Pro choice. If a women gets raped is she forced to ether have the baby or give it away? Why not get rid of it and help donate stem cells for science research. It is her choice.
Discussion: Abortion and the Reproductive Rights of Women
- Thread starter Berb
- Start date
Rape and incest I agree should be allowed to abort due to intense mental issues and physical issues, respectively.
A baby can sustain itself at, don't quote me on this, this is just my memory, around 24 weeks I believe is the average accepted term. What about in the future with technological advances that allow for viability to be earlier, even at conception. It certainly is possible. Then by your definition that would then be murder because that clump of cells could sustain itself with that technology. What about the rights of the fathers. They have no say whatsoever in the pregnancy, either way, but are required to have some sort of role later on in life if the woman so chooses. It is not that woman are incompetent, it is that these children, or possible children if you will, are not given the chance to live.
I assume that you agree that abortion is killing. It is pretty obvious. It is the termination of a living organism. So what is the difference between killing and murder? The organism that ceases to live. Is that fetus (lets just use that term) a human being or not? Let us define what is a human being first. Would you say that a human being is one that is capable of rational thought? Or using the philosphical defintion, rational animal. If you agree, then because a human being ceases to exhibit signs that it is a rational animal, reason, free will, etc, that it ceases to be a human being? During sleep we cease to exhibit said signs. What about babies? Just because you cannot see or hear reason, does not mean that it is not there.
If one cannot afford to support a child, then one should not engage in acts which could result in a child. It is just the responsible thing to do.
Adoption is always an option.
A baby can sustain itself at, don't quote me on this, this is just my memory, around 24 weeks I believe is the average accepted term. What about in the future with technological advances that allow for viability to be earlier, even at conception. It certainly is possible. Then by your definition that would then be murder because that clump of cells could sustain itself with that technology. What about the rights of the fathers. They have no say whatsoever in the pregnancy, either way, but are required to have some sort of role later on in life if the woman so chooses. It is not that woman are incompetent, it is that these children, or possible children if you will, are not given the chance to live.
I assume that you agree that abortion is killing. It is pretty obvious. It is the termination of a living organism. So what is the difference between killing and murder? The organism that ceases to live. Is that fetus (lets just use that term) a human being or not? Let us define what is a human being first. Would you say that a human being is one that is capable of rational thought? Or using the philosphical defintion, rational animal. If you agree, then because a human being ceases to exhibit signs that it is a rational animal, reason, free will, etc, that it ceases to be a human being? During sleep we cease to exhibit said signs. What about babies? Just because you cannot see or hear reason, does not mean that it is not there.
If one cannot afford to support a child, then one should not engage in acts which could result in a child. It is just the responsible thing to do.
Adoption is always an option.
I do not believe abortion is murdering if the mother aproves. It is killing but murder and killing is a different thing. You kill a parasite, not murder it. Not to say I am comparing an unborn baby to a parasite. I do not think it is a person until birth. Also did you just compare a sleeping individual who holds knowledge and memories to an unborn creature?
But how can one know that? He cannot express that. What about a baby, why is a baby a human being, it holds no knowledge or memories, at least none that we can understand or know of, similarly to a fetus.
Because it is developed enough to become its own individual. It no longer need to be inside another human being! It is a human being because that is its species and it has grown enough to be exist without another human organicly attached to it! I am sorry to sound insulting but this argument is getting just plain silly!
By the way, I personally don't care either way, I just like debating. These are all arguments from my Bioethics class.
I'll respond to this and the gun control one tomorrow, I'm too tired.
By why should she kill a could be child that could grow up to be successful or even impact the world why take that life away if you dont want to see that child because it reminds a raped mom of that man committing the rape then im sure she can find a family who would instead of killing a child who wants to live.
So what your telling me is that the baby is nothing but a family destroyer? Your telling me that just because radical religious groups hark on women that it makes them look like the devil. It seems like you look in the broad aspect too much. I think of the women who is going through it as a strong women who can make her own choice however if I was there I would remind here of the greatness of life and a beautiful child that she could have and what a long successful life it could live. Society needs to stop looking at the baby as a destructive act and nothing but an annoyance.
Look at all those bolded parts. Not only are they all hypothetical, but the simply aren't true. I know Bristol Palin birthed her teen pregnancy, but most abortions don't come from upper-middle class families that can support a child. Most unwanted pregnancies are because the parents physically can't take on the responsibility, the family could not financially support a child, or because of a rape. I think it's cruel to force a single mother to birth the baby of her rapist, not only because of the terrible rape, but because the woman has to pay for the birth and go through excruciating pain doing so. The chances of that baby growing up in a stable household, above the poverty line, receiving the care it deserves is incredibly slim.
And for adoption, this is an issue becoming very prevalent in America. Less and less children are being adopted, because the number of willing foster parents is decreasing year by year. But adoption would suit your argument as a scapegoat wouldn't it? And about this part:
So you stand by the women having abortion as an option, but you'd prefer to scare her into a rash decision? I see, that's pretty clever! If life was so great, how come you focus more on the potential for life in a zygotic mass rather than poor homeless children living on your city's streets?
Also, the follow pic takes an interesting perspective on the matter:
When it's born.
Because that's what birth is.
Nobody calls conception a miracle. Noooooooo, that's just too "uncouth" for the world. The miracle is when that creature bursts forth from thy woman's flesh, screaming in a pool of blood as a man in white lacerates its lifeline and swiftly takes the child away, away from the adoring mother and father - the only ones to see the truest beauty in their recent 'miracle's birth.
What were we talking about?
Was it not clear enough when I said adoption was a great option the child can find a family with money who cant have the greatness of having their own child a family with money. This picture by the way is again making life and a child sound like its a "mess" and a problem when in reality it shouldn't be. But if the women finds her baby to be such a pain in the ass or annoyance then find she can have it aborted. Im not harking on her or anything im just reminding her that there are other options. Options that allow her baby to live and not die.Look at all those bolded parts. Not only are they all hypothetical, but the simply aren't true. I know Bristol Palin birthed her teen pregnancy, but most abortions don't come from upper-middle class families that can support a child. Most unwanted pregnancies are because the parents physically can't take on the responsibility, the family could not financially support a child, or because of a rape. I think it's cruel to force a single mother to birth the baby of her rapist, not only because of the terrible rape, but because the woman has to pay for the birth and go through excruciating pain doing so. The chances of that baby growing up in a stable household, above the poverty line, receiving the care it deserves is incredibly slim.
And for adoption, this is an issue becoming very prevalent in America. Less and less children are being adopted, because the number of willing foster parents is decreasing year by year. But adoption would suit your argument as a scapegoat wouldn't it? And about this part:
So you stand by the women having abortion as an option, but you'd prefer to scare her into a rash decision? I see, that's pretty clever! If life was so great, how come you focus more on the potential for life in a zygotic mass rather than poor homeless children living on your city's streets?
Also, the follow pic takes an interesting perspective on the matter:
You don't realize do you that abortion is the last resort to turn to? It's the option when all others fail. Telling them to reconsider is forcing them to choose something both parents have equally decided is unfit for the child and family. Why does what you represent want to intrude on their privacy in their darkest hour and force them to do something rash?
There it is again "darkest hour"???? Having a baby or no having a baby is their darkest hour and once again im not forcing anything there is a difference between talking and arguing. Im giving the child a chance not just telling the mother and I never said Adoption is the first choice having the baby and loving it adoption should be the second choice. Killing a soon too be human being is the last choice. There is no impeding on privacy. Key thing Im not trying to legalize it I am trying to have women lean against it.
As the clip from Freakonomics states, its not advocacy, just interesting outside-of-the-box shit to consider.
Yes, I would classify possibly watching your entire future, your dreams and ambitions, collapse into pieces in front of you as your darkest hour. Would you not? Would you cherish the burden? Would you cope easily with living every moment in regret of a past mistake, desperately trying to support a family you never wanted to have to.
Unfortunately, this causes more grief than good. Isn't it better for everyone if instead of bringing up a child in a bad, impoverished environment where he/she has little opportunity to live a reasonable life, we just not have the child? There is less suffering for all parties. But you don't care about that, do you?
Do you know how abortion works? Abortion doesn't occur on the last possible second, in fact if it was I'd be against it! Abortions happen in the early stages of development, where the fetus is still an incoherent lump of mass. At this stage, the chance of a successful pregnancy is still fairly low, the potential for life as you would, is lower. It's not a soon-to be human being, it's a parasitic lump that could or could not become something. I also enjoy that "pro-life" argument, "I'm not trying to delegalize it, I'm just trying to scare all the women and possibly lie if need be to make sure their reproductive life agrees with my conservative ideas." That sure is a great one. Need I not mention the abortion clinic bombings, myths output from pharmaceutical companies funded by conservatives, and general shaming of every one wanting true progression and fairness when it comes to reproductive rights.
/tangent
Extremely interesting.
Well being the only one that seems to be against abortion let me say that the fact that we look as abortion as a way to escape unwanted children I will continue to say that abortion should not be the mothers only choice. And it seems that as a liberal your going to strike and and say that ALL abortion clinic bombings and courrupt funding for lies by ALL conservatives. Do not assume that I am like that. My argument is that all could be children have the right to live no matter what the circumstances. Is it not fair for that child to have a shot in life rather then to assume he or her is going to live a terrible life. I guess you cant call me a pro-life because yea lets face it It isn't going to become illegal because of the growing un-care for life. Let me tell you something My mother is a drug adict. She had a boyfriend my father. For awhile before she was on drugs she got pregnant with me. She thought about aborting me but made the right decsion. She wasn't in the best of life conditions hell she couldnt support me after my father ran off. But she had me anyway. After that she went on drugs and I was put in the care of her mother and father and her sister. Looks like i turned out fine and successful in a low middle class family struggling. But the again I guess cause I was born I screwed up my mother's life and MADE her do drugs right??? I guess its always the babies fault in today society.
Because a fetus in the womb is such a destroyer of lives. People in countries like Mexico have little to no money and still have babies and love them dearly. They dont blame their economic hardships on their kids because they LOVE them and would do anything to have them in their arms.
Nobody says it should be the only choice. There is a reason "pro-choice" is called "pro-choice". Nobody actively promotes abortion over anything, it's just some believe that option should be removed. I am not for abortion, I'm for the ability of women to choose what happens to their own bodies. Standing as a "pro-life" advocate, you stand against that choice.
Of course not all conservative people think that way, but that small minority holds much influence. It's an interesting viewpoint where people who claim to be the most "moral" and "cherish life" are the first ones to act immorally.
Zygotes shouldn't have rights. That zygote is the responsibility of it's mother before it is born, and she is supposed to make decisions considering the welfare of it and also herself. It's right to life comes once it is birthed. Keep in mind that there is no assumption here on the welfare of an unwanted pregnancy, because the parents consider the welfare of both her and the child. I may add also that the welfare of the mother is more important than the welfare of a 16 week old zygote. The mother has a life, and has dreams. This is more important than the possibility of a life. Growing "un-care" for life? What the fuck are you talking about? The progression of modern medicine, universal healthcare systems, equal rights, and the elimination of capital punishment are all "anti-life, un-caring for life"? Do you think fair reproductive rights reverse all of those? Or could it be because you are incorrectly versed in what defines life?
Thanks for sharing, but your story doesn't change a thing. In what way did you expect that story to condemn abortion? You were raised by great grandparents. Do you think your mother would have been able to raise you by herself? You can't say simply because of your story that every young mother in the country should birth their pregnancy, no matter what, simply because you turned out okay. Not only does it differ from woman to woman, but many parents would disown their daughter for being a teen mother. Your story is cool and relevant, but doesn't aid your argument whatsoever. To counter the final sentence, none of it is the baby's fault, it is all the responsibility of the mother. That's why it's so important not to restrict her options.
Your argument is very strong. Some of your reasoning are very true. However I did not try to use my story as a condemning, rather than use it as an example of what could happen. Yes I realize that there are probably more ways that the baby won't be as lucky as me. However rather then preventing what could be, why not take a chance and have the baby be born and if you cant support it let a family who can take care of it. What I meant was when I said "a growing un-care for life", I meant living in the violent sociaty we love in today where the young are starting to think dying is not big deal. Where the media shows people dying from shootings almost everyday. Also the fact that we see abortion as a no big deal when it is the killing of a soon to be child. Yes I understand that it is just a zygote, however it is cells, or better known as life the birthplace of life. We are all made of cells, cells that were first made in our mother's womb. Killing the cells that will eventually become us is straight murder. When I said that Im not trying to make it illegal, it was because there are certain things that when 2 parties are arguing there is almost nothing I can do to change the other's opinion. I use this in the argument of religion vs atheists. If it were to become somehow illegal again, in a few years it would probably become legal again. And btw it is unfortunate that some people who share the same views are that immoral, but it comes with the growing heat included in politics today. So my closing statement is, there is nothing you can do to change my view and theres nothing i can do to change yours. Great argument, your probably the smartest person I have argued with in this topic, not using any idiotic statements. However I will continue to support my view on standing up for the soon-to-be-children of this generation.