The debate "Abortion is ok" was started by
April 5, 2017, 12:26 am.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
neveralone posted 1 argument, JordDorrell posted 8 arguments, historybuff posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 23 arguments, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, szkzsz44 posted 1 argument, hariom posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
diana26, historybuff, JordDorrell, silentkiller, Mr_Beuller, ZiraShadow, DrakeVonSchweetz, Argument_fightme and 7 visitors agree.
neveralone, Alex, szkzsz44, hariom, FaithofExaltism, afflenawomi, TimRSA, Frank, Cotton and 16 visitors disagree.
what did the man do wrong? what if the man wants to keep it but the woman doesn't? she didn't put blind faith in the man, there's a good chance they were both children and had no idea what they were getting themselves into. it's also possible they are both adults, married and with children, but together agree they don't want / can't support another one. he isn't running away, they just made a decision based on what is best for their family.
just assuming it's always the man at fault is irrational. even if the man stays, one or both parents have to drop out of school and find jobs that don't require even a high school level education... which means he's going to be wiping floors for the rest of his and her life, and even that might require a GED soon. a baby can be a dream killer regardless of whether it is a single mother or 2 immature, not ready parents.
yaa I m not in the support of abortion.
Because it's a crime same as the killing of an infant in outside.And sometimes narrow minded mother-in-law also forced the bride that you have to give me only a son and at that time if she will give a girl child than that narrow minded people will kill her. They have to think that it's not depend on bride that what output will come it may be girl or a boy child.70% it depend on the sperm of the man what he has in this 'X' or 'Y'
And it's gud that govt.also taken a gud stage on this issue.Govt. declared it illegal and checking of a foetus is crime.
so the rate of abortion is decreased now a days.
abortion is as same as murder by killing someone inside foetus or outside. .And that all evil deeds are committed by the fear of society , either they will accept the infant or not. ...Only solution is to change the mentality of society towrds these unborn kids and their mothers too. ... even they have to be encouraged by society .A woman is cheated by inhumanical men ,it's not her fault for doing blind Faith over the man.....those men should be punished not the innocent foetus and woman
so let's figure out all we can about consciousness. I believe that it is the soul or will lead to such. and even if it doesn't we will have learned more
I think the requirement of soul detection is invalid. we have no guarantee such a thing even exists, and disproving something exists is logically impossible.
as you say, the spark of consciousness is something we have not explained, and perhaps that may be a hint at its existence. but the spark of consciousness does not exist in cells (to our knowledge).
so far our biggest sign of that spark igniting is the brain, when it lights up. but that is pretty late, especially for the higher, human, regions.
jord I just wanted u to know I'm not inviting him to join because he agrees with me(he doesn't) but I find his argument interesting and enjoyable.
well I think one of the biggest dif. besides the obvious is u beleive the child to be a part of her. but the child holds a symbiotic sometimes considered parasitic relationship with the mother. either way it isn't a part of her.
hey the more views the better.
This will always be a never ending debate, some people believe it's 'morally wrong', others will believe in human rights. morals are personal to what someone believes is acceptable or not, it doesn't mean they are wrong. I do not find it morally wrong for a woman to decide what she can or cannot do with her body/life, neveralone clearly believes it's 'murder', (which would imply that it should be illegal) but of course I cannot change your moral views on this, agree to disagree that we value different things:)
is it clear? because there is no scientific or medical concensus on when the point of no return is, and any decisions are political and constantly changing / being debated. I'm not sure it's that obvious.
either way, 5 minutes before birth is still a fetus and would fit into your argument. I did not intend to get between your and neveralone's debate. I just wanted to suggest a more physical property to use as a distinguishing feature rather than a lingual technicality that was a bit vague for these purposes.
eventually though with ur "guidelines" 5 min. make all the difference.
Ofcourse I'm against the termination if there is 5 minutes left, but this debate is about abortion, and if there is 5 minutes left it would not be considered an abortion as it doesn't fall within the guidelines for an abortion, therefore it is irrelevant to this topic. I did not need to make a distinction between the development of a fetus because given the topic of abortion it should be clear what stage of the pregnancy I am referring to:)
and look to the future. though I am interested in what we will find on consciousness.
who knows but there is no hint of it anywhere yet.
the future is always a maybe, but we live in today.
maybe in the future
trying to see consciousness? yes
soul? no, nothing serious at least.
is there research trying to see? for both?
if the soul doesn't exist than we will never prove/disprove it. you can't disprove something that doesn't exist. I think we should working within what we know. we don't know where consciousness comes from, but we can certainly detect the brain activity consciousness creates or is created by.
I can understand that. if I thought the child had no life or soul then there wouldn't be an argument but I find we don't even understand consciousness and souls enough to make a point on this and even then I think we forget the life that child could've had. to act that this doesn't matter is destressing to me.
I consider both. right now the mother has been on the sidelines with the father in this debate and the child is the only one in danger. I want to help the parents like I have said in a couple of these posts. especially if there a single parent.
is it better to start a race bad but eventually recover or never start in the first place? u decide who u r each day. not ur circumstances. I would rather live than never getting a chance. 18 years that is how long the mother has the child. then we arnt even considering if she changes her mind. also how many parents actually regret being one?u ever thought how u changed the child? probably around 80.
my distinction may be irrelevant to the greater national debate, but it was very relevant to your debate with neveralone as the distinction between fetus and baby was the primary premise in your arguments.
you yourself stated that:
" therefore you are confirming that a fetus 'will be/can be' a child one day.... but in its current state, it is a fetus. a wheel can be one day part of a car, but in its current state, it's a wheel. not a car.:)"
implying that the simple categorization of fetus is the primary criteria. I'm assuming you were aware of an unspoken distinction between late and early fetus, but perhaps you should use a specific gestational age or physical feature/property of a fetus when making this argument rather than simply the term fetus.
technicalities aside, I agree a woman should have a say over her body, however this is an extreme situation where a separate entity is within her, and based on your objections to my post I will assume you would not be OK with her terminating the 5 minutes to birth fetus as an arbitrary decision despite it still being within her body.
this issue is extremely complicated. I'm 100% against abortion well before the point of birth, and I have 100% indifference to the ball of cells early in development. where the actual border falls in between those 2 extreme points, I don't know. at some point the right to life overtakes the right to choose, but that point is very debatable. my dismissal of many on the left is not in their support of abortion, but of the nonchalant handling of the other sides views. this is not that clear cut of an issue imo.
saving a child and saving a fetus are two different things. you seem to be very focused on 'the child' without considering the human that will have to carry this fetus for 9 months. if they have no option for abortion and the fetus is unwanted, then the child will enter this world and begin it's life suffering from the start, neglect by its mother, it isn't wanted. you shouldn't force a woman to go through with something that could change her life forever.
"fetus will not have developed enough to have a choice or make decisions." you don't give it one
would u call a tapeworm a part of ur body?
to disagree with abortion is to want to save children's lives.
u give them this right though. do u think it won't affect the child? that's an entire life time ur taking out before it even has a chance. that affects more than 18 years. and that's if they choose to keep the child.
they could or couldn't. I wouldnt want to chance child murder. who truly knows? if u can give me 100% proof that a soul isn't there I might be more lenient but till then I will fight for the child and help the parents get benefits that they need.
I'm far from being left or right. I believe in human rights, I understand the emotional attachment to this issue, but people also need to understand that the ones most affected by this will be the ones who have the right to make this decision.
you used another example in this reply, stating that a fetus that is 5 minutes from being born is a child, but you cannot use this example as its irrelevant to the topic as you cannot perform an abortion procedure 5 minutes before birth. please try to keep your argument within relevance to the topic.
one side of the argument say it's murder, it's a life... the answer to this is that at the stages that abortion can be performed, this fetus will not have developed enough to have a choice or make decisions.
the other side argues that it would be a breach of human rights to deny a woman the opportunity to make a decision on what she can and cannot do with her own body.
I said abortion is okay not because I encourage it and promote it, I said its okay because to disagree with abortion is to disagree with a person's right to decide what they do with their body.
a fetus is more than a tire. at the lowest it is every part of the car... just lying in a disassembled pile. at the highest it is the same thing as a baby with the only distinction being which side of the vagina it is located at the moment. 5 minutes before birth, a fully functioning, conscious, feeling human being, but also technically a fetus.
rather than playing emotional word games, we should look at and judge the specific features of the fetus, such as development stage and functionability. although lack of function is not necessary a green light to disregard unless you also support pulling the plug on vegetatives and euthanasia.
I understand the absolutist right wing stance. it is life, and it is human, regardless of whether or not it is a person. I also understand the moderate stance that takes into account the harm banning abortion creates and the reality of how many people will act in the face of the ban. I do not understand the nonchalant dismissal of the issue by many on the left. I feel that is just thoughtless partisanship.
you say 'they can be' , implying that they are not yet what you say they are. therefore you are confirming that a fetus 'will be/can be' a child one day.... but in its current state, it is a fetus. a wheel can be one day part of a car, but in its current state, it's a wheel. not a car.:)
they can be. until u break them down.
so a wheel sitting on the side of a road is a car? a seed is a rose?
I was simply stating u can call something one thing or another. it doesn't change what it is.
u beleive it's an unfinished car. even just a wheel. yet I look beyond what it is then and there to what it could become. life should be treasured.
you brought up the rose example. I merely made it relevant to the topic.
you are trying to compare a child to something that may one day be a child. a seed may one day be a rose. the analogy is apt.
except there's no morals placed on trees or seeds. people and animals(idk why trees are different.) usually are defended for moral reasons.
there are significant differences between a fetus and a child.
if you want to use the rose metaphor it's like saying a rose and a seed are the same thing. it's just rediculous.
so a tapeworm inside u counts as part of ur body as well? and the child? or the father? or the relatives? all these people are affected.
"a rose by any other name..." we disagree that it changes things.
it's basic human rights and women rights for a woman to decide what they can and can't do with their body. the minute you say they don't have a decision to remove a fetus from their body is stripping them of their rights as a human being.
a fetus is a fetus. a child is s child. there is a difference. your refusal to acknowledge that fact doesn't change that it's a fact.
people need to consider both. the child.(notice u like to say fetus than child. to each there own) and the parent. we need programs to help BOTH. people mistakenly think one or the other when we can quite simply help both.
I believe it should be down to the decision of the human carrying the fetus. the fetus hasn't even taken its first breath, therefore it doesn't have a 'decision' to make. it's just a fetus. people need to consider the parents in this situation, they will be the ones who will have to do the most in raising a child. It's their decision and their judgement at the end of the day. no one should be forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy and a lifetime of parenthood if they don't feel capable of doing so.
or execution if we go by an individual basis
so u beleive having no life or even the choice of living is better than a situation that can easily change?
murder is killing someone agaisnt the law. so no abortion isn't murder. because it's legal. it's genocide.
Abortion is more than okay, people have a problem with it, claiming it's 'murder', they are wrong. Parenthood is a big responsibility and it would be even more cruel to bring a child into the world when it cannot be cared for or provided for, why prolong the suffering for a child? There should always be the option for a second chance. It is not murder, too many naive people listen to the propaganda like picture that have clearly been edited saying 'this is a fetus at 8weeks , why would you kill this?' when in reality they do not look as developed as they do in propaganda photos. People need to do their research before jumping to conclusions of abortion being 'murder'. murder is illegal, and if abortion was murder, then ofcourse abortion would be illegal too.
why are you complaining? you argued in favor of mass genocide. babies included.
Oh look, liberals supporting the mass genocide of babies once again.
no I should have cleared that up
ah. thought it was a response to me :p
I meant that to the person who posted this.
one (great sounding) solution that doesnt involve death.
I wasn't saying that the children being born is bad. one of the main arguments for abortion is that those children will die anyway in dangerous illegal abortions, and may take the mother with them. or may disfigure the baby mentally or physically for life.
it also has to do with the social services available to help prospective parents and child parents. in the current situation banning abortion will ruin countless lives, but that isn't the fault of abortion but right wing fiscal ******ry. change that and a lot of the suffering caused by abortions may be avoided. however, if everything else remains unchanged, banning abortion will be horrible.
tell that to the child. we can probably find millions of better solutions than murder.
i wouldn't call it ok, but banning abortion will create more suffering than allowing it. it is the lesser of two evils.