Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree...There are many unwanted children in the world today...There are an average of 1.2 million legal abortions per year in the US alone, and many more illegal abortions...Can you imagine if all these were were born?
Which means we have failed in the area of sex education. We have also failed miserably in teaching male responsibility.
I agree that number of potential children to unmarried women would place a tremendous financial burden on the rest of the population if they were to have been born. But is abortion the best solution for preventing unwanted children?
This is an age old problem that has existed for as long as people have known that the act of initiating procreation is more enjoyable than watching reruns of Mayberry RFD.
The question: "Is abortion the best solution?"
Would it not be safer and more effective to find means to reduce unwanted pregnancies? We all know pregnancy can be prevented, the question is why don't people take the initiative to do so?
Perhaps, we have failed to teach our male population they have a responsibility to not impregnate anyone to satisfy primordial desires. Society has long placed the burden of pregnancy upon the female and praising the culprit for his prowess at seducing women. It is time we put the brakes on irresponsible men. Perhaps it is time to place heavy fines and/or jail time upon men who "accidentally" impregnate women they have no desire or ability to support in the care of children. Let the woman have their abortions but punish the men who endangered their health and/or placed an unneeded burden upon society. Just a suggestion, most likely not feasible. But, the point being we need to focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies.
We should have zero tolerance for unwanted pregnancies and stress the need to prevent such, not have to worry about them after they occur.
Abortion should be seen as a means to safeguard a woman's health when something has gone wrong with the pregnancy, not as retroactive birth control except in cases where the woman was impregnated against her will. Even then it should be the woman's choice if she desires to allow the pregnancy to continue.
Oh nonsense, animals kill their babies all the time. And humans are animals remember. Throughout history humans have killed babies that were actually born, not simply in utero. Infanticide has been practiced by many cultures throughout time. This over attachment to the idea children are extremely precious is a modern phenomenon.
And society should have nothing to do with a woman's personal decision. It's her body and her life, everyone else should mind their own business. If they don't approve of abortion then they can choose not to have one.
How nice!
By your logic slavery should have been held to be acceptable and just seen as: If you don't want slavery, don't own one.
Some actually did use that argument.
Did that make slavery morally just for the people that wanted to own slaves?
The idea of slavery as immoral is also a "modern phenomenon"...slavery "has been practiced by many cultures throughout time".
So that would justify it, right?
It would if you apply the same logic you presented.
Oh...and once conception occurs...it's not just "her body and her life".
There is another completely individual life growing inside her.
And in case you didn't notice...there are many things we may make a "personal decision" about as to what to do with our bodies that "society" disallows.
How nice!
By your logic slavery should have been held to be acceptable and just seen as: If you don't want slavery, don't own one.
Some actually did use that argument.
Did that make slavery morally just for the people that wanted to own slaves?
The idea of slavery as immoral is also a "modern phenomenon"...slavery "has been practiced by many cultures throughout time".
So that would justify it, right?
It would if you apply the same logic you presented.
Oh...and once conception occurs...it's not just "her body and her life".
There is another completely individual life growing inside her.
And in case you didn't notice...there are many things we may make a "personal decision" about as to what to do with our bodies that "society" disallows.
Unless you are the one carrying that embryo, you have no say in the matter. Keep your nose out of another woman's uterus.
Quite the opposite. What you call "medical jargon" I call "the facts". Now "the facts" might get in the way of the position you want to hold, and so you would like to dismiss them, but although people are entitled to their own opinion, they certainly are not entitled to their own facts.
And the fact is there is a massive differences between the fetus and a baby. So those people out there who are simply calling the fetus a baby in order to emotionally cajole people into an anti-abortion stance really is just a linguistic game, and one that is not supported by the facts at all.
Not at all. Again I repeat: You are either X or you are becoming X. You can not be both. When the anti-choice side play their linguistic games this is a trap they fall into often. They make the error of calling the fetus human, then a couple of breaths later they talk about things like it is "becoming human" or it is a "potential human".
Clearly they want it both ways, but it is not both ways. The Fetus is either human... or it is becoming human. It can not be both. Of course what you mean by "human" depends on the context and I argue that it is not human in this context (the context of abortion and human rights) and is becoming one.
And as such I see no moral problem with terminating it, and no moral reason to be assigning it rights or protecting it's rights. Were anyone to come up with a good argument for classing it as human in the context of rights, or for assigning it rights at all, my position on abortion would likely be changed.
Been down this road before Nozz.
Try THIS again:
STILL don't understand the "Is Human"--"Going to Be Human" concept?---Let me 'splain it to ya!
I'll use this statement: "As a fetus he was human, when he was a baby he was a human being, he is a human being now, and when he is an old man he is going to be a human being."
He is "going to be" a human being when he is an old man, because he IS a human being, and always has been a human being...and that isn't going to ever change.
What's in the womb is a human being...and going to be a human being when it is outside of the womb--Because it won't change from being what it ALREADY is...and going to ALWAYS be.
"Get it" now?!
Killing the developing child in the womb is wrong because, even if you don't grant it "status" in the womb, it will achieve that status when born...and executing it before it's birth snuffs the possible "future potential" of the life it might have lead...which is a standard philosophical argument on the true basis for killing being morally wrong at any point in a life.
As far as "the facts"--Medical science has just about universally concluded that an individual life, distinct from any other (including the mothers'), occurs at CONCEPTION. Check it out...you'll see.
Unless you are the one carrying that embryo, you have no say in the matter. Keep your nose out of another woman's uterus.
AGAIN, by your logic, one could say...Unless it's YOUR child, or YOUR mother, or YOUR father, etc...no one else unrelated should have any say how you treat them, or even if you kill them.
In her uterus, or outside of it...it's still a separate, individual human from her...and she should be as responsible for it's care and safety as she should be at any other point in it's existence as a minor child of hers that's in her custody.
And she should suffer the same consequences for any neglect in her responsibility to provide that care as the law would provide for at any any other point in the childs' life.
The only reason for the denial of the FACT that it IS her developing child, and IS a separate and distinct life from her...is so women and men can try to justify executing their "inconvenient" children.
AGAIN, by your logic, one could say...Unless it's YOUR child, or YOUR mother, or YOUR father, etc...no one else unrelated should have any say how you treat them, or even if you kill them.
In her uterus, or outside of it...it's still a separate, individual human from her...and she should be as responsible for it's care and safety as she should be at any other point in it's existence as a minor child of hers that's in her custody.
And she should suffer the same consequences for any neglect in her responsibility to provide that care as the law would provide for at any any other point in the childs' life.
The only reason for the denial of the FACT that it IS her developing child, and IS a separate and distinct life from her...is so women and men can try to justify executing their "inconvenient" children.
You have your biology all wrong. A fetus cannot live outside the womb until it is at least 24 weeks. Until then it is reliant completely on the Mother. It is not a 'separate and distinct life from her'. Sorry, read some facts then come back and debate.
You have your biology all wrong. A fetus cannot live outside the womb until it is at least 24 weeks. Until then it is reliant completely on the Mother. It is not a 'separate and distinct life from her'. Sorry, read some facts then come back and debate.
Also Djnua quote..Unless you are the one carrying that embryo, you have no say in the matter. Keep your nose out of another woman's uterus.
Guess what Djuna?....a women cannot live outside the opportunities, comfort, protection, ect ect ect of society..
When it comes a womens turn to do the looking after, theres no such thing as a right to avoid out of simple convenience only, the law of the land may say...but truth be known...no one can look after themselves without "others"
People look after each other, thats how it all works.
In fact the baby in the crib would prob rob more time effort calories energy ect of the womens body compared to carrying.....so this, my body thing won't wash because it needs quite a bit as well....and gets it.
You have your biology all wrong. A fetus cannot live outside the womb until it is at least 24 weeks. Until then it is reliant completely on the Mother. It is not a 'separate and distinct life from her'. Sorry, read some facts then come back and debate.
I suggest YOU read some facts, then come back and debate.
As far as when it has been determined life begins, and a new individual human comes to be...YOU are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, in your contention.
MOF the consensus is almost universal in the scientific community as to when a new "separate and distinct" individual human life (distinct from the mother, the father, or anyone else) begins...and that is at CONCEPTION.
and this: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/...life_print.pdf (broken link)
It has been determined, in almost no uncertaintity...that it IS a separate and distinct life from conception on.
I'm sure you can find a couple dissenters, but they are the rare exception to what is currently "a given" by mainstream science.
And BTW...it can't "live outside the womb", at least not on it's own, for about 10 years...and even then it's "iffy" for another few years or so. It STILL will be "completely reliant" on the mother, or someone, for it's survival.
So the "can't live on it's own" argument is completely bogus as a justification for execution.
The same child living and being fed in her body, is the same child that will be living on her body...just more "developed".
MOF it will be MORE work and effort to keep it alive AFTER she gives birth than it was before.
I must not be very clear. I actually agree with you. Do not assume that because I am anti-abortion automatically means I do not want you to be free to do as you desire without interference as long as it is legal. I have no need nor desire to know anything about your or anybody elses personal life. I have no conditions regarding standing up for your rights or anybody else's. I have done that and would gladly do it again.
Because somebody is anti-abortion does not mean they want to stop you from having an abortion if that is your choice. You do have the right to be pro-abortion and you do have the right to say why if you desire to, you also have the right to not explain anything if you desire not too. I reserve the right to explain why I am anti-abortion and recognize that there are people who have a different view and I respect they have just as much to their view as I have to mine.
I do not picket abortion clinics nor do I every tell anybody my view is the only view. I do not condemn or harass those who do choose abortion and stand by each person's right to decide on their own. I just hope each person makes their choices based on knowledge and have made an effort to look into all options.
Ok. I don't think you were being very clear based on your wanting women to be forced to hear from both sides as you wrote and I quoted.
What do you mean by pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. I don't want to force anyone to have an abortion.
Anti-abortion is a "for yourself" stance. Are you pro-choice or not? These pro- and -anti abortion comments are really rude and not on point. You seem to be purposely splitting hairs and labeling others, me included, as pro-abortion. No one is trying to force anyone else to abort. So your pro-abortion names show your agenda. It's both ridiculous and emotionally disingenuous. You're writing of your stance as if you have the moral high ground. You don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI
Good observation. I doubt if any study of that factor has been done. but it is possible that the person with mental health problems would be more prone to have an abortion than the overall population. Which would result in a higher incidence among women who have had abortions.
Just a gut feeling, I suspect there is a higher incidence of abortions among women who have mental health problems.
This post is beyond the pale and shows how you truly feel towards women.
Don't bother responding; I'll have nothing else to do with you.
Last edited by chielgirl; 11-15-2011 at 10:53 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
