The debate "Is abortion morally right And if so where is the drawn to where its a life" was started by
January 6, 2018, 2:33 pm.
By the way, Austynbb is disagreeing with this statement.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 17 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
chasediedrich1 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument, Austynbb posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
Against_eu, chasediedrich1, NPW, Argument_fightme and 8 visitors agree.
Austynbb, MetalClaw99, Sabertoothwolf, Delta_Force01 and 13 visitors disagree.
The thing is: abortion has nothing to do with morality until the fetus becomes a sentient baby. So no, abortions aren't morally applicable in the first place.
Here's the thing Austy, the world will become over crowded. Humans will need to kill humans in the future. That is the solution to overpopulation. But the Bible offers the alternative. The Bible says God is going to intervene before the world becomes overcrowded. But only the Christians know about this. Of which I am :)
Abortion is not a "sketchy" topic. Abortion is wrong. There is no exception. Even the example you stated in your post, about a young woman, mentions adoption as the alternative. Abortion is never acceptable and is evil.
yeah abortion is a sketchy topic with good points on both sides. try taking the perspective of a poor pregnant 16 year old and see how without money this baby will guarantee a life of poverty and misery for the girl. and oh yeah, we all made such awesome decisions when we were teenagers (sarcasm) those shouldn't determine our lives permanently. if not orphanages, then easily available public day care, especially in poor areas.
but whether orphanages or day care, the pro life party is also the anti spending party so my solution is actually a catch 22 for you guys.
for the first two paragraphs I see what you're saying, I can't argue against it as I dont have anything left to say that I can think of. And you have opened my eyes a little on the better adoption idea. I can't say more on this, I hope someone else can, but I like what youve stated, but hate the immorality.
I can't speak much in the way of religion, it is so hard to predict. Is abortion and medicine a defiance of God's plan or all part of it? we can never know.
either way, it rather leave such hypothetical, speculative, and highly interpretive religious concepts out of law making.
I do not think we are anywhere near over populated, as I see large areas of uninhabited land and plenty of vertical options. sure some parts of the world are starving, yet others throw out mountains of food every year. technology is expanding our capacity faster than we can fill it.
what is the morality if killing something that is not yet capable of consciousness, and has not felt a drop of joy or pain. Is it equal to damning a fully functional life and destroying all of its hopes and aspirations? it would be a different story if we had some level of socialist policy to support the mother or take in the unwanted child while still allowing them to become productive members of society capable of seeking their own happiness as well. if we had a competent orphanage system, i would be far more inclined to support a ban on abortions.
I completely recognise what you're saying. And heres where I'm going to be contradictory to myself. I think the world is overpopulated and should have less people. But I believe every person has a right to their life. Say you're a religious person, may you be christian, Mormon, Jewish or whatever. Even if you're a fetus in these religions wouldn't you still have a right to heaven. I'm not personally religious nor do I also have a full opinion on this debate, I just believe in the morality of this.
you are not in care of a human being, you are in the care of a potential human being. I don't think a potential person is the equal of one who is actual with feelings and sensations.
although being a potential isn't nothing, and I'm really unsure on my stance on this debate. however I do have a logistics question. if our orphanage and adoption systems are currently underfunded and neglected, how will they handle the inevitable tidal wave if abortions are banned? if you trully love the children, shouldn't you prepare some infrastructure for their arrival?
That question is irrelevant as you are in care of a human being. you are their sole provider. Its like if someone is on life support but you feel they are causing a negative effect on you, do you have a right to take them off it? I wish the question of abortion could be solved by facts but this is a full on moral debate.
not Hawn can be a relative term. if the woman is trying to go to school, the child could ruin completely destroy her dreams and future.
Also there is issue of choice. if you see someone dying on the side of the road, should you be legally obligated to stop and help?
if their is a life inside a woman and it can and will become a human and will not harm the mother you believe the mother has superiority over another life whether it can live or die?
also, the wording part, my whole brain activity idea would make no sense in reference to life, and by properly labeling it individuality, you won't have to deal with silly "what about tumors" arguments.... so don't underestimate words.
however there is always the potential of humanity argument so I really have no moral justified idea when it happens. I definitely support 1-2 week literal ball of cells abortions, but I past that I have the luxury of not having to make a decision.
wording is important. "becoming alive" is nowhere near an event that happens.
as for an individual, my opinion is it doesn't happen until there is electrical activity in the upper parts of the brain. probably the frontal region of the upper part, but with our cluelessness regarding the brain, best play it safe. until it can feel, process stimuli, and have get a sensation of consciousness, it's not a person no matter how much human DNA it has.
honestly I'm not sure when in the process that happens, but I'd imagine early 3rd trimester. the rest of the body is just the machinery that keeps "you" alive and moves "you" around. "you" are entirely in the brain... and a bit in the gut but that's complicated.
all you did was redefine what I meant. think you can answer it though?
Is it ever not alive? life means little. every cell in your body is alive. What matters is, at what point does the cluster of cells becomes it's own individual.