Abortion

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Sarah, Oct 21, 2003.

?

Is abortion a justified act?

  1. Yes

    44 vote(s)
    53.7%
  2. No

    12 vote(s)
    14.6%
  3. Yes if only the situation threatens the mother and/or child

    26 vote(s)
    31.7%
  1. Anduril

    Anduril Flame of the West

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oxford, U.K.
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Padme. Does that mean you aren't going to listen to my arguments against abortion because I'm a man? As for men not having experienced it, that's irrelevant. If a person I know has a man who has a 5 year old child who is mentally handicapped and doesn't want the burden of taking care of it, I can tell that person he doesn't have a right to kill the child. Even though I don't know what it's like to care for a handicapped child, I won't just say "I don't know what it's like, so I have no right to make a ruling if I'm a judge presiding over this case."

    The real issue is whether or not they are a human being, and Anakin began to raise points on this issue. I put forth that it is whether or not a fetus or embryo has intrinsic value due to our nature that determines whether they have a right to live. In nature, a human starts as an ebryo, then a fetus, then a child then an adolescent and then teen and adult and grows to become an old man or woman. I look nothing like I did as a day old baby, and yet there is a sense that in nature, I am the same person. It's not like that was one person and I am another. It is just that I (that one person) have undergone changes.

    Should consciousness really be the issue that decides? What about when we are asleep? "Well" the pro-choicer would say, "That is different because even when you aren't dreaming, you could immediately awaken." Alright, so what about a person who is comatose? Is it necessary that a person's consciousness be immediately exercisable? If it is, then it would be alright to kill Uncle Jed if he slips into a coma. Perhaps there's people here who want to argue that if consciousness is not immediately exercisable, then it is alright to kill the being. But then they would have to be alright with it even if after one month, Uncle Jed were to reawaken and regain his abilities to think. Most people I know would not want to kill a patient who would eventually recover from the coma.
     
  2. Padmé

    Padmé King in the North & King Anakin's Wench

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    24,259
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Scotland/Belgium
    Ratings:
    +2,707 / 0 / -1
    Comparing a foetus of a few months to a five year old handicapped child is an extreme exaggeration. I do agree that consciousness should be taken into account, and also level of suffering. A rabbit for example is conscious, though not much, but if you hurt it, it will suffer. A bee, it is not conscious, if you pull off a leg of it, it will register that the leg is gone, but it will not 'suffer' in the same way a rabbit would.

    A foetus of three months of being in the womb will not suffer being aborted. I am against any form of suffering, that's why I am against the idea of aborting at 6 months, cause I'm not convinced that it wouldn't suffer. But I do not know for sure.

    And concerning do I think men should not give their opinions? Of course I do, I just don't think men should be the ones to lay down the law and say 'this or that' concerning abortion issues. Because people are totally missing something in all this, focusing only on the foetus, the unborn 'entity' instead of thinking of the woman carrying it. Why does no one take 'her' into consideration? I am more concerned about forcing a woman to have a child she does not want, for whatever reason that may be.
     
  3. Unraveller

    Unraveller <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,128
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    t' hEmerald hOile
    Ratings:
    +62 / 0 / -0
    It take your point Padmé but you haven't answered my question. Would you force a father to have a child he didn't want and provide for it? If you're taking participation in sexual intercourse as engaging into a contract for parenthood (binding the man to the consequences) why should the mother not be equally constrained if the father wants the child? Sure she endures 9 months of pregnancy, but is that that much worse than 18 years of support?
     
  4. Padmé

    Padmé King in the North & King Anakin's Wench

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    24,259
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Scotland/Belgium
    Ratings:
    +2,707 / 0 / -1
    Well personally if I was in a situation that I had a child and the father didn't want anything to do with it, then I wouldn't want anything to do with him, money or anything. I wouldn't force it upon him, I'd just tell him where to go, and I know women who have done that. Even in cases where the father has been forced to pay by the government, often they don't but the mother never went running after them about it.

    I don't think people should be forced into anything concerning this issue. You shouldn't force a woman to have a child she doesn't want, and rightly so if a man didn't want the child then he doesn't have to stick around.

    Also it's not just the father, I might add, who has to support the child for 18 years, the mother has to carry the child THEN support it also....
     
  5. Anduril

    Anduril Flame of the West

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oxford, U.K.
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    You say I exaggerate. The principle applies. In fact, I would be willing to argue that a fetus of a few months is more similar to a mentally handicapped 5 year old than that 5 year old is to a fellow here at Oxford.

    As for taking the woman into consideration, many do. I would not want a law prohibiting a woman from having an abortion in the case of an embryo attached in the fallopian tubes (in which case the mother will die and the child will most certainly die anyways). What I am talking about is an abortion where the woman will not die. I argue that the life of the fetus is more important than nearly anything but the life of the mother.

    You also didn't address my example of dear old Uncle Jed (okay, so I like the Beverly Hillbillies). He would not feel pain if you killed him. Does that make it acceptable?
     
  6. jake1964

    jake1964 Old enough to be your dad

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,712
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +153 / 1 / -1
    I normally steer clear of this thread. But in reading this statement, I feel compelled to point something out.

    For all of time, humans with the strength or power to do so have been inflicting their standards on those willing to let them or those to weak to protest.

    It is as often done with the stated intention of being for their own good, or to protect those unable to do so themselves, as it has occurred through force of superior strength.

    How is this issue any different than age of consent laws, minimum drinking age laws, laws against gambling, prostitution, or drug use?

    These too are examples of standards being inflicted on people by someone else.

    I'm not really taking a side here, I just wanted to point out that as humans, we seem compelled to stick our noses in other folks business.
     
  7. Padmé

    Padmé King in the North & King Anakin's Wench

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    24,259
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Scotland/Belgium
    Ratings:
    +2,707 / 0 / -1
    I said I was against all forms of suffering, so concerning forcing a woman to have a child she does not want, that means she has to carry the child, deliver it and so forth. That can cause a great deal of suffering mentally, which I am totally against, and no one should put a person through that.

    Concerning your Uncle Jed idea, if a person slips into a coma and are not brain dead, then no you should not 'kill them' because they could recover, if a person is in a coma and is 100% brain dead aka would not survive if taken off life support and would forever be in a hospital bed with a machine feeding, breathing for them etc, then I would say to let them die yes. Because there is no purpose to keep that person's body going if the mind is already gone.
     
  8. Anduril

    Anduril Flame of the West

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oxford, U.K.
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    jake,

    Consider if the rest of the world had stepped in earlier to prevent Nazi Germany from preventing the holocaust. I appreciate your concern. I share it, but allow for counterexamples in your comment.

    Padme,

    First of all, these women consent to sex which entails pregnancy. You can bring up rape, and that's a different case. But you're in favor of abortion outside of rape, so it applies here.

    As for Uncle Jed, one cannot always tell. I have a friend who was in a car accident, and the doctors said that if he awakened, then he would be in a persistent vegetative state. One cannot always know what's going to happen.

    But to get to the point, you said if he would recover, then one should not kill him. You seem to place his value on the fact that he will gain these abilities, that they are intrinsic to nature even if not currently accessible. Why then kill a child for whom also these abilities are intrinsic to nature even if not currently accessible?
     
  9. Padmé

    Padmé King in the North & King Anakin's Wench

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    24,259
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Scotland/Belgium
    Ratings:
    +2,707 / 0 / -1
    Well concerning drug use, I would follow more what is going on in Sweden, Norway and such, they have a far better approach than many countries in Europe and America that's for sure. And concerning drinking and such, it is not banning anything. I said I was against banning abortion, what does this have to do with minimum age requirements? Though I certainly have some things to say about those too but that's not of this topic.

    I just think it is wrong to tell a woman she has to carry a child she does not want. As I said, I would not hesitate to have an abortion if I felt it was necessary, I would not loose any sleep over it. Although I don't think I would ever have one, but I would not have any issues with it. And certainly I don't have problems with others going through it. It's their choice, and no one has the right to take that away from them. And this statement is related to abortion, may I remind, and cannot be compared to any other topic. I'm just talking about abortion. If you want to ask my opinion on minimum age requirements and such then I have no problem answering :)
     
  10. Padmé

    Padmé King in the North & King Anakin's Wench

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    24,259
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Scotland/Belgium
    Ratings:
    +2,707 / 0 / -1
    Again you are focusing too much on the unborn foetus and not enough on the mother. I don't care how a woman gets pregnant, one night stand, rape, sex with a partner or husband. Does not matter how, it is her choice to abort it if she chooses. Do you think in the way that, well she had sex so she should be made to deal with the consequences of what she has involved herself in? That's not very nice is it, slight hint of revenge under the skin of that isn't there. She should be made to 'pay' for her actions. Well sorry I don't like that mentality one bit. Abortion is taking responsibility of the consequences, it's just one form of action.

    Like I said concerning Uncle Jed, if it was 100% certain he would be a vegetable for the rest of his days then he should be allowed to die naturally. I don't mean, he's been in a coma a week, okay we tried, pull the plug lol I mean I've heard cases of people being in comas for years, doctors telling their families that there is nothing they can do but STILL they keep them going. That I am against completely.
     
  11. Anduril

    Anduril Flame of the West

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oxford, U.K.
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    1st as for the mother deciding. Would say that if a mother doesn't want the discomfort and burden of raising the child that she can kill it when it is a year old? Maybe she didn't know how much it would cost her financially. Maybe the child turned out to be more burdensome.

    I can guess you're going to say no. You'll argue that there's a big difference between a fetus of a few months (or weeks) and baby of one year. I'm arguing there's no difference that makes the former less valuable and less entailed to human rights.

    2nd. As for Uncle Jed, you didn't answer my argument. Here's what I proposed.

     
  12. Padmé

    Padmé King in the North & King Anakin's Wench

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    24,259
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Scotland/Belgium
    Ratings:
    +2,707 / 0 / -1
    Killing a one year old baby is completely different than destroying a cluster of cells, come on be serious....

    I already answered your second point Anduril, but seems you didn't realize. Also, you cannot call a 3 month old foetus a 'child' that's why they call it a foetus/ embryo.
     
  13. Anakin

    Anakin King of TFF

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    35,115
    Likes Received:
    2,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +3,120 / 3 / -0
    I think this is a pretty pointless debate, since we share a different opinion of what is 'human'...
     
  14. Anduril

    Anduril Flame of the West

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oxford, U.K.
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    I am completely serious. You have not told me how it is different. You simply say it is. I asked what makes it wrong to kill a person in a coma with no consciousness who will gain abilities and it is not wrong to kill an entity who is of the human species who will also gain the abilities.

    You are simply giving brute facts without explanation. You say I cannot call it a child. Why not? What is the ontological difference?

    Where is the line when it would be wrong to kill it? Some argue 14 days because that's when the cells become more specialized. Some even say that months after a child is born it is permissible to kill it because it cannot communicate and that makes it human.
     
  15. Padmé

    Padmé King in the North & King Anakin's Wench

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    24,259
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Scotland/Belgium
    Ratings:
    +2,707 / 0 / -1
    Well to speak of these 'abilities' is a bit ridiculous. Does this mean that I should have a child every year? Because well if I didn't, then all these children with 'abilities' would not exist if I didn't otherwise? So not having a child a year would mean taking a life a year? *gasp* Just getting into ridiculous territory with that aspect. I don't care what abilities these unseen children could have, I'll have a child when I am ready, it is only fair on the child. Anakin and I are together, we could have a child now but I choose to wait. Because I've seen too many mothers and fathers taking out their frustration, the fact that their life has been 'wasted' on having children they were not ready for or didn't want. So I will wait until I have done everything I want to do on my own, then when I have a child I will devote all my life to it.

    A foetus can only exist in the womb, taken out of the womb it would die. A baby or child born from 6-7 months onwards can breath and survive outside of the womb. That's why they have name differences Anduril..... And that's what matters.
     
  16. Anakin

    Anakin King of TFF

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    35,115
    Likes Received:
    2,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +3,120 / 3 / -0
    Killing a person in a coma would be wrong, cause he was alive and he experienced life, so killing him would be taking the chance away to regain that life. Of course after years in a coma it becomes rather hopeless and the chances that he (or she) gets that life back really become small, so I don't think it's wrong to let the person in question die.

    An embryo or a foetus, did not experience the same, it didn't even have any realization of what life is, so you're not taking anything away from it. So letting it die is totally different.
     
  17. Anduril

    Anduril Flame of the West

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oxford, U.K.
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Padme. There is a huge difference between preventing a human life and taking a human life. Christopher Hitchens writes about how preborn babies are human beings. Now, he has an issue with Roman Catholics who argue that contraception is the same as abortion. You're right that that is ludicrous. But you're missing the point. You are killing a form of life. You might not believe it to be human. It's ridiculous to say that a sperm has intrinsic ability. Well maybe it can swim a bit, but it doesn't have the intrinsic ability to read and write. Once it joins with an egg, it's not a sperm anymore. It is something else that will (if allowed) develop into a mature, adult person. I hope we got this cleared up.

    Okay, so you're taking the viability argument. You say that since a fetus is not viable until a certain point, it is not a person. This too fails, and here's why.

    A newborn is not truly viable. Do you know that studies have been done to show that children do not survive if separated from its mother? Even if it has food and warmth and sleep, it needs the body of its mother to live. Perhaps we should extend the point of viability to when they no longer need the touch of their mother. And there's also degrees. A toddler would die on its own. In fact, the baby moves from requiring passive care to active care! In that sense, the baby is even more dependent and less human.

    This still doesn't get around my example of Uncle Jed (who will recover after a few months) and currently needs a feeding tube as well as care for warmth.

    Anakin, we can change that example of Uncle Jed so that he no longer has memories. Those memories aren't there anymore, and in that sense he is in exactly the same position as an unborn fetus. Would it still be wrong to kill him?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2008
  18. Padmé

    Padmé King in the North & King Anakin's Wench

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    24,259
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Scotland/Belgium
    Ratings:
    +2,707 / 0 / -1
    No you are wrong, I do believe a foetus to be human, of course I do. But I still stand by what I have said before.

    Concerning a baby being separated from it's mother dying, yes I know about this very well as I have used it in concerns of consciousness. Because a child has to be nurtured and cared for, and then taught how to survive, like lions, rabbits, monkeys etc etc But that doesn't change my opinion about destroying a foetus. If I had a baby in my arms, I would care for it. A foetus the size of my finger nail, sorry but it is not the same thing.

    Again, I am talking about the right of women. Should women be allowed to abort, yes. If I discovered I was pregnant right now, would I abort? No, but I'd consider it. Why? Not because of how I feel about it but because of how our families might react on it. I can't see myself ever having an abortion, but if I felt it was necessary for one reason or another then I would. That's my right, and I would not take it away from anyone else either.

    Concerning the Uncle Jed thing, I am totally for Euthanasia so I think you should understand my stance on all of that.
     
  19. Cymoril

    Cymoril New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    I thought Obama had a good answer on that during the last debate. Prevention should be the focus. We need to support women who make the hard decision to keep those babies and work harder to enable young women to make the right choices before they wind up with an unwanted pregnancy. The Catholic Church is not helping matters, are they? And this is coming from a practicing Catholic...yikes...anyway, I got an issue of "Florida Catholic" at Mass last night and the bishops issued a letter telling us that we cannot vote for people who support policies that KILL. So then, I can't vote for either candidate. McCain supports capital punishment, so....they don't see the hypocrisy, do they? OK, I've gone off on a tangent again...
     
  20. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0
    I believe abortion should be allowed to a certain date of development, not as long as it is now though.
    However, as Unraveller said, it shouldn't be the woman's choice alone.
    Because, if society asks fathers to do the responsible thing regarding the 'accident', then they should have the same rights which come with such responsabilites.
    So i say that a father should have the right to choose as much as the mother does, no discrimination, if we're equal, then we're equal in everything, and not yes in some, and not in others, as it seems to be now.
     
Search tags for this page

abortion fantasy