NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just another forum on the morals of abortion, feel free to post your views.

NO GOD,BIBLICAL OR RELIGIOUS REFERENCES.

And no "Your ideas are stupid" posts without backing your statements up!

You are unlikely to get a good coherent non God reference

I know I lean pro life but my own hang-ups are the fact that I think that it might be life … I don’t see the point to draw a line at the first trimester or what not

I also think that the woman had the choice at conception (weather or not to have sex) but I am all for birth control including the morning after pill

I just think that it is one of the many consequences of life … we may not like it but it happens.

I guess it really matters where you consider “life” to start honestly and that is one thing that has to be nailed down before I go one way or the other.

There are all kind of arguments for one situation or another but for me as long as the woman is not in sure danger … there really isn’t a reason (the exception of rape for me personally … the choice was taken out of her hands)

But again that is my personal point of view … and along with that comes my belief of not imposing myself on others so


Anyways tried to give you the most coherent response I could :) (and I know there are all kinds of holes ... thats why its an opinion ... )

Abortion is wrong because it's murder. Plain and simple.

Just because they are dependant on another doesn't change the fact that fetuses are human beings.

Just because some irresponsible teenager wants to go have unprotected sex doesn't mean she can kill someone.

Here are a few of my suggestions for non-Biblical compromise solutions:

1. We should be promoting contraceptives instead of abortion. That way we can avoid the abortion issue while - in some cases - preventing sexually transmitted diseases. If you don't want an abortion but want to have sex, use a condom.

2. The practice could stay legal but not receive any government money. The government would only serve as a 'watchdog' to deter dangerous medical practices.

3. If the government stays involved, abortion could be taxed. The revenue could support contraceptive-use programs.

This is a MUCH larger issue than it should be. I personally do not consider "pro-life" or "pro-choice" as an important voting issue for me unless the candidate who espouses one of these ideologies takes an extremist, offensive stance.

I am also very surprised how this issue seems to define party lines. Democrats support abortion but oppose the death penalty; Republicans oppose abortion but support the death penalty. I know at least one person (a nun, actually) who believes that these two issues cancel each other out and thus votes based on the other issues.

Only the criminal is found by his peers to deserve to die.

The fetus is innocent.

The death of the criminal is justified; the death of the fetus is not.

Abortion is wrong, because abortion is murder. And dont say that it isnt because when a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is charged with a double murder.

And there is a fine line between the death penalty and abortion. The death penalty is given to someone who has killed before, and the death penalty isnt murder. But the baby has no reason to die, it is born in pure innocence. Nothing gets me angrier than someone that says that if you believe in the death penalty, then you are for abortion. They are two way different things.

Here are a few of my suggestions for non-Biblical compromise solutions:

1. We should be promoting contraceptives instead of abortion. That way we can avoid the abortion issue while - in some cases - preventing sexually transmitted diseases. If you don't want an abortion but want to have sex, use a condom.

2. The practice could stay legal but not receive any government money. The government would only serve as a 'watchdog' to deter dangerous medical practices.

3. If the government stays involved, abortion could be taxed. The revenue could support contraceptive-use programs.

This is a MUCH larger issue than it should be. I personally do not consider "pro-life" or "pro-choice" as an important voting issue for me unless the candidate who espouses one of these ideologies takes an extremist, offensive stance.

I am also very surprised how this issue seems to define party lines. Democrats support abortion but oppose the death penalty; Republicans oppose abortion but support the death penalty. I know at least one person (a nun, actually) who believes that these two issues cancel each other out and thus votes based on the other issues.


Agreed there should be an increased focus on prevention first and foremost … we avoid the whole issue there (though some have a problem with the contraceptive ...) also wanted to point out that the current post 60’s morning after pill does NOT interfere with implantation it works like normal BC and stops the egg from leaving the ovaries (so it is not an “abortion” pill)
Someone just made the mistake of calling it the same thing as the old pill so that people associate it with something that does effect implantation

Abortion is wrong because it's murder.

Not to be an ass... but...
Why is murder wrong? (Use no religion to respond to this, either.)

ok, no God related stuff.... How about this? It's an obvious hypocracy in the laws... Scott Peterson was convicted of killing 2 people, his wife, and their unborn. So, it would seem that killing an unborn child is murder. Using simple logic, we see this: Abortion = killing an unborn child. Killing an unborn child = murder (kill a pregnant woman, and if her fetus dies, it's a double homicide, meaning killing her unborn is a murder). So, by transitive property (if a=b and b=c, then a=c), abortion = murder... So, why is it legal one time and not another? (Not pro- or anti-abortion here, I'm just "pro-common sense" in our laws.

Not to be an ass... but...
Why is murder wrong? (Use no religion to respond to this, either.)
Very simple. The law makes it illegal. That, and most people don't wanna be killed. Even a lot of non-religous types are anti-murder. Don't believe me? Try to kill them, see what they do. J/K
LOL

Not to be an ass... but...
Why is murder wrong? (Use no religion to respond to this, either.)

Murder is wrong, because you are taking the life of another indivual. Remember the golden rule. If you kill someone that means that you want to be killed yourself.

Abortion is wrong, because abortion is murder. And dont say that it isnt because when a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is charged with a double murder.

And there is a fine line between the death penalty and abortion. The death penalty is given to someone who has killed before, and the death penalty isnt murder. But the baby has no reason to die, it is born in pure innocence. Nothing gets me angrier than someone that says that if you believe in the death penalty, then you are for abortion. They are two way different things.

Ok if you want to get technical the death penalty can be giving to people that haven’t killed (serious cases of rape are also included)

As for the double murder that is an interesting point … one of those ambiguities that have to be solved.

Murder is wrong, because you are taking the life of another indivual. Remember the golden rule. If you kill someone that means that you want to be killed yourself.


See there you applied it to killing … now apply that to the death penalty (I happen to be for it) but you said killing … and the death penalty is killing someone regardless of what they have done to deserve it

Murder is wrong because there is no reason for the victim to be killed. (Note: I am using my own definition of murder here, not the state's.)

It works against humanity. If the person will do more good than bad alive, then do not kill him.

Ok if you want to get technical the death penalty can be giving to people that haven’t killed (serious cases of rape are also included)


I was totally not aware of that... I really only thought that the death penalty was reserved for the worst of the worst murderers.. When can serious rape be a capital offence? I'm not saying you're wrong, because I really believe you. I'd just like to know.

Murder is wrong, because you are taking the life of another indivual. Remember the golden rule. If you kill someone that means that you want to be killed yourself.

That's fairly rational logic, but...
Does the executioner want to be killed? Does the soldier want to be killed?

It works against humanity. If the person will do more good than bad alive, then do not kill him.


What if the person's death would do more good than bad... Like if the person was a brutal dictator, or just a real pain in the ass? You know the types... The kind of people you just pray will win Darwin Awards.
LOL

Its wrong because you are scraping out little arms and legs.

Believe it or not, I'm pro-choice to a certain degree. I think if we improve sex education, and start supply teenagers with condoms on demand, we can start taking down the abortion level. Its just that the massive effect a pregnacy has on a woman its hard to tell her that she can't. Thats why I'm against partial birth abortions, by that point, most of the harm to the woman has been done, and she just doesn't want to go through the birth process. I'm sorry, you are to late. I don't think we can do it today, but we should be able to get it down the first trimester if we stop trying to push this abstinence program that will never work.

I left that out.

On a side note, I'm a firm proponent of vigilante justice.

Abortion is wrong because it's murder. Plain and simple.

Just because they are dependant on another doesn't change the fact that fetuses are human beings.

Just because some irresponsible teenager wants to go have unprotected sex doesn't mean she can kill someone.


2 quick points, like gay marriage why should you get to impose your values on other people. If you can't prove it is a livng being it ain't murder. and what about a rape baby? Should someone give up 9 or more months of their life cuase some scum wanted sex? no.

I was totally not aware of that... I really only thought that the death penalty was reserved for the worst of the worst murderers.. When can serious rape be a capital offence? I'm not saying you're wrong, because I really believe you. I'd just like to know.


Lol I know it is going to draw fire but I believe in texas :)

I will find the case law ... I know it has been overturned in many states ... including georga (for anything but 1st degree murder)

I believe texas still alows it though

I was totally not aware of that... I really only thought that the death penalty was reserved for the worst of the worst murderers.. When can serious rape be a capital offence? I'm not saying you're wrong, because I really believe you. I'd just like to know.

It's not reserved for the 'worst of the worst murderers'... usually only black murderers who kill white victims. Just look at the statistics. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5.

2 quick points, like gay marriage why should you get to impose your values on other people. If you can't prove it is a livng being it ain't murder. and what about a rape baby? Should someone give up 9 or more months of their life cuase some scum wanted sex? no.


The problem is they cant prove it ISENT either

If it is inconvenience seems like little compared to a life

And you are kind of calling anyone that wants to have sex scum lol … that would make almost everyone scum :)

Murder is wrong because there is no reason for the victim to be killed. (Note: I am using my own definition of murder here, not the state's.)

It works against humanity. If the person will do more good than bad alive, then do not kill him.

what if it was some murderer him/herself? isn't killing them more like a public service? Don't say it never happens, cause i am willing to bet there are more murderers and rapists then there are nobel winners and great leaders.

The problem is they cant prove it ISENT either

If it is inconvenience seems like little compared to a life

And you are kind of calling anyone that wants to have sex scum lol … that would make almost everyone scum :)

people seem like there are people waiting in huge lines to adopt some baby. there aren't ask anyone whos been adopted, almost no one gets snapped up immediately. They could wind up hungry and dead in a far less humane way.

no lol, sex where one of the partners is unwilling, u know what i meant.

what if it was some murderer him/herself? isn't killing them more like a public service? Don't say it never happens, cause i am willing to bet there are more murderers and rapists then there are nobel winners and great leaders.


Lol though you are saying to be good you have to be a leader or a noble winner (when it is unfair … the nobel contest has a limited amount of winners per year … no limit on rape)
How bout all those people that volunteer or help people … I would guess there is a fair amount of those

Lol though you are saying to be good you have to be a leader or a noble winner (when it is unfair … the nobel contest has a limited amount of winners per year … no limit on rape)
How bout all those people that volunteer or help people … I would guess there is a fair amount of those

example buddy. and no i aint.

2 quick points, like gay marriage why should you get to impose your values on other people. If you can't prove it is a livng being it ain't murder. and what about a rape baby? Should someone give up 9 or more months of their life cuase some scum wanted sex? no.

But it IS a living being. A fetus is composed of living cells, thus it is living. It is a being because it exists. I won't go any further because I'm not going to get into the meaning of the word "is".

Rape babies are a special case. I believe abortion is proper for rape babies, but only rape babies. I responded assuming the starter of the thread meant abortion after consensual sex.

Murder is wrong because the alternatives would either be brief but total chaos followed by murder being considered wrong again, or total chaos. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with murder, morally or legally, many people would probably use it to solve various problems. This is the total chaos part - people murdering over, say, cutting in line, or being slow to take their order. And, of course, people murdering over their friends and kin being murdered, leading to a vicious cycle. Now, either people recognize the chaos that this causes, and forbid murder once more - with some stiff penalty attached, of course - or they do not, and the chaos continues. Bad either way.

Now, as for abortion, the very crux of the issue is whether or not abortion is taking a human life. There is no question that it is taking a life - after all, unless the embryo or fetus will be stillborn, the cells within it live. However, it cannot be murder unless it is a human life. Now, the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia personally recognizes that life begins when fetal brainwaves first become present. After all, a person is considered to be medically dead when the brain is without function... therefore, it stands to reason that they are medically alive when the brain is with function. Aborting it before that point, therefore, is not wrong in the least. However, after that point, aborting it is equivelant to taking a life, and therefore would rightfully be illegal except in the case of self-defense (the mother will die in childbirth), or in other cases which are so unfeasable that they do not bear consideration.

Just as an aside, is the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia the only one who considers it at least a bit unusual that abortion is the only circumstance where one can go up to a doctor and demand that they remove a perfectly healthy piece of the body, and have them comply? The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia is certain that if he went to a hospital that did not recognize his royal authority, and asked the doctors to remove his arm for him, that they would tell him to go away.

The problem is they cant prove it ISENT either

If it is inconvenience seems like little compared to a life

And you are kind of calling anyone that wants to have sex scum lol … that would make almost everyone scum :)

also, umm if it is a teenager, it might screw her over permanently. (drop out of school etc.)

It's not reserved for the 'worst of the worst murderers'... usually only black murderers who kill white victims. Just look at the statistics. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5.

Just look at the facts:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/G-RaceDefendants.jpg

More whites are excuted than blacks. What do victims have to do with anything?

people seem like there are people waiting in huge lines to adopt some baby. there aren't ask anyone whos been adopted, almost no one gets snapped up immediately. They could wind up hungry and dead in a far less humane way.

no lol, sex where one of the partners is unwilling, u know what i meant.
I GUESSED what you meant but making me figure it out is a good way to be misinterpreted (and as for rape situations I happen to agree … the choice was taken away from them)


As for the adoption there defiantly should be some more money/time effort and thought put into that situation (along with birth control)

Now I am going to tac this on to see what other people think

Before abortions if they do take place do you think there should be more less or the same amount of counseling? I happen to think more … (defiantly not of the sort of “show them dead fetuses” sort ) but they have to be informed and have time to think what this means to them in a mental and physical way … and if they chose to do so counseling after the fact to help them cope.

But that’s my point of view

Murder is wrong because the alternatives would either be brief but total chaos followed by murder being considered wrong again, or total chaos. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with murder, morally or legally, many people would probably use it to solve various problems. This is the total chaos part - people murdering over, say, cutting in line, or being slow to take their order. And, of course, people murdering over their friends and kin being murdered, leading to a vicious cycle. Now, either people recognize the chaos that this causes, and forbid murder once more - with some stiff penalty attached, of course - or they do not, and the chaos continues. Bad either way.

Now, as for abortion, the very crux of the issue is whether or not abortion is taking a human life. There is no question that it is taking a life - after all, unless the embryo or fetus will be stillborn, the cells within it live. However, it cannot be murder unless it is a human life. Now, the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia personally recognizes that life begins when fetal brainwaves first become present. After all, a person is considered to be medically dead when the brain is without function... therefore, it stands to reason that they are medically alive when the brain is with function. Aborting it before that point, therefore, is not wrong in the least. However, after that point, aborting it is equivelant to taking a life, and therefore would rightfully be illegal except in the case of self-defense (the mother will die in childbirth), or in other cases which are so unfeasable that they do not bear consideration.

Just as an aside, is the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia the only one who considers it at least a bit unusual that abortion is the only circumstance where one can go up to a doctor and demand that they remove a perfectly healthy piece of the body, and have them comply? The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia is certain that if he went to a hospital that did not recognize his royal authority, and asked the doctors to remove his arm for him, that they would tell him to go away.

2 things, am i the only one who thinks it odd that his majesty speaks like he does? (1st person i think) also i believe, (ot sure tho) that you could legally remove your arm yourself. Also you probably could find some hospital to do it. (the law of money, everyone has a price)

also, umm if it is a teenager, it might screw her over permanently. (drop out of school etc.)

Then she loses for being stupid. Too bad for her.

Let's stay on the issues here: Abortion and the taking of human life.

Arguing about if a hospital will remove your arm or not is pointless.

Murder is wrong because the alternatives would either be brief but total chaos followed by murder being considered wrong again, or total chaos. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with murder, morally or legally, many people would probably use it to solve various problems. This is the total chaos part - people murdering over, say, cutting in line, or being slow to take their order. And, of course, people murdering over their friends and kin being murdered, leading to a vicious cycle. Now, either people recognize the chaos that this causes, and forbid murder once more - with some stiff penalty attached, of course - or they do not, and the chaos continues. Bad either way.

That is more of the kind of answer for which I was hoping. I really wanted to bring up a 'comic relief' point that although we should not have the government interfere with everything in our lives, it stands to reason that we must have some basic limits. Anarchy is not the answer.

Above everything else, a living organism needs life expectancy. In my humble opinion, the purpose of a government is to provide a relatively high life expectancy of its people without getting in the way of the people's own decisions (freedom).

Just look at the facts:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/G-RaceDefendants.jpg

More whites are excuted than blacks. What do victims have to do with anything?

You seem to be misinterpreting this. There are more white defendants only because they comprise the majority of the people and the majority of murderers. Maybe I should have referred you to this http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184, which shows that since 1976, only 12 whites have been executed for murdering blacks whereas 192 blacks have been executed for murdering whites.

The race of the victim, with due exception for hate crimes, doesn't matter, does it?

You seem to be misinterpreting this. There are more white defendants only because they comprise the majority of the people and the majority of murderers. Maybe I should have referred you to this http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184, which shows that since 1976, only 12 whites have been executed for murdering blacks whereas 192 blacks have been executed for murdering whites.


depending on how you take it with no supporting evidence it could just mean that blacks are more likly to kill whites :) (I know this may not be common knolege true but still ...)

The race of the victim, with due exception for hate crimes, doesn't matter, does it?

I think it does. The death penalty is clearly being exceuted (no pun intended) unequally. This is in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. If you MUST use the death penalty, at least use it fairly. The statistics are too compelling to be coincidence.

depending on how you take it with no supporting evidence it could just mean that blacks are more likly to kill whites :) (I know this may not be common knolege true but still ...)

YOU RACIST! :mad:

YOU RACIST! :mad:


Nice accusation … what race am I?

I just mean without actual crime committal rates it doesn’t have a frame of reference … maybe I should have referred to it in the abstract rather then the particular of the case

Sory for not making myself clear

Nice accusation … what race am I?

I just mean without actual crime committal rates it doesn’t have a frame of reference … maybe I should have referred to it in the abstract rather then the particular of the case

Sory for not making myself clear

That's better... http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
This trend follows the same trend as drug abuse and low income, which is why so many more blacks are involved in murders.

That's better... http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
This trend follows the same trend as drug abuse and low income, which is why so many more blacks are involved in murders.


There much more of the surrounding framework for understanding


Anyways we have kind of hijacked this topic … back onto abortion…

Anyways we have kind of hijacked this topic … back onto abortion…

Sorry about that...
I think I've discussed abortion enough with my first posts.

abortion is a terrible thing, because it is murder
the fetus is a human life, no matter how small or weak it may be
in the Laci Peterson trial, Scott Peterson was found guilty of 2 murders, which means the jurors believe that the fetus inside Laci Peterson was a human life, which was taken when Mr. Peterson killed his wife. Therefore, isnt the government condridicting themselves by saying abortion isnt murder? it is the taking of a human life, which by direct definition, is murder

The issue of course is not so much whether or not a fetus is 'alive', but rather whether or not it can be considered viable human life. A wart is 'alive' in the sense that it is comprised of living cells. However one does not label a wart as being 'human", because it does not possess the necessary attributes for the definition.

So, one must define human. For the sake of argument let’s only set down the most important requirement for now: "A functional capacity of self-aware thought and mete-reasoning of some sort". So, if something is not self-aware and contains no knowledge of its own existence and has not at some point in the past contained such knowledge *An individual within a coma who still possesses brain activity* then it simply cannot be considered human.

You can label a fetus all you want, but that is NOT going to somehow lend it attributes it does not possess. Certainly within the first several months the fetus lacks the brain development to possess any sort of rudimentary higher brain functions; anything that could provide a threshold for self-awareness or a concept of suffering and loss. Without these characteristics a fetus is nothing more than a lump of tissue, and let's be honest; a rather parasitic lump of tissue at that. If a woman wants to remove said parasite from her body then she is well within her rights, as long as there is not reason to believe the parasite possesses awareness on a human level. Thus, there is no 'why' for abortion being wrong; other than ignorance or superstition on the part of the individual complaining.

The issue of course is not so much whether or not a fetus is 'alive', but rather whether or not it can be considered viable human life. A wart is 'alive' in the sense that it is comprised of living cells. However one does not label a wart as being 'human", because it does not possess the necessary attributes for the definition.

So, one must define human. For the sake of argument let’s only set down the most important requirement for now: "A functional capacity of self-aware thought and mete-reasoning of some sort". So, if something is not self-aware and contains no knowledge of its own existence and has not at some point in the past contained such knowledge *An individual within a coma who still possesses brain activity* then it simply cannot be considered human.

You can label a fetus all you want, but that is NOT going to somehow lend it attributes it does not possess. Certainly within the first several months the fetus lacks the brain development to possess any sort of rudimentary higher brain functions; anything that could provide a threshold for self-awareness or a concept of suffering and loss. Without these characteristics a fetus is nothing more than a lump of tissue, and let's be honest; a rather parasitic lump of tissue at that. If a woman wants to remove said parasite from her body then she is well within her rights, as long as there is not reason to believe the parasite possesses awareness on a human level. Thus, there is no 'why' for abortion being wrong; other than ignorance or superstition on the part of the individual complaining.
Still seems like a ridiculous concept … of do it soon cause if you don’t decide in time it will be human then we cant kill it.

I mean I understand where you are coming from but still seems wrong somehow

Even as just a potential ….


I just think the decision point should be a little earlier then that

Potentiality is tempting because we see fetuses as mini-humans, however it is logically invalid. The concept is not applied to sperm, eggs, or zygotes (save the Catholic church the morning after pill is widely accepted). It is not an issue of "killing it before it is human", it is an issue of only giving organisms a definition equal to their attributes. Unless the concept of 'soul' is involved the organism cannot be said to suffer any recognizeble loss of human life. It is not aware of its own existence, cannot feel dread, and I would guess that at the earliest stages it doesn't even suffer to an extent greater than that of warts, tumors, and basic lifeforms.

Potentiality is tempting because we see fetuses as mini-humans, however it is logically invalid. The concept is not applied to sperm, eggs, or zygotes (save the Catholic church the morning after pill is widely accepted). It is not an issue of "killing it before it is human", it is an issue of only giving organisms a definition equal to their attributes. Unless the concept of 'soul' is involved the organism cannot be said to suffer any recognizeble loss of human life. It is not aware of its own existence, cannot feel dread, and I would guess that at the earliest stages it doesn't even suffer to an extent greater than that of warts, tumors, and basic lifeforms.

On some levels I agree but I still would find it hard to kill a kitten lol who also does not possess attributes of humanity.

But like I said they are personal opinions … sperm … egg as long as you keep them separate :-D

But again personal opinion

I support having the option of abortion. Why? Simple:

-The Earth has too many people on it already. We do NOT need more overpopulation problems. Sort out the current problems before adding more people.
-Adoption isn't the win-win solution some think it is. Unless it's a healthy newborn, most people don't want it. (ironically enough, some of the same people who adovcate using adoption instead of abortion want to stop gays from adopting children. Whaaa?)
-A fetus can't respond to stimuili(sp?) until sometime in the second trimester, IIRC. Sensing & responding to stimuili is one of the requirements for something to be an organism. That's why, even though your liver(or any other body part's) cells are "living", they're not an organism. If it can't sense that anything's happening to it, it's not really human. (Coma victims aside >_<)
-Abstinence doesn't work as well as some people think it does.
-It's not murder since it's not illegal. It's only murder if it's illegal(hence, shooting a bank teller is murder, but executing something for the death penalty is not(in some places)).

On a personal note I, like you, find the loss of potential life somewhat sad; however that is because of my own distance from individual instances of abortion, I would imagine it is quite often a choice made from disparaging situations where the quality of life for an infant and the mother could not be favorable gauged. As a result my sense of 'loss' is prejudiced by my own favorable personal experiences with infants.

More importantly, it is very very dangerous to permit any group of people to summarily deny biological fact in favor of personal sentiment, or even worse, religious whim. The idea of somehow dictating morality and scientific 'fact' from nothing more than personal, and frequently archaic, opinions keeps me up at night. Just think about the recent attempts to ban homosexual marriage; it's not on the same level as abortion, but it still amounts to one group trying to force their standards of morality onto another.

On a personal note I, like you, find the loss of potential life somewhat sad; however that is because of my own distance from individual instances of abortion, I would imagine it is quite often a choice made from disparaging situations where the quality of life for an infant and the mother could not be favorable gauged. As a result my sense of 'loss' is prejudiced by my own favorable personal experiences with infants.

More importantly, it is very very dangerous to permit any group of people to summarily deny biological fact in favor of personal sentiment, or even worse, religious whim. The idea of somehow dictating morality and scientific 'fact' from nothing more than personal, and frequently archaic, opinions keeps me up at night. Just think about the recent attempts to ban homosexual marriage; it's not on the same level as abortion, but it still amounts to one group trying to force their standards of morality onto another.

Your right it does … but it is also a moral point of view that the woman’s choice is important (or anyones)


It is all a matter of morals so therefore imposing a moral point of view

It is sad but true any blanket law or code is based off of ethics and therefore imposing on the other.

You seem to be misinterpreting this. There are more white defendants only because they comprise the majority of the people and the majority of murderers. Maybe I should have referred you to this http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184, which shows that since 1976, only 12 whites have been executed for murdering blacks whereas 192 blacks have been executed for murdering whites.

One last comment I must make on this matter:

From 1976 to 2002 -- 94% of black victims were killed by blacks

That leaves only 6% for all other races.

Murder is wrong because the alternatives would either be brief but total chaos followed by murder being considered wrong again, or total chaos. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with murder, morally or legally, many people would probably use it to solve various problems. This is the total chaos part - people murdering over, say, cutting in line, or being slow to take their order. And, of course, people murdering over their friends and kin being murdered, leading to a vicious cycle. Now, either people recognize the chaos that this causes, and forbid murder once more - with some stiff penalty attached, of course - or they do not, and the chaos continues. Bad either way.

Now, as for abortion, the very crux of the issue is whether or not abortion is taking a human life. There is no question that it is taking a life - after all, unless the embryo or fetus will be stillborn, the cells within it live. However, it cannot be murder unless it is a human life. Now, the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia personally recognizes that life begins when fetal brainwaves first become present. After all, a person is considered to be medically dead when the brain is without function... therefore, it stands to reason that they are medically alive when the brain is with function. Aborting it before that point, therefore, is not wrong in the least. However, after that point, aborting it is equivelant to taking a life, and therefore would rightfully be illegal except in the case of self-defense (the mother will die in childbirth), or in other cases which are so unfeasable that they do not bear consideration.

Just as an aside, is the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia the only one who considers it at least a bit unusual that abortion is the only circumstance where one can go up to a doctor and demand that they remove a perfectly healthy piece of the body, and have them comply? The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia is certain that if he went to a hospital that did not recognize his royal authority, and asked the doctors to remove his arm for him, that they would tell him to go away.
Did the emperor forget, Viruses (use your own cells and thus become human if cell dna is important), Cancer (cells that grow and divide too fast stay human), and more.

Hairs are human cells. We allow the shaving of them.

So its not that simple to say they are human can't kill.

We allow killing of human cells all the time.

How about this, all pro-life advocates have to register in a national data base and take in at least one child who was forced to be born to a couple who wanted an abortion.

Okay, I don't believe that abortion is wrong because I don't believe that a fetus is alive. A fetus is an undeveloped thing. It's technically considered an organ of the mother until it's expelled from the mother, where it wouldn't be a fetus anymore. It can't think for itself, it barely has a brain in the first trimester. It is PART of a human, but in my opinion, it isn't a complete human being until it's born. When it's born, it has life. If you consider a fetus to be a human life, then you'd have to consider an egg and a sperm to also be human lives, becuase they are also incomplete parts of humans. So if you consider abortion to be murder, you'd also have to consider menstruation to be murder, because a female destroys an egg in the process. Even if she didn't MEAN to destroy the egg, she could still be charged with manslaughter, because she destroyed a potential human life. And guys, don't think that you get a break from all of this. Every time you masturbate, you're killing hundreds of potential lives. Every time you have a wet dream, you're killing hundreds of potential babies. So the next time you go to masturbate, consider all of the unborn babies you're killing.

And if you're thinking that eggs and sperm don't count because they need to be put together and you need to DO something to make the baby, then you've never been a mother. Mothers need to eat more to supply nutrients to the baby so that it can develope properly. If a mother drinks while she's pregnant, the baby could develope FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome). It's not like a baby can simply GROW when you put an egg and sperm together. If the mother doesn't eat anything while she's pregnant, the baby will die. The baby continues to need things to develope until it's expelled from the uterus, and it's born.

But it IS a living being. A fetus is composed of living cells, thus it is living. It is a being because it exists. I won't go any further because I'm not going to get into the meaning of the word "is".

Rape babies are a special case. I believe abortion is proper for rape babies, but only rape babies. I responded assuming the starter of the thread meant abortion after consensual sex.

Why are the lives of, as you so eloquently put it, rape babies, less valuable than those of other babies?

I lean toward the pro life stance in situations where women have been either stupid enough to have unprotected sex or be so career orientated that a baby will upset their career paths.

Where a young lass has been daft (and show me a young lass who hasn't been daft at some point in their formative years) and experimented with their adolescent boyfriend then I believe they should be able to get an abortion without having a shit load of guilt piled on them in the process. Teenage mums don't normally make great mums, they can end up resenting their child because with motherhood comes a whole lot of adult responsability.
Let the teenager have an abortion and get on with her schooling.

In the case of a woman/girl becoming pregnant through rape then the only compassionate thing is to allow them the guilt free choice of abortion, sod the thought that 9 months inconvenience is a small price to pay for saving the life of a feotus, the feotus doesn't even know it exists until it's brain develops so it's hardly murder, but a woman knowing that a rapists baby is growing inside her is likely to be traumatised for life. Also, what do the adoptive parents tell a child when he/she asks about their real parents? I don't think I would have liked to find out I was the product of such a horrible crime, I would also think that the mother would live in fear of her child ever finding her when it grew up (assuming it was adopted and used the "right to know" laws in Britain) how would the mother feel if the child ever traced her?

Apart from those scenarios, and abortions for medical reasons (where giving birth could be life threatening to the mother) I don't think abortion should be as easy to get as it seems to be at the moment.

Okay, I don't believe that abortion is wrong because I don't believe that a fetus is alive. A fetus is an undeveloped thing. It's technically considered an organ of the mother until it's expelled from the mother, where it wouldn't be a fetus anymore. It can't think for itself, it barely has a brain in the first trimester. It is PART of a human, but in my opinion, it isn't a complete human being until it's born.

So when you were still a fetus, it would be OK to kill you? (Not sure if I worded that properly)

Personal responsibility, the killing of a human; those too religious for you? and before you call me a slack-jawed redneck bible thumper, let me make this clear: I'm against the death penalty as well. and because i'm against abortion doesn't mean i'm not pro-choice. it's better to have a clean abortion than one on the street, even if it's highly immoral..

So when you were still a fetus, it would be OK to kill you? (Not sure if I worded that properly)

Of course! It's not like fetuses are living organisms resembling human beings in anyway! :)

I believe abortion is morally wrong on the grounds that it destroys a potential human without first allowing that human to at least make an attempt at contributing to the species. Pro-lifers tend to bring up that Beethoven probably would have been aborted in modern society - and every time a pregnancy is terminated, that potential is extinguished with it.

I do not believe the government should outlaw abortion, mostly because it doesn't solve the problem, just makes life uncomfortable and creates new ones. Like New Genoa said, better to have a clean abortion than one on the street.

Just because some irresponsible teenager wants to go have unprotected sex doesn't mean she can kill someone.

Actually, at least in Australia the number of abortions sought by teens is declining, while the number sought by 30 and forty-somethings is increasing. And it's not all about unprotected sex either. Birth control can fail...

Okay, this might have been asked before, but I'm too lazy to look at every post.

What about RAPE?

It's been asked before. Please stop being lazy and forcing us to work to reply.

See there you applied it to killing … now apply that to the death penalty (I happen to be for it) but you said killing … and the death penalty is killing someone regardless of what they have done to deserve it

The death penalty is administered after due process according to the law.

Abortion may be unconstitutional if the law recognizes the fetus or unborn human being to be alive - although the constitution was designed to state what the government cannot do. It states that no one may be deprived of life or liberty without due process. If this is applied to the unborn minor, perhaps law should be rattified to protect our most vulnerable citizens.

Abortion is wrong, because abortion is murder. And dont say that it isnt because when a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is charged with a double murder.

Actually this is a recently passed FEDERAL law that changes next to nothing on the day to day functioning of society because most laws broken end up being state laws anyway. For murder to fall under federal jurisdiction would require very special circumstances. The most common of which would be kidnapping.

It's been asked before. Please stop being lazy and forcing us to work to reply.

And... you're not lazy?

Isnt that the way it works - the constitution is a broad definition of what the government cannot do to the people of the united states.

The laws we live by are a function of more local, state needs. And sometimes the federal government has to step in to make sure it all acts in the better interest of the entire citezenry of the nation.

al la bump.

The death penalty is administered after due process according to the law.

Abortion may be unconstitutional if the law recognizes the fetus or unborn human being to be alive - although the constitution was designed to state what the government cannot do. It states that no one may be deprived of life or liberty without due process. If this is applied to the unborn minor, perhaps law should be rattified to protect our most vulnerable citizens.

I mean I dont know shit about law - Im an undergraduate engineering student - but it makes sense to me.

uhmm - bump? come on you guys can type faster than that. :D

You are unlikely to get a good coherent non God reference

First, not true. I don't believe in god, but I'm completely against abortion (the only exception being the Morning After Pill).

I'll tell you why. In order to understand why I don't believe in abortion, you have to know when I think human life begins. In my opinion the human life begins when the heart starts beating and the brain starts giving off waves.

The human fetus' heart starts beating within the first three weeks (that's less than a month), and the brain begins giving off brainwaves at 42 DAYS (One and a half months)! The presence or absence of brainwaves is how you declare whether someone is legally alive or dead, in adults. People think that first trimester abortions are ok, but that is a one and a half month discrepancy between when the fetus is a Human LIFE and when it is socially acceptable to kill the baby. This means that someone having an abortion at two months is KILLING an innocent human being, which if the baby was born might get someone thrown in prison for life.

Three months is unacceptable. That is 84 days, twice as long as when life begins.

42 DAYS DAMN IT!!!!!!!!

P.S. - In case you want to see where I got my information you can take a look at this site (find out where you think life begins): http://members.tripod.com/~peacepigeon/fetal.html

It's not like fetuses are living organisms resembling human beings in anyway! :)

WTF?!!! Dude, are you insane! A fetus does not only resemble a human being, it damn well clones one. It seems you need to look at a few pictures of the development of the human fetus (here is a site you can do that with: http://www.peggerrity.com/work.asp# Click on the pictures to get illustrations for the entire development period). The baby starts looking like a human being at about 10 weeks.

P.S. - I hope you were kidding when you said that fetuses don't look like humans.

The human fetus' heart starts beating within the first three weeks (that's less than a month), and the brain begins giving off brainwaves at 42 DAYS (One and a half months)! The presence or absence of brainwaves is how you declare whether someone is legally alive or dead, in adults. People think that first trimester abortions are ok, but that is a one and a half month discrepancy between when the fetus is a Human LIFE and when it is socially acceptable to kill the baby. This means that someone having an abortion at two months is KILLING an innocent human being, which if the baby was born might get someone thrown in prison for life.


You realise, and this has been covered over and over again, that the cerebral cortex, which is necessary for consciousness, only develops around weeks 20-24. A foetus delivered prior to this time is not viable.

arguments like this are all about words and definition.

you need to define what makes something human before applying it to the situation... people say it's wrong to kill a human being... but what makes us human? you don't want to risk being speciesist...
also, i've read some 'potential-human' arguments.
a prince is a potential king. they don't have the same rights as a king, do they?

holy shit how bigot you are! Im italian but really a few people have those ideas about abortion!

If abortion is so wrong because it's the murder of a life, wouldn't contraception effectively be the same thing? Or are y'all going to draw the line at where you're snuffing out a life at 'the moment of conception'?

WTF?!!! Dude, are you insane! A fetus does not only resemble a human being, it damn well clones one. It seems you need to look at a few pictures of the development of the human fetus (here is a site you can do that with: http://www.peggerrity.com/work.asp# Click on the pictures to get illustrations for the entire development period). The baby starts looking like a human being at about 10 weeks.

P.S. - I hope you were kidding when you said that fetuses don't look like humans.

You need to take a sarcasm class.. :rolleyes:

If abortion is so wrong because it's the murder of a life, wouldn't contraception effectively be the same thing? Or are y'all going to draw the line at where you're snuffing out a life at 'the moment of conception'?


Because contraception stops the interaction of sperm and egg to start with ... they dont combine there is not even the potential of life

Actually this is a recently passed FEDERAL law that changes next to nothing on the day to day functioning of society because most laws broken end up being state laws anyway. For murder to fall under federal jurisdiction would require very special circumstances. The most common of which would be kidnapping.

Kidnapping laws I know a lot about.

If I'm not mistaken, even then it's not a neccessarly a federal case. It has to be across state lines...

holy shit how bigot you are! Im italian but really a few people have those ideas about abortion!


completely agree :/
Americans are really frightening on most of "moral" issues, a part of them (Bush voters mainly) just cannot put themselves in question, and are struck with debates of another time, such as evolution vs creation, or abortion.

completely agree :/
Americans are really frightening on most of "moral" issues, a part of them (Bush voters mainly) just cannot put themselves in question, and are struck with debates of another time, such as evolution vs creation, or abortion.
Way to stereotype :)

Its bush voters fault … always is lol
Wow boil it down to a political debate now lol

Way to stereotype :)

Its bush voters fault … always is lol
Wow boil it down to a political debate now lol


I've been in a site about us politics and it appears that all the "morally" conservative - the bigots - were also those who voted Bush, with 1 or 2 exceptions. This not a stereotype, this is what I observed.

a prince is a potential king. they don't have the same rights as a king, do they?

Reasoning by analogy is a logical fallacy. The relationship between fetus and fully-developed human is different from that between prince and king. When a prince dies, the kingdom morns because one of the heirs is lost. When a fetus dies, many people morn, many other people declare that the fetus was never really alive, then a few people get together and denounce the last group, then another group of people denounces the previous group as fundamentalist wackos, and finally fundamentalist wackos blow up an abortion clinic, restoring balance to the Universe.

Murder is wrong because there is no reason for the victim to be killed. (Note: I am using my own definition of murder here, not the state's.)

It works against humanity. If the person will do more good than bad alive, then do not kill him.


yea uh most of the time people get the death penalty it's because they would do more harm than good should they be given the chance to return to society. a lot of people here act like all the people on death row are really nice or something

Originally posted by Josenia: A fetus is composed of living cells, thus it is living.

A foetus is a lump of living cells, but so is a cancer! You would want to destroy a cancer if it was going to kill you, would'nt you.

Also, animals such as cattle and pigs are living, perhaps more agreably so than a foetus, but that doesn't stop people from legally cutting them up and putting them in supermarkets. I don't know how someone can be pro-life but not vegetarian, as animals are alive too!

I've been in a site about us politics and it appears that all the "morally" conservative - the bigots - were also those who voted Bush, with 1 or 2 exceptions. This not a stereotype, this is what I observed.


So from your vast experience with one site who’s creators are bush voters you apply that to all bush voters

Sure sounds like stereotyping to me

So from your vast experience with one site who’s creators are bush voters you apply that to all bush voters

Sure sounds like stereotyping to me

yah a lot of people stuck with bush because they thought kerry was spineless and he would ruin our economy. The dems look like wimps sometimes and if they wanna win they got to change that

If abortion is so wrong because it's the murder of a life, wouldn't contraception effectively be the same thing? Or are y'all going to draw the line at where you're snuffing out a life at 'the moment of conception'?
Heck, why don't we just make it illegal not to have sex? After all, abstinence is denying the potential for more life to come into this already overpopulated world.

A foetus is a lump of living cells, but so is a cancer! You would want to destroy a cancer if it was going to kill you, would'nt you.

Also, animals such as cattle and pigs are living, perhaps more agreably so than a foetus, but that doesn't stop people from legally cutting them up and putting them in supermarkets. I don't know how someone can be pro-life but not vegetarian, as animals are alive too!

1. What's a "foetus"?

2. "I don't know how someone can be pro-life but not vegetarian, as animals are alive too!" There's an easy answer. You make use of animals that you kill by eating them. It's wastefull to kill "foetuses" because people do not eat "foetus". (Unless you live in Africa! :))

1. What's a "foetus"?

an approved alternative spelling of "fetus."


2. "I don't know how someone can be pro-life but not vegetarian, as animals are alive too!" There's an easy answer. You make use of animals that you kill by eating them. It's wastefull to kill "foetuses" because people do not eat "foetus". (Unless you live in Africa! :))
so therefore abortion is perfectly moral, as long as the aborted tissue is used? no problem!!! there are TONS of potential uses for discarded fetal tissue, science has just be prohibited from employing any of them!

holy shit how bigot you are! Im italian but really a few people have those ideas about abortion!

lol, who are you calling a bigot? - you posted straight after me... so was it directed at me?

completely agree :/
Americans are really frightening on most of "moral" issues, a part of them (Bush voters mainly) just cannot put themselves in question, and are struck with debates of another time, such as evolution vs creation, or abortion.

er... I'm english mate...

oh yeah, and @Urukku

i'm not saying i believe any of those things, i was just trying to liven this conversation up... i was actually quoting my philosophy teacher.
*shrugs*
to be honest, modern society is completely hypocritical in the way it deals with matters anyway...
also, i don't think you can have a properly constructive abortion debate without bringing religion into it, as religion is the basis to many people's fundamental beliefs... it's what they turn to to justify their judgements.
i am not a religious man... but hey, if you want to keep religion out of this and keep this is as a boring, linear free-for-all, fine by me....

Originally Posted by The Great Sixth Reich
You make use of animals that you kill by eating them. It's wastefull to kill "foetuses" because people do not eat "foetus".

Embryos and foetuses (Oh all right, "fetuses") can be used in many ways:

Tissue grafts to people with nervous disorders, medical research... why use lab rats and monkeys when you have a great quantity of human tissue from abortions which will compare better with results of a product on humans than testing on rats would!