assumed divine command theory? it's all been refuted before, repeatedly, there's little significant to respond to in the specifics, and he did make an overall response

that said, his response really isn't a very good one anyways, so there's that

Different55 · 2016-11-25 04:05:18

Ratburntro44 wrote:

is it really that unreasonable to not respond specifically to someone whose entire argument is a combination of fallacies, vague statements, misinformation, and assumed divine command theory?

No, not at all. Unfortunately that's not what he said:

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I'm not replying to any quotations of this post, as it's an utter waste of my time to debate poorly educated imbeciles.
Rather than replying to me, please go speak to your biology teacher - they'll happily inform you of your misconceptions.

This isn't the more reasonable stance of "If your reasons for disagreeing with abortion are rooted in religion, please do not enforce your own beliefs on everyone else," or even "Please for the love of all that is holy do not reply to this post specifically if your name is <person whose entire argument is a combination of fallacies, vague statements, misinformation, and assumed divine command theory> because your entire argument is just a combination of fallacies, vague statements, misinformation, and assumed divine command theory." His response more or less amounts to "I'm not replying to anyone, it's a waste of my time because if you disagree with me then you're dumb. Full stop. Do not talk to me, it's not my place to educate you."

Ratburntro44 wrote:

just because something is philosophical doesn't mean it can't be objective jc

Not quite sure I see what you mean. Philosophy and morality isn't based on objectivity, it's always subjective, isn't it? You can drag in all the facts you want to try and back yourself up like Atilla's "Zygotes don't have neural activity" or Hacked's "Life begins at the moment of conception" but at the end of the day they pull the exact same "This is the point where human life becomes sacred" out of two wildly different things based ultimately on nothing objective.

Ratburntro44 · 2016-11-25 04:17:54

Different55 wrote:

Not quite sure I see what you mean. Philosophy and morality isn't based on objectivity, it's always subjective, isn't it?

no, which things are subjective and objective is not always obvious and is the topic of much philosophical debate (though at least currently the philosophical community leans towards moral realism), though the idea that philosophy deals with objective statements (in general, not particular to morality) is pretty generally accepted (like mathematical statements)

Bobithan · 2016-11-26 02:45:26

Swarth100 wrote:

I actually believe it is.
Sexual intercourse seeks the reproduction of a species.

Yeah, you 'believe' its the only reason for sex. I'm sorry to say, but it's also commonly used as a pleasurable consensual act between two parties, and doesn't necessarily have to end in dedicating your life to a new human. Romantic, pleasurable sex without the intent of pregnancy is a social norm at this point. Saying otherwise is literally just imposing your belief onto others and forcing life ruining decisions.

Hacked wrote:

At the moment of conception, there is life

Sorry, do you mean to tell me that a single stem cell is just as valuable an entity as I am? It can't think. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't have emotions. It's just a cell. And if that cell is likely to destroy the life of some woman/couple, there's no reason to let that cell do so. Your faith isn't enough reason to force that kind of decision onto somebody.

Swarth100 · 2016-11-26 16:45:45

Bobithan wrote:

Yeah, you 'believe' its the only reason for sex. I'm sorry to say, but it's also commonly used as a pleasurable consensual act between two parties, and doesn't necessarily have to end in dedicating your life to a new human. Romantic, pleasurable sex without the intent of pregnancy is a social norm at this point. Saying otherwise is literally just imposing your belief onto others and forcing life ruining decisions.

I'm very sorry to say this, but if people commonly misuse something for a rong purpose, that doesn't change the original reason for the action itself.
Back to knife example.
Some people feel pleasure from cutting theselves with knives. You ask those people what knives are for and they'll say "for pleasure", but that doesn't mean the original purpose of a knife is to cut.

Sexual intercourse gives some remote for of "pleasure" so that unaware animals would engage in it and reproduce with their peers.
The pleasure is a means. The aim is simply reproduction.

Ratburntro44 · 2016-11-26 18:10:54

so how exactly are you determining the "purpose" of a naturally developed activity? "purpose" implies an intention, and there was no particular intention that led to the development of sex itself. so it only really seems reasonable to go by the intent of those partaking in the act

hummerz5 · 2016-11-26 22:17:00

The rationalization the philosophy teacher here offered was something along the lines of "human life has potential that other organisms do not. Therefore, the human life (regardless of its stage) is valuable."
If we assume that all life is valuable for its potential (which seems interesting) then I guess that gets rid of just about any scenario that doesn't jeopardize another's life.

Hacked wrote:

The right to live is an inherited right at the time you live, simple as that. It's a God given right. Oh and what could have happened? The baby could have lived -_-

"The baby could have lived"

I mean, if you want to generate as much life (which is apparently this all-good) as possible, shouldn't it be a societal goal that everyone reproduces as much as possible for their peak years? Clearly we cap it somewhere.

I guess that's another avenue I don't really see discussed (perhaps because it's frivolous). If abortion is denied on the grounds of "life is this all good" then why do we stop at "you can't abort your child?" Why not "you must have children" if it's that important? Yes, it's a floating comment but I feel the notion does extend.

Different55 · 2016-11-27 04:44:31

What's going on why is this closed

Guys when we lock topics we leave a post behind.

Different55 · 2016-11-27 04:51:38

Oh this was locked by Zoey. Always hated this aspect of allowing topic owners to close their own topics. Happened once before on the old forums, Calicara threatened to delete the topic if we didn't lock it. IMO for certain discussions it stops being owned by the owner when it's posted but whatever. We'll make a new one.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2016-11-18 03:41:43

Re: abortion

#27 2016-11-18 03:46:47

Re: abortion

#28 2016-11-18 03:59:31

Re: abortion

#29 2016-11-18 09:23:35

Re: abortion

#30 2016-11-18 09:50:39, last edited by Kaleb (2016-11-18 09:51:08)

Re: abortion

#31 2016-11-18 10:45:07

Re: abortion

#32 2016-11-18 10:50:17

Re: abortion

#33 2016-11-18 11:39:02

Re: abortion

#34 2016-11-18 19:02:52

Re: abortion

#35 2016-11-19 03:25:36

Re: abortion

#36 2016-11-19 07:14:16, last edited by Abelysk (2016-11-19 07:17:09)

Re: abortion

#37 2016-11-19 19:26:40, last edited by Swarth100 (2016-11-19 19:28:23)

Re: abortion

#38 2016-11-24 11:50:40, last edited by Doodle (2016-11-24 12:06:02)

Re: abortion

#39 2016-11-24 13:22:43

Re: abortion

#40 2016-11-24 15:38:28, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-24 15:39:35)

Re: abortion

#41 2016-11-25 00:40:23

Re: abortion

#42 2016-11-25 03:23:44, last edited by Ratburntro44 (2016-11-25 03:24:02)

Re: abortion

#43 2016-11-25 04:05:18

Re: abortion

#44 2016-11-25 04:17:54

Re: abortion

#45 2016-11-26 02:45:26

Re: abortion

#46 2016-11-26 16:45:45

Re: abortion

#47 2016-11-26 18:10:54

Re: abortion

#48 2016-11-26 22:17:00

Re: abortion

#49 2016-11-27 04:44:31

Re: abortion

#50 2016-11-27 04:51:38

Re: abortion

Board footer