Eh well I was just pointing out that out of all means of abortions you decide to show the most "shocking" and illegal one in hope to scare someone. I also want to point out that any surgical procedure is not something you would like to see. Because strictly speaking, if you're not a doctor, they're all gross. It's blood, and guts and sewered parts everywhere.
Women can also feel pain. So you're right, pain justifies nothing. Only that you should be careful and do it as quickly as possible which will save you the troubles, not on fifth or third mont so you won't have to have that kind of abortion. It wouldn't hurt to create some sort of anesthesia for fetus (or something like that) too, but nothing more than that.
Okay that doesn't justify it, 8 weeks or more old fetuses actually feel pain.
I stood at a doctor's side as he performed the partial-b… moreirth abortion procedure, and what I saw is branded forever on my mind. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating…. Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head… [view original content]
Yes. In majority of countries it's legal only for 12 weeks. Later - only if your life is in danger (or the fetus has died for some reason which also in majority of cases will lead to death), or in the cases like rape - then that period increases it up to 22 weeks (5 months). In some cases it's legal in 22 weeks if you've lost your husband or you're in jail, or the mother is under a certain age (18, 16, 14 and so on) and things like that. I'm mostly speaking about the Europe and neighbour countries. Of all countrie I've heard of, only in Cananda you can do it whenever.
I'm really starting to question how much you know about this topic at all.
No it's not. Abortion on late stages (5 monts and older) of pregnancy can be dangerous, but almost no one will do it to you on those stages. And if your country provides you such option, that mean that healthcare there are on a very high level (example - Canada).
So because I don't know the law in places I don't live, you conclude that I don't know about the topic? Nice reasoning. I'm not an expert, I don't know if you're an expert, but I know enough about fetal development and what defines a human being in order to understand what's human and what isn't.
Yes. In majority of countries it's legal only for 12 weeks. Later - only if your life is in danger (or the fetus has died for some reason wh… moreich also in majority of cases will lead to death), or in the cases like rape - then that period increases it up to 22 weeks (5 months). In some cases it's legal in 22 weeks if you've lost your husband or you're in jail, or the mother is under a certain age (18, 16, 14 and so on) and things like that. I'm mostly speaking about the Europe and neighbour countries. Of all countrie I've heard of, only in Cananda you can do it whenever.
I'm really starting to question how much you know about this topic at all.
What defines a separate being isn't its' ability to live outside of the mother. Theoretically, it certainly can live outside of her, you can cut a part of the mother and still call it a "living being", because it's organism but why does it matter if it is dependent on her or not? Whether the baby needs the mother or not, it is alive, it is not just part of the mother. The human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, I'll quote Carlson M. on this:
"Through the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."
When I said "who said that..." I meant that I never said a woman shouldn't be allowed to abort the baby if the risk of maternal death is high, because I value the mother's life just as much as the baby's life, and to die for her baby or not die for her baby is her choice.
She's the only one it can depend on because it can't live outside of her.
If it was a separate being, it could live outside the mother's … morebody.
Who said? People of Ireland, for example, where it's banned and illegal - which is what every pro-choice here aim for. That country is known for it's stupid laws in that matter, many goddamn awful things happen there because of it, including a 10-years old girl (I think she was 10) who was raped by her father or stepfather and was denied the right to end this bs even though her parents wanted it. They were also denied the right to take her away from Ireland and do abortion in other country. Why? Because f*ck this little 10 years old girl, that's why. It might be hard for her, but fetus is more important.
And yet you had no idea that to have an abortion you'll have to go through a lot in many first and second world countries where abortion is allowed (because in majority of the third world countries it's not even legal no matter what, or legal only "if"), they can deny you that and though that everyone can have it whenever they please for any reason. It doesn't really take much to know it's human and how it develops. It's basic school/college knowledge.
If you're against something and think it should be banned you'd better check your facts first before voting for it or getting into an argument. If you're discussing such a complex issue here, on the multicultural forum saying things like "how should I know that if I was talking about my county only (but never even said that)" is not an argument.
So because I don't know the law in places I don't live, you conclude that I don't know about the topic? Nice reasoning. I'm not an expert, I… more don't know if you're an expert, but I know enough about fetal development and what defines a human being in order to understand what's human and what isn't.
because it's organism but why does it matter if it is dependent on her or not?
Because it's your damn health and your body. You're the only one who can and the only one who should decide what you want and don't want to happen with your body. If you don't want it in your body, you should have a way out of this situation.
What defines a separate being isn't its' ability to live outside of the mother. Theoretically, it certainly can live outside of her, you can… more cut a part of the mother and still call it a "living being", because it's organism but why does it matter if it is dependent on her or not? Whether the baby needs the mother or not, it is alive, it is not just part of the mother. The human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, I'll quote Carlson M. on this:
"Through the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."
When I said "who said that..." I meant that I never said a woman shouldn't be allowed to abort the baby if the risk of maternal death is high, because I value the mother's life just as much as the baby's life, and to die for her baby or not die for her baby is her choice.
But they can't choose the life they live, very few opportunities are available to people in poor living conditions which is why there are still allot of people living in those conditions. The mother has the right to choose whether they want to give birth, just like a parent has the right to give their child for adoption, neither one shows to be morally good and both are abandoning the child's future, however, they still have the right to do so because it's their child - there's no right in killing a child once it's been given birth to but this is beforehand. But how can we tell if an undeveloped human being wants to truly live? How does it know it wants to live? What about those sperm cells, they all want to develop into a full human, and yet millions of them die during sexual activities, it's practically a massacre just to attain pleasure or try for a baby.
It's not the same as a leech, but it can cause the death of it's mother, it could live a harsh life, it could grow up to be a pain and nuisance, become aggressive or violent even to the very mother that raised it. These are just possible factors, there's no way of telling what will happen to each individual human being. Although the care for the child outside of the womb can become the responsibility of someone else, the mother is still the one carrying the baby, the sperm cell uses her body in order to grow into an independent human being, but what you class as human entirely depends on how you think.
I'm not the kind of person who likes to speak without experience, if I don't know the process very well or at all, what gives me the right to truly comment on it? I personally think killing is unjustifiable if it is intentional to a developed living organism. In the end, it's still the mother's child, the mother's womb the child grows within, it's the mother who provides the child of food and liquid sources to keep it alive, it's the mother who has to work hard to take care of their child for months and it may have been forced upon them, I think they have the right to choose whether they want a baby or not. If they get an abortion that's their choice, if you dislike abortions then don't get one, abortion is something the parents of the child have to think about, it's a decision they have to make, I don't see how anyone else has any call on what they have to do with their lives. If they choose to get an abortion, it's their choice, you may disagree but that you can't force them to agree with you and they may have their own reasons for getting an abortion - the world is overpopulating, many kids are still in orphanages without actual parents, their own moral or religious reasons etc.
Do they both have to suffer an unfair life? No, but it's not our choice whether to let a person live or not. If they grow up to be miserable… more, they can take their own lives, but we cannot just assume that a baby shouldn't live because they would grow in poor conditions, we have no right to do that. The person ou are killing might actually want to live, and you are taking that from them by killing them.
It's not the same as a leech, because they are growing to be a independent human being that deserves to live. They need the care for the time that they are growing, and could give back by the time that they are old. Luckily, we don't live in his hypothetical scenario, and a child can be given to another person's care or to adoption, a foster home etc.
The approach that just because you're not a female means that you will never have the right judgment to a a process that only females undertake is untrue, because you don't have to feel what … [view original content]
My god, the majority of these reasons are just so self-centered that it's sickening, especially the "school or career concern", it's not the first time people sacrifice babies for prosperity.
My logic is cold. There's no offense taken. I feel that those with down syndrome should have been aborted. I feel all animal life is importa… morent (they all contribute to the ecosystem and their extinction would screw something up permanently in their ecosystem) but some animals are more valuable on account of their sentience (i.e apes, elephants, etc.) Sperm is also bound to be sentient, but male masturbation isn't considered genocide.
I don't think that's a legitimate argument. If we shouldn't abort fetuses because they will at some point become sentient, then how is not getting pregnant any different? You get the same result.
I think you're missing the point. Your argument (and correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be "Abortion prevents sentient life." How is that different from not getting pregnant? You said, "Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is bound to be one in the future." Okay, true, but you could also say that a sentient life form is bound to be created from a woman getting pregnant. So you're getting the same result either way.
Having an empty plant pot, it's different than having a plant pot with a seed.
just because something isn't significant or relevant enough at the time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I'll put it simple. Abortion: everything about it is messed up. Planned Parenthood: Good luck to that couple and have a happy family.
Now, I'm just going to leave some things to be thought about since I'm not exactly in the mood for debates (plus I know loops will/have been made involving the subject of abortion), so I'll just leave my thoughts here and try to move on from this thread.
I know for a fact that abortion is an act of killing another human being. For reasons mentioned earlier plus I some of my own I'll share. People can deny it as much as they want but if something is alive it is killing. A fetus is not like a rock. Humans are similar to plants in a way. In order to begin life, you need to have something alive and in this case, humans. We all start off as sperm (no shit) and use an egg along with to combine the human genetic material we are given.Human genetic material. If something has the same genetic make-up as another of the human catagory, then that'll also be a human being. Human evolution goes like this: sperm (one of the first things to developing one) > fetus (the developing stage, first stages as a human being) > baby (often fully developed in the first process stage of a human being, unless they're stillborn) and so on. We're human from the get go. We don't need to speak, walk, etc. to be human, the ONLY thing that matters to define us is DNA. We start off dormant, then we awaken (in most cases), sorta like a cancer cell does. Should mention that everything inside of us is technically alive or dormant.
And now let's look at a realistic scenario: A woman is pregnant with a baby who's at the fetus stage. She wants to have the child. However, something happens and she is no longer pregnant. Miscarriage. And the woman grieves over it. Do you know what that means? Simply put, her child died.
I'll leave you all to your thoughts and discussion. I've said what I wanted to say.
My opinion thoughts on Abortion is that in the end it is the woman's choice. I really have nothing to do with this, as a male. I don't feel like its my place to tell someone else what they can do with their body, that sounds ridiculous. What if someone told me i couldn't eat a Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich today, because they thought i was too fat. I would tell them off, I don't feel that the fetus tissue is a baby, even if it is the cold hard truth of the matter we have a overpopulation problem as it is.
Most responsible people would never be in a situation to ever need one, except for extreme circumstances, because they take steps to avoid pregnancy. Why not stop it at the source and Ban all Birth Control. I'm sure that would be a great idea. People need to stop trying to tell people what to do, and live their own lives, the judgmentalness in this society is staggering.
"Abortion prevents sentient life." How is that different from not getting pregnant? You said, "Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is bound to be one in the future."
I don't think that was the answer to the question. my answer was: Having an empty plant pot, it's different than having a plant pot with a seed.
just because something isn't significant or relevant enough at the time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think you could put my argument this way: "Abortion prevents life to exist, just because it's not sentient enough."
..then, you see the problem? this doesn't necessarily concerns the fact that it is or isn't sentient. It regards to the fact that it is: LIFE. and more important. a human life! you can not escape that fact.
The big question on abortion is that some people think you just "becomes" a human being at the time your little baby head is pulled by the doctor and your cry is heard for the first time. I think this makes no sense..
A seed doesn't "becomes" a plant. It IS the plant.
I think you're missing the point. Your argument (and correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be "Abortion prevents sentient life." How is that dif… moreferent from not getting pregnant? You said, "Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is bound to be one in the future." Okay, true, but you could also say that a sentient life form is bound to be created from a woman getting pregnant. So you're getting the same result either way.
you had no idea that to have an abortion you'll have to go through a lot in many first and second world countries where abortion is allowed
Define "a lot", it's a costly procedure, and it's not an easy one, emotionally and physically. I know that. I know that abortion is illegal in many 3rd world countries.
I am against it, and I do not think it should be allowed as long as the mother is not at risk. I don't see why you're asking me to check my facts straight, because we're discussing the essence of the issue (i.e. moral or immoral), and trying to conclude whether it's morally justified or unjustified. There's a reason it's just a forum and not a live political debate. People say their opinions here, make arguments, we're not always right, so what? What did I say that was actually wrong? Tell me, prove it to me, and I'll take it back.
I never said I was talking about my country only, I don't know what you're trying to say by claiming that I did. My arguments still apply, abortions before the 12th week are still wrong in my opinion. The fact that we are here discussing whether abortions should be legal or illegal by itself already implies that it's not completely illegal, and as a person who believes that to be wrong, I say my piece.
And yet you had no idea that to have an abortion you'll have to go through a lot in many first and second world countries where abortion is … moreallowed (because in majority of the third world countries it's not even legal no matter what, or legal only "if"), they can deny you that and though that everyone can have it whenever they please for any reason. It doesn't really take much to know it's human and how it develops. It's basic school/college knowledge.
If you're against something and think it should be banned you'd better check your facts first before voting for it or getting into an argument. If you're discussing such a complex issue here, on the multicultural forum saying things like "how should I know that if I was talking about my county only (but never even said that)" is not an argument.
Once, a colleague of my work told me something very interesting regarding to have children. he told me: "- I think is absurd that people are completely free to have a child. for example, if you want to drive a vehicle a driver's license is required! you need to prove you are up to the task, for obvious reasons. and if you are caught driving without a license, you may receive a fine and they will seize your vehicle."
A child is something MUCH more serious than driving a car. and yet, the state doesn't care if you're going to have them or not. or how many you will have. and they even allows you to kill them if you, for some selfish motive. do not want them...
My god, the majority of these reasons are just so self-centered that it's sickening, especially the "school or career concern", it's not the first time people sacrifice babies for prosperity.
The mother has the right to choose whether they want to give birth, just like a parent has the right to give their child for adoption, neither one shows to be morally good and both are abandoning the child's future, however, they still have the right to do so because it's their child - there's no right in killing a child once it's been given birth to but this is beforehand.
But... how is that comparable? A parent can give their child to adoption only after the parents that take the kid are found to be economically and emotionally fit to be parents, and they raise the baby as their own. On the contrary, when a parent chooses to not give birth, they kill the kid.
The earlier isn't abandoning the child, some give their child to adoption because they don't want to have an abortion, or they just know that the kid would have a better chance at life with better parents. Sometimes (but rarely), they even get in touch and develop a good relationship with the child they gave away. When you abort the baby, you literally throw it out, but when you give the child for adoption there's still someone, most of the time it's even someone better, to take care of the baby.
This dichotomy of "It's my child - I get to decide everything about their future" is a recipe for abuse, abandonment, and in cases like this; murder. Once the child is a living human, there's no reason not to treat it just the same as you would treat any other baby.
But how can we tell if an undeveloped human being wants to truly live? How does it know it wants to live?
They won't know that unless you give them the chance to live. By killing them you decide for them.
What about those sperm cells, they all want to develop into a full human, and yet millions of them die during sexual activities, it's practically a massacre just to attain pleasure or try for a baby.
There is a radical difference between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings. Only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would just... disintegrate.
Again I come back to the question: What's the difference between a kid before he comes out of the woman to after he comes out of the woman? In a certain stage the baby is already capable of staying alive outside of the womb without too many problems, it's alive by all means, it just isn't outside of the womb.
It's not the same as a leech, but it can cause the death of it's mother, it could live a harsh life, it could grow up to be a pain and nuisance, become aggressive or violent even to the very mother that raised it.
It could, and when it threatens the mother's life (i.e. 18 per 100k), there shouldn't be a problem in killing the fetus because it's threatening her life. If something is a nuisance, you don't kill it. It might as well be a sad person, but it could all the same be a happy person who actually wants to live. There are some people who survived abortions and were very upset over the fact that their mother tried to abort them. Exactly because we don't know what will happen to each of these human beings is why we're not allowed to interfere with their lives.
I disagree that what classifies a human is your opinion of it, because that would make biology inconsistent and blur the line between what's really a living human organism.
if I don't know the process very well or at all, what gives me the right to truly comment on it?
If you read about it, and make it doubtless that what you read is the truth, you know what you need to know about the procedure. As long as you know the facts, you don't need to go through the procedure to form a valid opinion on it.
By this logic, a mother has custody of every fiber of her child's being, to the point where his life is in her hands, because it is dependent on her care, on her food, on her money. If she doesn't want anything to do with him, she can give him away, he would probably do better without her if she doesn't want him.
What you're saying is that I'm taking away their right to take someone else's rights away, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Most people counter that by saying that the fetus has no rights. Biology-wise, that's wrong, opinion-wise, it differs. I can respect opinions, I can't respect actions that act against others' rights.
But they can't choose the life they live, very few opportunities are available to people in poor living conditions which is why there are st… moreill allot of people living in those conditions. The mother has the right to choose whether they want to give birth, just like a parent has the right to give their child for adoption, neither one shows to be morally good and both are abandoning the child's future, however, they still have the right to do so because it's their child - there's no right in killing a child once it's been given birth to but this is beforehand. But how can we tell if an undeveloped human being wants to truly live? How does it know it wants to live? What about those sperm cells, they all want to develop into a full human, and yet millions of them die during sexual activities, it's practically a massacre just to attain pleasure or try for a baby.
It's not the same as a leech, but it can cause the death of it's mother, it could … [view original content]
No it's not. Abortion on late stages (5 monts and older) of pregnancy can be dangerous, but almost no one will do it to you on those stages.… more And if your country provides you such option, that mean that healthcare there are on a very high level (example - Canada).
I couldn't agree with you more. as I said in a previous comment: "A seed doesn't "becomes" a plant. It IS the plant."
In rough comparison. killing a fetus is like killing a 3 year-old child because he/she hasn't yet reached the final stage of ripening (adult state) and/or is not fully aware..
I'll put it simple. Abortion: everything about it is messed up. Planned Parenthood: Good luck to that couple and have a happy family.
Now… more, I'm just going to leave some things to be thought about since I'm not exactly in the mood for debates (plus I know loops will/have been made involving the subject of abortion), so I'll just leave my thoughts here and try to move on from this thread.
I know for a fact that abortion is an act of killing another human being. For reasons mentioned earlier plus I some of my own I'll share. People can deny it as much as they want but if something is alive it is killing. A fetus is not like a rock. Humans are similar to plants in a way. In order to begin life, you need to have something alive and in this case, humans. We all start off as sperm (no shit) and use an egg along with to combine the human genetic material we are given.Human genetic material. If something has the same genetic make-up as another o… [view original content]
No. Non-sentient is non-sentient. The fact that it may become sentient is irrelevant no matter how important you (falsely) think it is. It isn't human life. It is not a person. That is literally all that matters.
"Non-sentient" is "non-sentient" that is literally all that matters.
No, that is not all that matters. There is no actual basis for … moreyour thinking here, you're just saying whatever without even trying to add rationale to your viewpoint. You're continuing to ignore the fact that we're looking at a developing human life, not just some random bodily cell that will never be anything more than what it already is. Of course a fetus isn't sentient, but that doesn't justify doing whatever you want to it. This is because it is going to develop sentience. This is a really obvious and important difference that makes it vastly different from random bodily cells. Sentient or not, the fetus is a developing human life. That can't be argued against. If you stop that human development, you obviously take away a human life. There is no comparison to killing body cells and putting a stop to someone's life before they can even be born.
Going by your… [view original content]
I could seriously just re-post my last response to you, because it still applies. Again, you're not even presenting a basis for your thinking. Something isn't so just because you say it is. The fact that the fetus will become sentient is absolutely relevant, as that shows us that in killing the fetus, you are intervening with nature and disallowing it the chance to be born and reach sentience. That is the entire point. A human life cannot be compared to random body cells that will never be anything more than what they already are. Obviously when you kill body cells you aren't destroying a developing human being. When you kill a fetus, you're removing someone's chance to live. You're removing a life from the world that would have otherwise been a part of it. Ignoring these things makes no sense.
To put things in perspective, I'm a triplet, and when I was in the womb, a doctor recommended to my mother that she abort one of the three children. Had my mother listened to that advice, there's a chance that I would not be here typing this message. Regardless of you wanting to downplay my existence in the womb, my chance to live would have been totally washed away had I been aborted. Something would have been taken from me, regardless of me being able to value it at the time. Comparing my pre-birth existence to random body cells is absolutely absurd when you consider the actual consequences of abortion.
No. Non-sentient is non-sentient. The fact that it may become sentient is irrelevant no matter how important you (falsely) think it is. It isn't human life. It is not a person. That is literally all that matters.
It's not really as if the guy was ignorant of any meaningful, critical information here in terms of viewing the procedure itself as "right" or "wrong". You can help inform someone of details without trying to discredit their entire stance on the topic. It just isn't really necessary in this case at all.
And yet you had no idea that to have an abortion you'll have to go through a lot in many first and second world countries where abortion is … moreallowed (because in majority of the third world countries it's not even legal no matter what, or legal only "if"), they can deny you that and though that everyone can have it whenever they please for any reason. It doesn't really take much to know it's human and how it develops. It's basic school/college knowledge.
If you're against something and think it should be banned you'd better check your facts first before voting for it or getting into an argument. If you're discussing such a complex issue here, on the multicultural forum saying things like "how should I know that if I was talking about my county only (but never even said that)" is not an argument.
You say that as a male you really have nothing to do with it.
What if it was yours?
Your own flesh and blood, and say she wanted to have an abortion, simply because she just didn't want to be bothered with being a mother?
What would you say then?
My opinion thoughts on Abortion is that in the end it is the woman's choice. I really have nothing to do with this, as a male. I don't feel… more like its my place to tell someone else what they can do with their body, that sounds ridiculous. What if someone told me i couldn't eat a Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich today, because they thought i was too fat. I would tell them off, I don't feel that the fetus tissue is a baby, even if it is the cold hard truth of the matter we have a overpopulation problem as it is.
Most responsible people would never be in a situation to ever need one, except for extreme circumstances, because they take steps to avoid pregnancy. Why not stop it at the source and Ban all Birth Control. I'm sure that would be a great idea. People need to stop trying to tell people what to do, and live their own lives, the judgmentalness in this society is staggering.
You say that as a male you really have nothing to do with it.
What if it was yours?
Your own flesh and blood, and say she wanted to have an abortion, simply because she just didn't want to be bothered with being a mother?
What would you say then?
See, now that opens up a debate about what can be classified as life. One could argue that a tree or plant is life, but we destroy those all the time. My point is, what living things should actually be saved? Your argument was that abortion prevents life to exist, but how is not getting pregnant any different from that? It's preventing life either way.
"Abortion prevents sentient life." How is that different from not getting pregnant? You said, "Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is … morebound to be one in the future."
I don't think that was the answer to the question. my answer was: Having an empty plant pot, it's different than having a plant pot with a seed.
just because something isn't significant or relevant enough at the time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think you could put my argument this way: "Abortion prevents life to exist, just because it's not sentient enough."
..then, you see the problem? this doesn't necessarily concerns the fact that it is or isn't sentient. It regards to the fact that it is: LIFE. and more important. a human life! you can not escape that fact.
The big question on abortion is that some people think you just "becomes" a human being at the time your little baby head is pulled by the doctor and your cry is heard for the first time. I think this makes no sense..
A seed doesn't "becomes" a plant. It IS the plant.
I know it's a grey area to talk about. The few times I can accept abortion is if for health reasons or if the woman has been raped and can't go through with the pregnancy, with there being risk to her mental well being or risk of suicide if she did. She should have the right to terminate that being the case, especially in cases where the victim is a child that ends up getting pregnant, and sadly, that stuff does happen. You couldn't expect a 9-year-old girl to go through all that, little less somebody twice her age if they mentally can't cope.
In other circumstances where people abort just because it's inconvenient or 'they wanted a girl instead' I get annoyed by that a bit. People should have more consideration about that stuff and really think it through, instead of treating it like they're throwing out a shirt. I know it's not always simple, some people might not be able to afford to raise a child or feel parenthood isn't for them. There's all different situations and different types of people involved and there's not always an easy answer to give.
How not to get pregnant and abortion can be considered the same thing? stoping a natural process is different than having none. i mean, you can not kill what never existed. but you can kill a life that is under development. you get it now? the empty plant pot, and the other with a seed.
The debate about what can be classified as life is another matter that much interest me. someone could create a thread about it.
About plants. I watched a video some time ago where a group of scientists conducted an experiment. and it was shown that a plant can be considered a living being and even feel pain.
See, now that opens up a debate about what can be classified as life. One could argue that a tree or plant is life, but we destroy those all… more the time. My point is, what living things should actually be saved? Your argument was that abortion prevents life to exist, but how is not getting pregnant any different from that? It's preventing life either way.
An education and a well-paying job means a better life for the child. If you're unemployed and near eviction, the chances of the baby having anywhere near the resources it needs for a fulfilling life are little to none. It is not selfish to want to prepare yourself and ensure you meet the necessary requirements for your child to live happily.
Defunding Planned Parenthood is actually one of the most closed minded ridiculous things ive seen in awhile.
Planned Parenthood does more then just abortions it does many important things like STI screenings that can be hard and expensive without it. Since I believe only 3% of Planned Parenthoods money goes to abortions (if im incorrect tell me) you're seriously going to try to something because you disagree with what 3% of its money goes too? Thats very ridiculous and makes about zero sense.
And as for making abortion illegal (which is basically then end goal for the peolpe trying to shut down planned parenthood) You arent actually Pro Life if you want abortion to be illegal and and I have a feeling you fucking know it, as hard as it is to come to terms with it the real pro life peolpe are ones who want abortions to be legal. I did a study on this and if someone wants links i can provide them but for now i wont. In Poland (A very religious country with a majority of the country being pro life) there are 375,000 births in 2014 and an estimated 150,000 abortions (illegally in the country, and in surrounding countries) did i mention abortion is illegal in Poland? . and to those who use the contraceptives excuse 75% of women in Poland have access to modern day contraceptives. In Switzerland where abortions are legal on demand and they have a widespread amount of modern day contraceptives available there are 80,000 births and 11,000 abortions. Abortions being legal also prevents unsafe abortions which are very common in countries where they are illegalenter link description here
Anyway, back on topic. Your argument was that abortion is stopping a natural process, and I compared it to not getting pregnant because both result in no child being born. Now for the record, I am very skeptical of the idea that the minute sperm meets an egg = living thing that can feel pain and emotion. Maybe I'm wrong (not that I'm too fussed about it, I've got other reasons for being pro-choice) but I'm just very doubtful.
How not to get pregnant and abortion can be considered the same thing? stoping a natural process is different than having none. i mean, you … morecan not kill what never existed. but you can kill a life that is under development. you get it now? the empty plant pot, and the other with a seed.
The debate about what can be classified as life is another matter that much interest me. someone could create a thread about it.
About plants. I watched a video some time ago where a group of scientists conducted an experiment. and it was shown that a plant can be considered a living being and even feel pain.
This one:
youtube
So..vegans. where is your God now. :P
Not very surprising considering I generally lean so far left that there aren't any politicians that match my political inclinations but I do… moren't mind abortion.
I grew up on a 3rd world country and still live there, I've seen bad shit happen and I know how bad things can get, people say it's just so simple, just leave the baby up for adoption and that's it but that is not it, let's say the person in the scenario does not care at all, what if they do hard drugs and liquor while pregnant and the baby is born with some awful disease because of it? What if the person is pressured by family members or whoever to keep the baby and it grows up in an awful environment where nobody cares about it? What if the people taking care of the baby don't care about it and don't mind exploiting it for their own gain? Several awful things could be done including selling the kid, what if it's prostitution?
I don't know, it's not like I claim it's better to be… [view original content]
honestly don't really care its your choice an your life. ya wanna have an abortion every 3mnths go right ahead. Would i do it hell no ONLY if i was raped or incested upon then yes in a heartbeat (gross)
[Awesomeo] Define when true life starts for us please. No one said kill the baby that is murder, but so destroying a fetus that is'nt developed yet should not be considered murder until it's truly now a BABY an no longer a fetus in momma's tummy.
It's not the baby's fault that it was conceived in rape. Once the baby is conceived and human, it deserves to live. If the mother is a teena… moreger, it's tragic, but it doesn't mean she can kill the baby. How is killing the baby a better option than letting it live, if killing the baby does more harm than delivering it? If you keep it, the mother will have to give birth, if you kill it, the baby dies and will never get to live.
Think for yourself what's better. In my judgment, letting the baby live for the cost of the teenager giving birth to it does more good than harm.
But how can a better life for the child be ensured if you kill it prematurely? You could ensure a better life for a future, fictional child, but the living child right now is being killed.
An education and a well-paying job means a better life for the child. If you're unemployed and near eviction, the chances of the baby having… more anywhere near the resources it needs for a fulfilling life are little to none. It is not selfish to want to prepare yourself and ensure you meet the necessary requirements for your child to live happily.
Comments
Eh well I was just pointing out that out of all means of abortions you decide to show the most "shocking" and illegal one in hope to scare someone. I also want to point out that any surgical procedure is not something you would like to see. Because strictly speaking, if you're not a doctor, they're all gross. It's blood, and guts and sewered parts everywhere.
Women can also feel pain. So you're right, pain justifies nothing. Only that you should be careful and do it as quickly as possible which will save you the troubles, not on fifth or third mont so you won't have to have that kind of abortion. It wouldn't hurt to create some sort of anesthesia for fetus (or something like that) too, but nothing more than that.
Yes. In majority of countries it's legal only for 12 weeks. Later - only if your life is in danger (or the fetus has died for some reason which also in majority of cases will lead to death), or in the cases like rape - then that period increases it up to 22 weeks (5 months). In some cases it's legal in 22 weeks if you've lost your husband or you're in jail, or the mother is under a certain age (18, 16, 14 and so on) and things like that. I'm mostly speaking about the Europe and neighbour countries. Of all countrie I've heard of, only in Cananda you can do it whenever.
I'm really starting to question how much you know about this topic at all.
No it's not. Abortion on late stages (5 monts and older) of pregnancy can be dangerous, but almost no one will do it to you on those stages. And if your country provides you such option, that mean that healthcare there are on a very high level (example - Canada).
So because I don't know the law in places I don't live, you conclude that I don't know about the topic? Nice reasoning. I'm not an expert, I don't know if you're an expert, but I know enough about fetal development and what defines a human being in order to understand what's human and what isn't.
What defines a separate being isn't its' ability to live outside of the mother. Theoretically, it certainly can live outside of her, you can cut a part of the mother and still call it a "living being", because it's organism but why does it matter if it is dependent on her or not? Whether the baby needs the mother or not, it is alive, it is not just part of the mother. The human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, I'll quote Carlson M. on this:
"Through the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."
When I said "who said that..." I meant that I never said a woman shouldn't be allowed to abort the baby if the risk of maternal death is high, because I value the mother's life just as much as the baby's life, and to die for her baby or not die for her baby is her choice.
And yet you had no idea that to have an abortion you'll have to go through a lot in many first and second world countries where abortion is allowed (because in majority of the third world countries it's not even legal no matter what, or legal only "if"), they can deny you that and though that everyone can have it whenever they please for any reason. It doesn't really take much to know it's human and how it develops. It's basic school/college knowledge.
If you're against something and think it should be banned you'd better check your facts first before voting for it or getting into an argument. If you're discussing such a complex issue here, on the multicultural forum saying things like "how should I know that if I was talking about my county only (but never even said that)" is not an argument.
Because it's your damn health and your body. You're the only one who can and the only one who should decide what you want and don't want to happen with your body. If you don't want it in your body, you should have a way out of this situation.
But they can't choose the life they live, very few opportunities are available to people in poor living conditions which is why there are still allot of people living in those conditions. The mother has the right to choose whether they want to give birth, just like a parent has the right to give their child for adoption, neither one shows to be morally good and both are abandoning the child's future, however, they still have the right to do so because it's their child - there's no right in killing a child once it's been given birth to but this is beforehand. But how can we tell if an undeveloped human being wants to truly live? How does it know it wants to live? What about those sperm cells, they all want to develop into a full human, and yet millions of them die during sexual activities, it's practically a massacre just to attain pleasure or try for a baby.
It's not the same as a leech, but it can cause the death of it's mother, it could live a harsh life, it could grow up to be a pain and nuisance, become aggressive or violent even to the very mother that raised it. These are just possible factors, there's no way of telling what will happen to each individual human being. Although the care for the child outside of the womb can become the responsibility of someone else, the mother is still the one carrying the baby, the sperm cell uses her body in order to grow into an independent human being, but what you class as human entirely depends on how you think.
I'm not the kind of person who likes to speak without experience, if I don't know the process very well or at all, what gives me the right to truly comment on it? I personally think killing is unjustifiable if it is intentional to a developed living organism. In the end, it's still the mother's child, the mother's womb the child grows within, it's the mother who provides the child of food and liquid sources to keep it alive, it's the mother who has to work hard to take care of their child for months and it may have been forced upon them, I think they have the right to choose whether they want a baby or not. If they get an abortion that's their choice, if you dislike abortions then don't get one, abortion is something the parents of the child have to think about, it's a decision they have to make, I don't see how anyone else has any call on what they have to do with their lives. If they choose to get an abortion, it's their choice, you may disagree but that you can't force them to agree with you and they may have their own reasons for getting an abortion - the world is overpopulating, many kids are still in orphanages without actual parents, their own moral or religious reasons etc.
Right, who needs a good education/decent salary in 21th century anyway.
that's a different situation. sperm alone isn't intended to be anything. and therefore could never be considered genocide.
Having an empty plant pot, it's different than having a plant pot with a seed.
just because something isn't significant or relevant enough at the time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think you're missing the point. Your argument (and correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be "Abortion prevents sentient life." How is that different from not getting pregnant? You said, "Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is bound to be one in the future." Okay, true, but you could also say that a sentient life form is bound to be created from a woman getting pregnant. So you're getting the same result either way.
I'll put it simple. Abortion: everything about it is messed up. Planned Parenthood: Good luck to that couple and have a happy family.
Now, I'm just going to leave some things to be thought about since I'm not exactly in the mood for debates (plus I know loops will/have been made involving the subject of abortion), so I'll just leave my thoughts here and try to move on from this thread.
I know for a fact that abortion is an act of killing another human being. For reasons mentioned earlier plus I some of my own I'll share. People can deny it as much as they want but if something is alive it is killing. A fetus is not like a rock. Humans are similar to plants in a way. In order to begin life, you need to have something alive and in this case, humans. We all start off as sperm (no shit) and use an egg along with to combine the human genetic material we are given.Human genetic material. If something has the same genetic make-up as another of the human catagory, then that'll also be a human being. Human evolution goes like this: sperm (one of the first things to developing one) > fetus (the developing stage, first stages as a human being) > baby (often fully developed in the first process stage of a human being, unless they're stillborn) and so on. We're human from the get go. We don't need to speak, walk, etc. to be human, the ONLY thing that matters to define us is DNA. We start off dormant, then we awaken (in most cases), sorta like a cancer cell does. Should mention that everything inside of us is technically alive or dormant.
And now let's look at a realistic scenario: A woman is pregnant with a baby who's at the fetus stage. She wants to have the child. However, something happens and she is no longer pregnant. Miscarriage. And the woman grieves over it. Do you know what that means? Simply put, her child died.
I'll leave you all to your thoughts and discussion. I've said what I wanted to say.
My opinion thoughts on Abortion is that in the end it is the woman's choice. I really have nothing to do with this, as a male. I don't feel like its my place to tell someone else what they can do with their body, that sounds ridiculous. What if someone told me i couldn't eat a Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich today, because they thought i was too fat. I would tell them off, I don't feel that the fetus tissue is a baby, even if it is the cold hard truth of the matter we have a overpopulation problem as it is.
Most responsible people would never be in a situation to ever need one, except for extreme circumstances, because they take steps to avoid pregnancy. Why not stop it at the source and Ban all Birth Control. I'm sure that would be a great idea. People need to stop trying to tell people what to do, and live their own lives, the judgmentalness in this society is staggering.
I don't think that was the answer to the question. my answer was: Having an empty plant pot, it's different than having a plant pot with a seed.
just because something isn't significant or relevant enough at the time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think you could put my argument this way: "Abortion prevents life to exist, just because it's not sentient enough."
..then, you see the problem? this doesn't necessarily concerns the fact that it is or isn't sentient. It regards to the fact that it is: LIFE. and more important. a human life! you can not escape that fact.
The big question on abortion is that some people think you just "becomes" a human being at the time your little baby head is pulled by the doctor and your cry is heard for the first time. I think this makes no sense..
A seed doesn't "becomes" a plant. It IS the plant.
Define "a lot", it's a costly procedure, and it's not an easy one, emotionally and physically. I know that. I know that abortion is illegal in many 3rd world countries.
I am against it, and I do not think it should be allowed as long as the mother is not at risk. I don't see why you're asking me to check my facts straight, because we're discussing the essence of the issue (i.e. moral or immoral), and trying to conclude whether it's morally justified or unjustified. There's a reason it's just a forum and not a live political debate. People say their opinions here, make arguments, we're not always right, so what? What did I say that was actually wrong? Tell me, prove it to me, and I'll take it back.
I never said I was talking about my country only, I don't know what you're trying to say by claiming that I did. My arguments still apply, abortions before the 12th week are still wrong in my opinion. The fact that we are here discussing whether abortions should be legal or illegal by itself already implies that it's not completely illegal, and as a person who believes that to be wrong, I say my piece.
So:
getting a good job/education > taking a life
It all comes down to that.
Once, a colleague of my work told me something very interesting regarding to have children. he told me: "- I think is absurd that people are completely free to have a child. for example, if you want to drive a vehicle a driver's license is required! you need to prove you are up to the task, for obvious reasons. and if you are caught driving without a license, you may receive a fine and they will seize your vehicle."
A child is something MUCH more serious than driving a car. and yet, the state doesn't care if you're going to have them or not. or how many you will have. and they even allows you to kill them if you, for some selfish motive. do not want them...
But... how is that comparable? A parent can give their child to adoption only after the parents that take the kid are found to be economically and emotionally fit to be parents, and they raise the baby as their own. On the contrary, when a parent chooses to not give birth, they kill the kid.
The earlier isn't abandoning the child, some give their child to adoption because they don't want to have an abortion, or they just know that the kid would have a better chance at life with better parents. Sometimes (but rarely), they even get in touch and develop a good relationship with the child they gave away. When you abort the baby, you literally throw it out, but when you give the child for adoption there's still someone, most of the time it's even someone better, to take care of the baby.
This dichotomy of "It's my child - I get to decide everything about their future" is a recipe for abuse, abandonment, and in cases like this; murder. Once the child is a living human, there's no reason not to treat it just the same as you would treat any other baby.
They won't know that unless you give them the chance to live. By killing them you decide for them.
There is a radical difference between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings. Only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would just... disintegrate.
Again I come back to the question: What's the difference between a kid before he comes out of the woman to after he comes out of the woman? In a certain stage the baby is already capable of staying alive outside of the womb without too many problems, it's alive by all means, it just isn't outside of the womb.
It could, and when it threatens the mother's life (i.e. 18 per 100k), there shouldn't be a problem in killing the fetus because it's threatening her life. If something is a nuisance, you don't kill it. It might as well be a sad person, but it could all the same be a happy person who actually wants to live. There are some people who survived abortions and were very upset over the fact that their mother tried to abort them. Exactly because we don't know what will happen to each of these human beings is why we're not allowed to interfere with their lives.
I disagree that what classifies a human is your opinion of it, because that would make biology inconsistent and blur the line between what's really a living human organism.
If you read about it, and make it doubtless that what you read is the truth, you know what you need to know about the procedure. As long as you know the facts, you don't need to go through the procedure to form a valid opinion on it.
By this logic, a mother has custody of every fiber of her child's being, to the point where his life is in her hands, because it is dependent on her care, on her food, on her money. If she doesn't want anything to do with him, she can give him away, he would probably do better without her if she doesn't want him.
What you're saying is that I'm taking away their right to take someone else's rights away, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Most people counter that by saying that the fetus has no rights. Biology-wise, that's wrong, opinion-wise, it differs. I can respect opinions, I can't respect actions that act against others' rights.
oh really?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/11
I couldn't agree with you more. as I said in a previous comment: "A seed doesn't "becomes" a plant. It IS the plant."
In rough comparison. killing a fetus is like killing a 3 year-old child because he/she hasn't yet reached the final stage of ripening (adult state) and/or is not fully aware..
No. Non-sentient is non-sentient. The fact that it may become sentient is irrelevant no matter how important you (falsely) think it is. It isn't human life. It is not a person. That is literally all that matters.
I could seriously just re-post my last response to you, because it still applies. Again, you're not even presenting a basis for your thinking. Something isn't so just because you say it is. The fact that the fetus will become sentient is absolutely relevant, as that shows us that in killing the fetus, you are intervening with nature and disallowing it the chance to be born and reach sentience. That is the entire point. A human life cannot be compared to random body cells that will never be anything more than what they already are. Obviously when you kill body cells you aren't destroying a developing human being. When you kill a fetus, you're removing someone's chance to live. You're removing a life from the world that would have otherwise been a part of it. Ignoring these things makes no sense.
To put things in perspective, I'm a triplet, and when I was in the womb, a doctor recommended to my mother that she abort one of the three children. Had my mother listened to that advice, there's a chance that I would not be here typing this message. Regardless of you wanting to downplay my existence in the womb, my chance to live would have been totally washed away had I been aborted. Something would have been taken from me, regardless of me being able to value it at the time. Comparing my pre-birth existence to random body cells is absolutely absurd when you consider the actual consequences of abortion.
It's not really as if the guy was ignorant of any meaningful, critical information here in terms of viewing the procedure itself as "right" or "wrong". You can help inform someone of details without trying to discredit their entire stance on the topic. It just isn't really necessary in this case at all.
You say that as a male you really have nothing to do with it.
What if it was yours?
Your own flesh and blood, and say she wanted to have an abortion, simply because she just didn't want to be bothered with being a mother?
What would you say then?
Yay no child support!!
See, now that opens up a debate about what can be classified as life. One could argue that a tree or plant is life, but we destroy those all the time. My point is, what living things should actually be saved? Your argument was that abortion prevents life to exist, but how is not getting pregnant any different from that? It's preventing life either way.
I know it's a grey area to talk about. The few times I can accept abortion is if for health reasons or if the woman has been raped and can't go through with the pregnancy, with there being risk to her mental well being or risk of suicide if she did. She should have the right to terminate that being the case, especially in cases where the victim is a child that ends up getting pregnant, and sadly, that stuff does happen. You couldn't expect a 9-year-old girl to go through all that, little less somebody twice her age if they mentally can't cope.
In other circumstances where people abort just because it's inconvenient or 'they wanted a girl instead' I get annoyed by that a bit. People should have more consideration about that stuff and really think it through, instead of treating it like they're throwing out a shirt. I know it's not always simple, some people might not be able to afford to raise a child or feel parenthood isn't for them. There's all different situations and different types of people involved and there's not always an easy answer to give.
How not to get pregnant and abortion can be considered the same thing? stoping a natural process is different than having none. i mean, you can not kill what never existed. but you can kill a life that is under development. you get it now? the empty plant pot, and the other with a seed.
The debate about what can be classified as life is another matter that much interest me. someone could create a thread about it.
About plants. I watched a video some time ago where a group of scientists conducted an experiment. and it was shown that a plant can be considered a living being and even feel pain.
This one:
youtube
So..vegans. where is your God now. :P
An education and a well-paying job means a better life for the child. If you're unemployed and near eviction, the chances of the baby having anywhere near the resources it needs for a fulfilling life are little to none. It is not selfish to want to prepare yourself and ensure you meet the necessary requirements for your child to live happily.
I don't think that's funny.
Well good thing I did. 50 percent is better than zero! But I'll try again... what about:
At least I don't need to worry about surprise incest!
Defunding Planned Parenthood is actually one of the most closed minded ridiculous things ive seen in awhile.
Planned Parenthood does more then just abortions it does many important things like STI screenings that can be hard and expensive without it. Since I believe only 3% of Planned Parenthoods money goes to abortions (if im incorrect tell me) you're seriously going to try to something because you disagree with what 3% of its money goes too? Thats very ridiculous and makes about zero sense.
And as for making abortion illegal (which is basically then end goal for the peolpe trying to shut down planned parenthood) You arent actually Pro Life if you want abortion to be illegal and and I have a feeling you fucking know it, as hard as it is to come to terms with it the real pro life peolpe are ones who want abortions to be legal. I did a study on this and if someone wants links i can provide them but for now i wont. In Poland (A very religious country with a majority of the country being pro life) there are 375,000 births in 2014 and an estimated 150,000 abortions (illegally in the country, and in surrounding countries) did i mention abortion is illegal in Poland?
. and to those who use the contraceptives excuse 75% of women in Poland have access to modern day contraceptives. In Switzerland where abortions are legal on demand and they have a widespread amount of modern day contraceptives available there are 80,000 births and 11,000 abortions. Abortions being legal also prevents unsafe abortions which are very common in countries where they are illegalenter link description here
You make good points, and I actually mostly agree with all you're saying, the moral part of me agrees to everything you said
Well we gotta eat somehow...
Anyway, back on topic. Your argument was that abortion is stopping a natural process, and I compared it to not getting pregnant because both result in no child being born. Now for the record, I am very skeptical of the idea that the minute sperm meets an egg = living thing that can feel pain and emotion. Maybe I'm wrong (not that I'm too fussed about it, I've got other reasons for being pro-choice) but I'm just very doubtful.
You have a very good point. Life isn't always the greatest thing ever, and sometimes it is better to be dead, at least in my eyes.
Well it's not like society rewards being an angel.
honestly don't really care its your choice an your life. ya wanna have an abortion every 3mnths go right ahead. Would i do it hell no ONLY if i was raped or incested upon then yes in a heartbeat (gross)
[Awesomeo] Define when true life starts for us please. No one said kill the baby that is murder, but so destroying a fetus that is'nt developed yet should not be considered murder until it's truly now a BABY an no longer a fetus in momma's tummy.
But how can a better life for the child be ensured if you kill it prematurely? You could ensure a better life for a future, fictional child, but the living child right now is being killed.