The debate "Abortion is wrong" was started by
March 5, 2019, 7:16 pm.
137 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 84 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Consitution101 posted 17 arguments, Napoleon_of_Politics posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 22 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, freakofnaturespitbucket posted 1 argument, MagicMicah posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 8 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, oklagija posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
Consitution101, JDAWG9693, HelloWorLd, Napoleon_of_Politics, jrardin12, troythegreat, AlissiaMathew, SanjayKumar, Liam_mc_Sherry, Harshrai29, kacho, Ayushkoul, benshapirofan, SMNR, Mj_Bossdude, toriboo, freakofnaturespitbucket, MagicMicah, InfinityMachine, amir_alhakim07, justincase, hollieg, sssk, boispendaddy and 113 visitors agree.
Jippity_J, historybuff, HeyChiefIMightBeWrongBut, rainingdown, krojnar, Gray_son, MADHURA, oklagija, LucyTheDebatorQueen, Syrkk, Walter, saad786, Communistguy and 71 visitors disagree.
people who can't afford a private clinic for abortions use planned parenthood. the big complaint against PP is that it uses Gov money for abortions, but it doesnt, because that is illegal under CURRENT law. it uses it to fund STD prevention and contraception (the best way to avoid abotions).
along with other gynecological (medical) services for poor neighborhoods.
I would also add this question: what quality would you say that if you didn't have, I would be allowed to kill you? (directed to anyone)
I bring up Planned Parenthood because people support abortion. (At least some people I seen people use planned parenthood to support abortion)
what does planned parenthood have to do with this? every clinic offers abortion where state law permits, planned parent hood provides many services including contraception (the best way to avoid abortions) and the testing/prevention of sexually transmitted disease.
the areas they serve cannot afford medical care, and getting rid of pp will only create a new epidemic of diseases like HIV and others.
I'm agreeing with it.
I'm sorry, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the prompt?
Well...If a woman decides to have sex with a Male, and gets herself pregnant. Blames the Male for not wearing protection, and says she does wants the abortion. Even though she did decide to have sex. It was your choice. I Don't see pland parenthood is better.
Abortion is 110% murder. Unless the mother is in a life threatening circumstance, then it is murder.
I'd like to hear a version of the trolly dilemma that involves no death if you, don't mind, as I have never heard that version before.
However, you absolutely do have to answer the question because you are making a claim, as am I. I have answered the question, now it is your turn.
Might I also ask your country so I know the laws, if you're comfortable sharing that?
However, I would also need to know your definition of "complex thought" and if you're changing your reasoning from "perception of pain" to "complex thought" or both or what?
I don't need to answer the question in your 3rd paragraph. I've already given you my account of morality. Preferences or interests are morally relevant, not life per se, the species of Homo Sapiens or something else. I don't consider it a "child" as it's not a person. So, since you're looking for valid reasons I'll give you one: suffering of a sentient being. I don't see a moral issue in abortion.
When it comes to the last question I gotta say it's an excellent one. In theory, I draw the line until a Homo Sapien individual is a person and/or sentient being with complex ability to think. That means morality allows free abortion, and even some cases of infanticide. However, you have to take into account the interests of all parties involved. The parents/family are one party. To kill a baby is wrong if it causes considerable suffering for the parents. I believe this hypothetical example is applicable in very few cases, and that makes it a non-issue (but of course, against the odds there are sometimes going to be queer situations that demand queer solutions)
I should mention I don't actively advocate this, I'm pretty satisfied with the abortion legislation in my country as it is. But I honestly see no issue with this position and I wish opponents of it very great luck in proving a "slippery slope" scenario is likely.
As for the trolley problem. I agree with you that what we're discussing is slightly different to a typical TP situation, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's "irrelevant". I think you're over simplifying the point of the trolley problem, its task is to show there are situations of conflict where no matter what you do can be considered wrong. It's possible to modify the trolley problem to not involve deaths. When you have a situation of conflict, you have to prioritize.
One last point: arguing for abortion from a mere feminist standpoint is problematic. I find feminists often beg the question of a possible moral dilemma by referring to women's rights. It's unsatisfactory, and I'm not arguing from a feminist standpoint, but from a standpoint of what my account of morality is. So radical feminists who get mad haven't really examined the issue critically.
For the case of it always being better to be alive, I would say that terminally ill people and people who live permanently as vegetables, I would say that, yes, they are indistinguishable from the dead and it is okay for them to die. But, just because you may have a poor upbringing or because you're gonna be sad for a few months while you carry an unborn child is absolutely no reason to die or to murder.
Also, the trolly problem is irrelevant because that is in the moment and the only choice is death; as long as the mother is not in mortal danger, there is a choice of life.
And, it is not that you haven't taken into account my points, it is simply that you believe differently. My main point is that the unborn child has a right to life as much as the mother does, and unless the mother is in mortal danger, there is no reason to murder the unborn child. So, I ask again: what valid reason, other than the mother being in mortal danger, is there to murder an unborn child?
I would also add, how late into the pregnancy should abortion be allowed and why that cut-off point?
Also, I have to comment on the very interesting statement that it's ALWAYS better to be alive. What basis do you have for such an absolute claim?
It literally takes only one example to disprove that. I'm sure many sick people who are desperate for euthanasia would be of a different opinion.
Also, if one has severe brain damage and lives like a vegetable in a hospital. How can you weirdly claim it's better to be alive than dead? They're practically already dead.
Also, would you argue that the effect of a typical trolley problem is also "murder"? Morality has to handle conflicts.
It's not murder as the lives that are being taken are non-persons. Women overwhelmingly do abortions for health reasons or other situations where the kids can't be believed to get a good upbringing. Try to bring up the "abortion as contraception" thingy, but it's irrelevant in most cases.
Are you really suggesting that it's worth it "cuz sanctity of life", to cause a woman person to suffer, and possibly a child to suffer as an effect of bad economic situation, rootlesness or other possible situations lacking happy upbringing? I'm sorry, but I see absolutely zero arguments for your point.
But maybe you have some trump card I'm lacking. In that case I ask you, what morally relevant factor haven't I taken into account? And how do you deal with the issue purely pragmatically, since moralist abortion legislation isn't going to stop abortions and arguably cause more suffering?
But it ISN'T an equal with the mother. So what you're saying is still irrelevant.
I have quite a contrary opinion actually. You have to provide a very good justification why it's wrong. So I'm asking again - what morally relevant factor isn't taken into account?
Because with it being a near guaranteed equal to the mother, unless it is to save the mother's life, what justified reason is there to murder the unborn?
Ok, I'm sorry for using the word potential, let's use the word guranteed.
How does that change any of my arguments? It's not a sentient being. It doesn't have interests. It doesn't have or deserve human rights.
Interests trump mere feelings of pain. Would you reason the same if you were put in a dilemma whether to save a spider or an adult human being? It isn't about being sad, it's about basing morality on logic. You simply saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. You have to provide arguments for it. What, that's morally relevant, is not done justice to when doing abortions? (Possibly feelings of pain, but morality has to handle conflicts of "interests". And I'm advocating using the least painful methods)
A zygote is not a potential human being, it is a near GUARENTEED human being. I don't care that it is a life, but I care that it WILL soon be a "complex, sentient" life, as you wish to put it. And, unless the mother is in physical danger, there is no justified reason to have an abortion. I don't care how sad you get, that is a human life and unless you are going to legitimately kill yourself because of it, or having the child will kill or seriously endanger you, you should have the child.
Also, side note, please don't talk to conservatives about abortion right now, talk to me. I am not the group. Thanks c:
If you mean why did I bring up an example of ICE separating kids from parents, I have a perfect answer for you: your morality has to be coherent, otherwise it's worth shit.
The factor to take into account that possibly makes abortion a moral dilemma is whether it causes suffering. I argue it doesn't and even if it does, forbidding abortion causes far more suffering because: 1) Women are complex, sentient beings that have interests. and 2) Women are gonna do illegal abortions anyway, because they don't buy your bollocks "morality".
It's morally irrelevant that it's a potential human being. Sperms are very much potential human beings, the fact that you draw the line at fertilization is just convenient for you, isn't it? Because the difference is marginal, the possible suffering it's going to cause isn't nearly as complex as the suffering of sentient beings. Sperms and fetuses have one thing in common: they're non-sentient forms of life.
I don't know what you're talking about, as I haven't even brought up something after being born.
All you said is pretty much irrelevant - the morally relevant factor to take into account is whether it's a sentient being or not (whether it can see itself in the future, recognize itself, has a complex ability to think and solve problems, etc)
The fact that it's "gonna be" something is morally irrelevant. That it's a "life" is morally irrelevant. Morality has to resolve conflicts of interests (although I'd argue a primitive fetus, doesn't even have interests - how the hell can you have interests if you don't have complex abilities as a sentient being?)
To me, it's fairly obvious protecting a woman's interests and rights is more important than moralizing over the "sanctity of all lives" (can I also point out the fact that this often is very selective, especially for conservatives) or some other bollocks horseshit.
Don't try to bring up after it's born as a red herring. Being alive is ALWAYS better than being dead. The question is: is killing an unborn child okay?
And, sperm and ovum are potential life, yes. But a zygote (and embryo and fetus) ARE life. That's the line; the life has already begun. And, it is almost guaranteed to be a sophont being, not just "possibly". I would encourage you to read the thread as we have already discussed much of this.
It isn't wrong, as you're not killing a sentient being. That doesn't lead to much suffering. If the fetus is sufficiently old to show signs of pain, it should be killed in the least painful way. For me, it's obvious the sentient being's interest (read: the woman) trump the fetus' short possible pain.
If you're gonna play the whole "potential human being" game, sperms are potential human beings as well. Where exactly are we supposed to draw the boundary? And isn't fertilization immoral, KNOWING you're killing billions of potential human beings?
If you're gonna play the religion game, good luck, prove your religion is correct first for your position to be taken more seriously than merely a very subjective opinion.
I also love the hypocrisy many so called pro lifers show signs of. You conservatives have no problem dividing kids from their parents as Trump does, causing tremendous suffering. You love yourself a steak. You support stupid wars that the rest of the world understands are just benefiting corporations. All crimes against very sentient beings! Yet, when an adult's interests are at stake, you put these aside for the benefit of a primitive form of life. That is a very perverted so called "morality", in fact, it's not even worth being considered a moral position as morality is impartial. Putting aside INTERESTS so that a primitive form of life won't feel pain, is hard to find any rational arguments for.
@ freakofnature - that argument is incredibly simplistic, and fairly childish. Your position appears to be that the second a sperm touches an egg it is a human and should have the protections we give humans. Also, that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be mentally handicapped. The irony of that statement is that the majority of people who would agree with that are either very religious or uneducated/stupid. And no those are not mutually exclusive categories. A fertilized egg is just that, and egg. It has no brain, heart, lungs etc. By almost any definition it isn't a person yet. A seed is not a tree, a zygote is not a person.
@JDAWG the problem with morality laws like banning abortion, banning alcohol, the war on drugs etc is that you can't actually stop it by cracking down on it. It is a service that people want. Banning it is not effective. It only causes people to need to do it illegally. If you actually wanted to prevent abortion the only potentially effective way would be to make it easier or worthwhile to carry a pregnancy to term that they don't want. But that would require significant social spending. And since the large majority of people who want to ban abortion are right wing, that is obviously not something they would support. If people want something badly enough, they will get it. So work on the underlying reasons they want the abortion, not banning the abortion itself.
If there were reasonable ways to enforce it, I would make it illegal to use any drugs while pregnant, yes.
abortion is wrong and should be prohibited worldwide because with abortion you're practically murdering the life of an unborn innocent baby. what did he/she ever do to you? why murder an unborn human life? if you didn't want a baby, a man and woman shouldn't've had sex in the first place and conjoin a sperm and egg to form a zygote, then a fetus, then an embryo, then a baby. you people are retarded af if you support abortion
not illegal, more like amateur abortions. and probably lots of debilitating fetal alcohol syndrome or other problems.
there are ways to enforce. penalizing missed checkups or lack of folic acid (or presence of alcohol, etc) in blood work is easily obtainable objective evidence. also things already tested for routinely.
this is opening the door to illegal abortions that have always been a problem with bans in the past.
I think that, yes, only abortion should ver illegal, in any style. And, the main reason not for the other things is because how would we enforce that? It wouldn't make sense
a follow up question.
now that we recognize the fetus with certain activity as an individual, how much autonomy does the mother retain of her own body?
is it just the medical abortion that is banned? how about coat hangers? eating lots of unpasteurized cheeses? not taking enough folic acid?
where do we draw the line when their rights conflict?
it is true most abortions are voluntary, but they are also mostly early term, with 66% being pre 8 weeks, and 90% being before 13 weeks.
I would imagine that usually, the later the abortion, the more medically urgent the reason for it.
2015, my bad.
And, I 100% agree and have been advocating that if the mother's physical health is in jeopardy because of the fetus, it should be aborted to save the mother. However, as of 2016, more than 98% of abortions were for convenience.
That being said, even though I advocate for no abortion passed two weeks, I would be willing to compromise, for the time being, for no abortion passed eight weeks, as that is where you defined the average beginning of personhood
yes, I see your distinction. however I put my line on when it becomes an IS person. as in it IS a person.
I do believe that being a WILL person does have value and is worth saving in many circumstances, will become something signifies it isnt that yet. and not yet a person cannot be murdered.
I feel that pre personhood abortions should be discouraged, but not penalized. I also feel that at any point, if the mother's life is threatened, abortion should be an option. no person should be mandated to self sacrifice for another if they don't choose to.
But, to be intellectually consistent with your argument, at what point does the fetus/embryo/zygote become no longer a MIGHT person and into a WILL person?
Because I would argue that after two weeks it becomes a WILL person because it has about a 10% chance of miscarriage and it only decreases; by ten weeks it's down to about 2%. So, I'm okay with things like the Plan B pill because at that point, they're still a "might" person. But, after two weeks, it's almost guaranteed that they WILL develop into a person if not aborted.
I disagree. a zygote is literally a ball of cells. the embryo is already more advanced but still building the fundamentals like blood networks and different kinds of cells.
a fetus is when it starts looking like, and functioning like a human, just inadequately.
reacting to taste and sound happens around weeks 10 to 13, along with the organs, I'm assuming that means the brain is already on at that time.
references electrical activity (start paragraph 6). 8-10 weeks is when it *starts* developing, so 8 weeks would be the safe bet. but really it isnt about an arbitrary deadline, but custom measure of whether activity is present or not. physical requirements, not guesses.
I know, but for all intents and purposes, fetus, embryo, and zygote are interchangeable for this discussion.
And, why do you think it is then and not earlier?
I'm not a doctor so I don't have a definitive opinion on when precisely it becomes a person. I would say definitely after 13 weeks (the beginning of the 2nd trimester). But before the fetus is viable outside of the womb. It's not exactly cut and dry when that is, but somewhere around the 23rd week there is a chance a fetus could survive outside the womb.
Also as a side note. While looking up info for this answer I see we have both been using fetus incorrectly. It is only a fetus after week 10.
Then, let us move on to your suggestion of when the fetus becomes a person or when it claims human rights?
It's the "soon to be" part that is critical. Because by definition, it is not yet. A seed is not a tree. A fetus is not a person. It might become one, but it isn't one yet.
So why would we suspend one of the core human rights, the control of one's own body, in order to protect something that we both acknowledge isn't a person?
you might be willing to suspend other people's rights, but i am not. Once the fetus becomes a person, then it is reasonable to infringe on the rights of the woman to protect it. Up to that point she has the right to control her body and to terminate the "not a person" if she wants to.
That is why the men should be required to pay child support, as they often are.
But my points are that after two weeks, it is almost guaranteed that the fetus WILL become a person. There is very little "might." And, what WILL become a person should have equal, or near equal, rights. And, should having there be a moderate burden to a few people be enough reason to kill a person, or soon-to-be person?
Obviously I can't say for certain exactly what he meant, but it sounds like he means
1) potential person hood (ie something that might be a person some day) should not have the same weight as an actual person
2) The consequences of sex are largely put on women, not men. Men can't get pregnant and therefore the only potential cost to them is child support. And only if it can actually be enforced on the father. While a woman has to spend 9 months incurring personal, financial and physical costs that simply don't apply to men.
Back to my opinion: It is easy for a man to say that abortion is always wrong because they are guaranteed for it to never negatively affect them. All they have to do is run out on the impregnated woman and they are off scot-free.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
I wouldnt put potential personhood on the same level as actual personhood, but I would give it value. the consequences of sex are extremely 1 sided which I believe is the root of the abortion movement
I would argue that two weeks after conception it should have rights because there is such a little chance that it won't become a person. And, that chance only decreases with time. I would say my compromise would be allowing abortions up to two weeks or, obviously, if the physical health of the mother is in jeopardy
There is a good chance the fetus will become a person. It is not guaranteed. But again, there is also a good chance a seed will become a tree. That doesn't mean i killed a tree if i dug up a seed shortly after it was planted. It would mean i prevented a tree from ever existing.
I do not, and will never accept, that a fetus without a functioning brain is a person. By virtually any definition it isn't one. It may become a person some day, and on that day aborting the fetus would become unacceptable. If you want to debate at what that point that is we can do that. But if you think that 30 seconds after conception a fertilized egg should have all the protections of a full fledged human being then I really don't see how your opinions could be based in logic and a discussion is pointless.
After two weeks, there is, on average, a less than 10% chance of miscarriage, so we can say almost for certain that the fetus WILL become a conscious person.
That simply isn't true. A lot of pregnancies naturally terminate (miscarriages of various sorts, fetuses consuming one another etc). Therefore no, a fetus is far from guaranteed from becoming a person. The most I will acknowledge is there is a fairly good chance that it might become a person.
I acknowledge that a fetus has the potential to gain consciousness and therefore has the potential to become a person. And terminating a fetus after it has reached the point of consciousness is certainly murder.
But by the same logic that if I stop you from planting a seed, i haven't killed a tree. I have prevented a tree. If you abort a fetus, you haven't killed a person, you have prevented one from existing. And if preventing a person from existing is murder, then there is no logical reason not to extend that to masturbation.
Please be sure not to conflate my arguments and Constitution101's, as I do not agree with his reasons, haha.
But, my argument as to why masturbation and the menstrual cycle is not murder is because, you're right, all of those MIGHT become a conscious being. However, a fertilized ova WILL become a conscious being if you do not terminate it. And, I would argue that something that WILL become a conscious being is equal to something that is a conscious being. And, as I said before, I don't care what species you are and we are all "clumps of cells." The only thing that really sets apart from the other clumps of cells is our consciousness; that's why that's what I care about.
You're already showing that your argument is largely based on emotion, not facts. People kill animals and other people all the time. Literally every single day. There are lots of legal reasons to kill someone (self defense, war, defending others etc). So saying "killing is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong" shows how limited your argument is.
I'm just going to completely ignore your attempts to emotionally extort me. As I have already covered. A fetus is not a child. So comparing my hypothetical children to a fetus is like comparing those same children to a plant or an animal. It is comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same thing.
No one here is arguing one person has more rights than another. We are arguing that a fetus does not yet meet the requirements to be a person. Therefore we are putting the rights of a real person over the rights of a cluster of cells that might one day become a person. that is a fairly simple choice to make. A fetus does not have conciousness, it is not a person. It has no rights.
Again, if you want to debate when a fetus meets the requirements to become a person I think that will be a more fruitful discussion that crude appeals to emotion. By the definition you seem to be using, masturbating should be seen as murder because those sperm might become a person some day.
Woah there, Bud, I'm on your side. I'm just saying that I don't want any fallacious arguments. And, obviously we all think killing is wrong. So, we should rather try to prove that the fetus is a conscious because I don't care if it's human or not, I care of it had a conscious or will likely have one
when did we take out the fact that this is KILLING therefore I think explaining on a more personal level is fine. just because liberals don't want to bring it to a more personal level cause they know how disgusting it really is.
and if this isn't logical to you than my oh my, we have an even more serious problem if not killing doesn't seem logical.
the only argument you guys are trying to prove is that somehow one person gets more rights than another..... tell me what FACT supports that idiocy
ok fact: killing is bad tell me what facts you are all supposedly using. science proves many things about a fetus that they didn't know for roe v Wade. roe v Wade is the law based on no science.
Well, that's an appeal to emotion, so I dunno why you would say that. Plus, bringing his personal life into this is irrelevant. When you make an argument, Constitution101, you should be able to prove it with logic and facts; not have to resort to emotions and fallacies
if you do then tell me you can look into their eyes and say: once upon a Time you were just a cluster of cells that luckily I wanted cause if I didn't I would have just killed you and you wouldn't be here right now. HOW DOES A WOMAN HAVE ANY RIGHT TO THAT?
plus so you even have kids?
the mother has no right to kill that fetus just like she has no right to kill her infant.
it's more disgusting that you believe it is just a cluster of cells with no rights. there is no stage in the development of a fetus that does not correspond with someone outside the womb. therefore if your logic is I can kill a fetus than. that means you can technically kill.many other adult people as well. tell me when you think a fetus turns into a human
We're all just a cluster of cells, so that argument is invalid.
And, I would say that abortion is wrong at any point, except when the physical health of the mother is in jeopardy, because it is disposing of a conscious person. And, if it is still in an embryonic state, then at the very least, it is disposing of a potential consciousness. The only difference between the fetus and the mother is that the fetus hasn't grown up, yet, but they're still the same in that respect.
Also, I don't care what the women does with HER body. But, abortion no longer has to do with her body, it has to do with the body, and the LIFE, of her child now. She made the CHOICE to have sex, which is totally fine. But, now that she wasn't careful enough, she has to deal with the c ok consequences. She doesn't have to keep it, but she does have to deliver it.
It isn't a baby it is a fetus. At the moment of conception it is just a cluster of cells. At some point it may become a baby. But aborting that cluster of cells prior to that point is not murder, it is a medical procedure. If a woman wants to have that medical procedure before the point the fetus becomes a baby, that is 100% her choice. You have no right to tell her what she can do with her body.
If you want to have a debate about when a fetus should qualify as a baby, we can do that. But arguing that the rights of a cluster of cells should out way the rights of an actual person is disgusting.
the right to murder is not a right. it's disgusting that women think that it is there right to decide if a baby lives or dies. the women's right was to not have sex in the first place.
Your argument might hold some water if there were any attempts at all being made to fix orphanages. The people who want to ban abortions have absolutely no interest in doing that. They only care about abortion, they don't actually care about children.
Additionally, abortion isn't only about orphanages. They are a women's rights issue. it is a medical procedure that you are banning because you don't like it. You don't have the right to take away the rights of others. the right to control your own body is a basic principle.
Also additionally, regardless of what the law says abortions will happen. Centuries of evidence have proven that you cannot ban a service that people really want or need. The only difference is whether they happen safely performed by a doctor, or whether they are performed extremely unsafely by a desperate woman. Banning abortion doesn't save lives. it just kills women by preventing medical professionals from helping them.
yes so you guys just want to run down the road to hell because " oh man I don't think we can handle the overload" be my guest my friend be my guest. why don't you get it through your brain that things can be fixed simultaneously. and once again you fail to realize that there wouldn't be a massive overload of babies. THERE ARE A TON OF PARENTS ON LISTS WAITING FOR BABIES. AND THEY ARE THROUGH PROGRAMS OTHER THAN ORPHANAGES.
lol if you think abortion money can fund orphanages. 1. we didnt fund abortions, just other services... services that were pretty basic by medical standards. these werent serious surgeries or MRIs.
our orphanage system is currently underfunded. the "abortion money" probably won't be enough to fix that, much less handle the inevitable overload post abortion.
" I don't agree with continuing to do something wrong just because we don't know what will exactly happen right after it is banned"
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
good intentions but minimal effort has never yielded good results. some easy preparation can avoid a disaster.
it's the older children that are harder to find families for and yes I agree that the orphanages should be fixed and let's do it with the government money that was going to abortions. I don't agree with continuing to do something wrong just because we don't know what will exactly happen right after it is banned
how about we fix both at the same time. Trump just stopped funding abortion places so now we can use that money to help orphanages. as I said earlier, there is actually a large population willing to adopt newborns hen e the reason newborns aren't seen in orphanages. they have so many willing to adopt that there is a list made that some never get the chance to adopt
the question I raised was what happens after? many will become orphans and our systems are already overwhelmed. shouldnt we prepare for the outcomes of our decision before creating a mess?
planned Parenthood main business is abortion. they abort over 300000 babies a year and they don't do it for free my friend. and that is on THEIR website. a baby has a functioning conciousness at 6 weeks. it has been proven that babies can feel pain at this stage, so it looks like your definition means you are basically pro life.....
the new york law is the only law being discussed on this topic so yes that is the one I'm talking about. where does it say it can be allowed "if the mother isn't ready"?
the problem with orphanages is the living conditions and the amount of attention the children receive regardless of age. the adoption rate isnt something we can control and we dont spend any money on abortion. pp is supported for their gynecological and STD treatments. abortions are not funded by tax dollars. please cite your information because I dont think it is real.
I dont consider a fetus a human individual until the upper regions of the brain activates consciousness (like reacting to sound). that's a custom definition I reached myself. after that point, I personally, believe it is murder. however health of the mother should be a major factor.
"For those who think it isnt a baby or a person yet, we now have post term abortion. This is the baby after being born being killed which is infanticide and completely morally wrong."
post term abortion is a made up word.
what are you talking about?
are you claiming this is legal somewhere? Where?
Abortion is the killing of innocent babies. Only in terms of health effects should it be aloud. if you didn't want a child you shouldn't of had sexual intercourse, killing a human being isn't the answer. For those who think it isnt a baby or a person yet, we now have post term abortion. This is the baby after being born being killed which is infanticide and completely morally wrong. It is no different than if I came to your house and killed you because you were burdening someone. That is murder, if we allow the murdering of babies we allow legal murder. Legal murder isnt what the founding fathers made America for or what America is based on.
oh and your argument on not considering a fetus a baby. a toddler is not a school age kid but they are all people just like a fetus counts a a person. I don't consider you to be a baby either, that doesn't mean I get to kill you.
oh an how about we spend all of the money on fixing orphanages and not on killing babies, plus you probably didn't know that that is of older children that they have a hard time getting someone to adopt. they have an overabundance of people willing to adopt babies to the point that you have a very little chance of getting a baby if they want to adopt. your argument sounds like" well black people will have a hard life cause of racism outside of plantations so we might as well keep slavery intact cause it's not worth trying.......... sounds the exact same doesn't it.
haha really have you read New Yorker new abortion law. cause guess what........ mother's health is loosely determined to be even psychological meaning if the mom decides that she "just isn't ready" then they can kill the baby
abortion may be wrong depending on the development, and I would love if we would properly fund our underfunded orphanage system before we send a tsunami of children to them due to an abortion ban. properly fund orphanages and I will agree in 99% of circumstances, unfortunately the prolife movement apparently stops caring after birth.
unfortunately I don't consider a fetus a baby just like I dont consider a school age kid a toddler, or a teenager an adult. they are vastly different stages.
furthermore the late stage abortion is ONLY WHEN THE MOTHERS HEALTH IS IN JEAPORDY OR THE FETUS IS NON VIABLE.
noone is promoting elective late term abortions. that's idiotic and claims of such are kool aid.
Abortion is a horrible thing that happens to babies and should be fought against. especially the new abortion push all the way to 9 months/birth.