Abortion

[catperson55]

Originally Posted by Arkantos

I really don't see how you can class something which doesn't even think and isn't fully formed as living and worthy of ruining someone's life for, especially since it can't even live of its own accord.
Also, the world is overpopulated, we could use more abortions, we only need enough children to maintain our dependancy ratios at a manageable level.

some ppl love trollin' ya know ._.

obviously they have no sense of logic

but hey they r free to do what they want to do ofc in the world of internet >_>

[Arkantos]

Originally Posted by Grabacr8492

Right, because thinking for an embryo can be defined in the same parameters as those for an adult human......how does that make sense?

What have adult humans got to do with anything? The embryo is incapable of doing anything that defines it as a functional living being.

Originally Posted by Grabacr8492

Ok, babies can't live of their own accord either. Should we kill them too?

Babies can live of their own accord, they don't require a host to breath, pump blood etc, they only require food, air & drink and can process it without help, like all living beings. Many adults would be just as useless as a baby if society crumbled, in regards to giving themselves nurishment.

Originally Posted by Grabacr8492

You're missing the point. It's part of the human life-cycle. Humans start as a human embryo, grow into a baby inside the mother's womb, and continue growing as a human outside the mother's body.

What point am I missing? You wouldn't call an lonely engine a car would you, despite the fact that it's part of the car creation cycle. So why would an embyro be worthy of ruining a humans life for?
Also, if you care about that stuff so much, then why do you eat eggs, meat or w/e, are humans worth more than other living creatures?

Originally Posted by Grabacr8492

World over-populated? Boy, the sahara desert looks awfully empty to me. And the northern reaches of Canada? Yep, pretty empty. Amazon rainforest? still pretty empty of human civilization. So what if the environments are inhospitable right now? "Right now" being the key words. There's plenty of earth left, humans just need to invent the tech to live in those parts of the world, which we will do, eventually. How about under the ocean too? Afterall, water covers 70% of the earth's surface. Science fiction? for now, but if humans work at it, we could inhabit those areas of the world.

So you think that humans should just take precedence over all living beings? We should just go flatten everything, kill off all other species should we?
It's that kind of selifish thinking that has caused the period we've existed in to be classed as a mass extinction by many scientists.

Also, you're missing the point, the problem with overpopulation has nothing to do with the space we take up, we can just build upwards, but it's to do with the Earth's ability to sustain us and our own ability to maintain a working society without vast levels of unemployment, corruption, crime, starvation etc.
Frankly, I don't want to see an Earth looking like Coruscant.

[tritone21]

Most of you come to the presumption that members who are against abortion are religious. There are many valid arguments being dismissed simply because the person is a male or of religious faith.

[reckoner27]

Originally Posted by Grabacr8492

Right, because thinking for an embryo can be defined in the same parameters as those for an adult human......how does that make sense?

Ok, babies can't live of their own accord either. Should we kill them too?

You're missing the point. It's part of the human life-cycle. Humans start as a human embryo, grow into a baby inside the mother's womb, and continue growing as a human outside the mother's body.

World over-populated? Boy, the sahara desert looks awfully empty to me. And the northern reaches of Canada? Yep, pretty empty. Amazon rainforest? still pretty empty of human civilization. So what if the environments are inhospitable right now? "Right now" being the key words. There's plenty of earth left, humans just need to invent the tech to live in those parts of the world, which we will do, eventually. How about under the ocean too? Afterall, water covers 70% of the earth's surface. Science fiction? for now, but if humans work at it, we could inhabit those areas of the world.

im sorry but we are talking about places where people could actually live!!
...
im dont think abortion should be the solution for world over population
since its not all about the number we are more than the ressources that are wrongly distributed, which make it seems like over populated.... and leads to great injustice...
but seriously, the rain forest should remain one of the rare ecosysteme where human isnt overpresent (yet) since it protects so many species of animals and vetegals
north of canada i mean.. seriously, its way way to cold and only Inuits are there and they have great problems since they dont have their way of life anymore because of occidental population and laws that make them aside of the population, fall into drugs and alcolism and have many diabetes problem because the way we live are so different.. so.. just putting people over there just because its "empty" would be quite hard thing to do...
im going way off topic now... but well.. just be carefull when you say that we could put human everywhere since its not true, we need a minimum of ressources to actually live somewhere.... =_=

now about abortion
i think loote explained quite well most of the point im trying to say since the begining of the thread

and for those who think abortion is like a murder and that woman that chose, too their own belief that it was the best choice for them, that they are murderer
well i'd like you to really re think this since it is awefully terrible to compare someone that remove a foetus vs someone that kill an actual living and borned totally formed human being with memories, values, choices, rights, taste, friends, families, interest, etc etc
im sorry but its so not the same!!!!

[Godless]

i wanna apologise for my earlier statements, it just irritates me to see ppl Calling this women murderers, and since this ppl have the audacity to tell this girls what to do, I Found myself doing the same shit, telling ppl what to do..

Truth is i understand both sides, even though i choose one..

but why can it be, that some ppl are FOR abortion and others AREN'T?

ppl think differently about all sort of things, it doesn't mean that with effort we can't all get along.. ^_^

[xVV]

What a fascinating debate, I'm bummed that I've been away for some time.

I wouldn't ever consider an abortion myself. I don't have some great morals or anything like that, it's just not a choice I could make myself.
I think though that it's a choice anyone can make themselves.
Especially women, as they have the final say and thus bear a majority of the burden.

There should be a platform in between pro life and pro choice.

[Jovznpan]

guys really don't make the decision now bout abortion u need to really experience it first trust me u will regret ur choice...

[skypiercer]

Those of you who are against abortion, please take into consideration of this situation. What if a doctor medically prove that there is something wrong with a woman's unborn child. That if the child were to be born, the child would not have legs or eyes...or even sexual organs. Would you still choose not to abort the unborn child? When you know that if the child were to be born, that child will suffer. Will you still decline to abort the unborn child?

Those of you that supports abortion. What about a situation where a wealthy woman is impregnated but want to abort it because it will affect her reputation. Or even a situation where at first a woman decided that she wanted a baby and get pregnant but decide later that she don't want to have a baby anymore and decides to abort it. Will you still feel like you will allow this woman to abort the child?

[loote]

Originally Posted by OldGrumpyBear

This seems like treating the new life form that's created as a mistake to be erased instead of taking responsibility for a person's actions. Like I've said before, I personally can't condone abortion as an option if I'm one of the partners involved. I've made my peace with abortion being legal, but I don't have to like it or practice it myself. As long as I don't have to pay for it, it's not my business. If it happens in my personal life, that is my business.

I didn't mean it simply as erasing a mistake. But being responsible doesn't just require a woman to take one course of action especially when other options are available. I don't believe that most most women who have abortions haven't considered other possible outcomes for their pregnancies. There are family, peer, and societal pressures on young women and teenage girls about motherhood and how they may be viewed. There are many arguments about how young teen mothers are a burden on society, or they're murderers if the choose to abort a pregnancy. As distressing as abortion can be it can be even more-so when you feel vilified and despised by the those who condemn your actions.

On a side note, I understand your view. My own position is very much in conflict with my Catholic upbringing. I've been arguing this (not so tirelessly) for over 15 years and I've long given up on changing peoples' opinions. Now I'm just happy if I manage to soften them a tad.

Originally Posted by Grabacr8492

World over-populated? Boy, the sahara desert looks awfully empty to me. And the northern reaches of Canada? Yep, pretty empty. Amazon rainforest? still pretty empty of human civilization. So what if the environments are inhospitable right now? "Right now" being the key words. There's plenty of earth left, humans just need to invent the tech to live in those parts of the world, which we will do, eventually. How about under the ocean too? Afterall, water covers 70% of the earth's surface. Science fiction? for now, but if humans work at it, we could inhabit those areas of the world.

Yes there's plenty of space, most of which we can't use yet, as you've pointed out. Right now about a quarter of visible landmass is useful. I could certainly see the possibility of the earth sustaining billions more humans, but to the detriment of other species. By all means disrupt the oceans ecosystems and build underwater colonies. Who needs a rainforest, we'll probably have developed the tech to convert the carbon dioxide to oxygen. No need for animals as we'll be eating engineered foods. And if you want some nature we'll probably have a computer simulation for that.

[tritone21]

Originally Posted by skypiercer

Those of you who are against abortion, please take into consideration of this situation. What if a doctor medically prove that there is something wrong with a woman's unborn child. That if the child were to be born, the child would not have legs or eyes...or even sexual organs. Would you still choose not to abort the unborn child? When you know that if the child were to be born, that child will suffer. Will you still decline to abort the unborn child?

Yes, abortion would not be a considerate choice. You are assuming that children who are born without a limb or blind would automatically suffer. There are a number of cases that those children have grown up quite happy despite their disadvantage.
A good friend of mine was born without any legs. He told me that the doctor told his mom about the possible complications of giving birth to him. Thanks to his father, his mother did not go through with an abortion. He thanks god everyday (Yeah his religious, so what!) that he was giving a chance to LIVE. Has it been hard for him? At times... Has he suffer for it day to day? Not at all...
Speculative conclusions have no meaning in the real world, skypiercer. Why don't you try to get to know one of your peers who lives with a disadvantange and see for yourself how their life turned out?