• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Abortion (enter at your own risk)

Abortion (enter at your own risk)

  • Anti-Abortion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2

Dr. Woo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
1,134
Location
Virginia
Car(s)
2008 VW .:R32
I assume you mean abortion. I'm not a big fan of abortion, but I'm not against it either, when a woman/girl KNOWS she can't take care of here baby and she knows the baby is gonna have a misserable life, then that's here decision, but when you say "does she have the right to decide over someone else's life, I agree with you too...
 
Jostyrostelli said:
I assume you mean abortion. I'm not a big fan of abortion, but I'm not against it either, when a woman/girl KNOWS she can't take care of here baby and she knows the baby is gonna have a misserable life, then that's here decision, but when you say "does she have the right to decide over someone else's life, I agree with you too...
I support a woman's right to choose simply because NOBODY should have a say over what happens to a woman's body (ESPECIALLY the government) except that woman.

But yes, I meant abortion...among other things that some other countries (such as those not part of the U.N.) do.
 
I was actually talking about how Dutch doctors have been killing babies that are born with serious medical problems.

For me the decision is when the partners have sex (there is a known risk). I can't understand why the man and woman are both expected to take care of a child, but the man has no say on whether or not the child lives. Anyways, it's a difficult topic...
 
The main reason why I would "support" (don't know the right word for it) would be if a girl was raped.

UKD: I see your point, but the main reason I guess, if a man wants the child but the woman doesn't want it, than she would be carrying it without wanting it.
I don't think a man has the right to say that a woman should keep a baby because he wants it so bad.
 
Wow, already split it...I made a thread, that can be removed I'll copy my post...

I thought it was interesting enough to proceed the discussion.
I first wanted to add a poll, but since neither of us will have the exact same opinion...

I think it should be legal in every country (can't think of a reason/country were it shouldn't, could change my mind)
And for this reason: When a girl decides to have an abortion, she wouldn't do that just for fun, I assume she would have thought about. There are strict regulations for abortion, for instance: you have to be less than 22 weeks pregnant, after that you can't have an abortion. So if people say "Then people won't be careful anymore because they can just remove the baby, oh happy happy joy". I know a girl who was in this situation and it's not fun, I can garrantee you that. It's a very hard decision to say "I don't want my baby to be born". People in poor countries should have that choice too, or maybe have more/cheaper condoms or whatever, but that's another discussion.
Find it kinda hard to just make a story of my own and say what I think, so what do you think?
 
Jostyrostelli said:
The main reason why I would "support" (don't know the right word for it) would be if a girl was raped.

UKD: I see your point, but the main reason I guess, if a man wants the child but the woman doesn't want it, than she would be carrying it without wanting it.
I don't think a man has the right to say that a woman should keep a baby because he wants it so bad.

The rape scenario is the most difficult for me to decide, but I would still be against it because two wrongs don't make a right. I would say the best option would be to put the child up for adoption if the mother doesn't want a baby. It's tempting to think that aborting the child would make the rape less severe.

On the other subject, the genetic material of the child is just as much the man's as the women's and although the child is in the mother, it still "belongs" to them both. There is definately a double standard though, because abortion considers the child the mother's until the child is born.

What I can't understand is the why the morning after pill is coming under such fire. I would rather the kid is killed the next day when it is just a few cells than when it is close to being fully formed.

I need a break. 8)
 
I'm not quite sure if adoption is a better option then abortion.
Picture this: a girl gets raped at age 16, she finds out she's pregnant and knows she can't take care of it, she's still on school, doesn't work, and is still a child herself.
Now as you said she could give it for adoption, but then she will have to give birth to a child at her 16th/17th and she will "give it away". That sounds pretty traumatic if you ask me, I couldn't do that.

The abortion isn't there to kill the "pain" from the rape, if she doesn't want a baby, what should she do? If she HAS to keep it, because abortion is illegal and you'll go to jail or whatever, she has to raise a baby when she'll probably won't be ready for that.

Another thing: don't know if it has to do with religion for some people to be against abortion, but what about adoption then? Is, "giving away" your child allowed, while removing it isn't ?

ps. Not being disrespecfull with "giving it away" but can't come up with better words for it.
 
The rape scenario is terrible either way - but I guess it depends on how you consider abortion. If (like me) you consider abortion to be tantamount to murder then it is never an acceptable option.

If I was a young pregnant girl I would prefer to give my child to a couple that would raise, care for, and love the child (especially if they were unable to have one themselves) then to kill the baby.

It all goes against my nature though, because I prefer minimal government interference, but in some cases it is beneficial.
 
If I was a young pregnant girl I would prefer to give my child to a couple that would raise, care for, and love the child (especially if they were unable to have one themselves) then to kill the baby.

It all goes against my nature though, because I prefer minimal government interference, but in some cases it is beneficial.

That's an interesting opinion.
You said you would give your child to a couple that would raise it, it still is guessing how it would be, but what if you knew, do you think you could easily do that?
I think if a baby grows for, what is it, 12 months, inside you, you get attached to it, in whatever way, so you're still 16 and you give your baby away at 17. Later, when you are 30 or whatever, you think "what happened to him/her", same with the child, he/she may want to know who his biological parents are. Now I'm getting more to: Is adoption a good thing, but it has a certain connection.

Another thing: "Kill the baby", it's totally not like that. The embryo isn't fully grown and, if you really think that the embryo can feel the abortion, it's 22 weeks old at max!
 
^ A baby takes 9 months Josty. :unsure:

I guess even doctors argue about how developed the baby is when an abortion takes place. It's a judgement call.

Adoption is another issue, but even though there is some emotional baggage that goes along with it, I think it is a good thing.

Don't get me wrong though, it's a tough call either way, I understand the other point of view.
 
Good issues raised here...

me personally, I am pro choice. I just believe that it is no business of mine to tell someone they have to have a child they do not want. Just because I might think that it's murder ( I don't) who am I to force my beliefs onto someone else?

Also a very extreme example for you to ponder, let's say abortion is illegal and no one is allowed to have it. A woman gets raped and her life would be endagered by carrying the child to full term and having it (perfectly possible in some cases), what then? Potetionally kill the woman just bcause she has to have the baby.
 
Good point there. You can't force a woman to have a child if she doesn't want it.
It is ignorant to think you can prevent it (girls getting pregnant when they don't want to) by making a law that makes abortion illegal. That is the thing that bothers me.
I don't want that bureaucratic government to interferre in people's life. Accidents and crime happen, no matter what you do. I can't really compare it to something else but you can't just think a law will prevent girls from getting unwantedly pregnant.
 
I always was pro choice but recently I've read that we have about 300.000 abortions per year in Germany. This high number didn't made me change my mind but the conclusion I drew for myself is that there must be a relatively high percentage of cases where women choose career or other minor or at least non existence/psyche threatening circumstances over a child.
It is at least alarming that we live in country that motivates people to choose personal motives over the life of a child or children in general.
 
muumipeikko said:
Good issues raised here...

I just believe that it is no business of mine to tell someone they have to have a child they do not want. Just because I might think that it's murder ( I don't) who am I to force my beliefs onto someone else?

Consider this from the point of view of someone who does consider it murder (the same as murdering someone) - then it would be like saying it's not my business to determine whether or not someone should murder someone else.

Think of it like this - abortion is the same as killing a baby except that it is inside a woman, and it won't be born for a few months. Does the time or location of the murder of the baby really make a difference? There really is very little difference between abortion and killing a baby once it is born.
 
There really is very little difference between abortion and killing a baby once it is born.

I think you are crossing my lines there. When you kill a baby once it's born, you kill a fully developed person (as far as it gets at 0 days), when you have an abortion, I don't know how you say it, but I don't see it as murder, you remove an embryo, I don't know that much about human life and what happens at what week, so can't tell you if, at 22 weeks the baby is actually a "baby", but as far as I know it isn't so I don't see it as murder, just as removing for a better life for the mother (and maybe the child too)
 
I wasn't speaking strictly about the actual development/form of the unborn baby, I was trying to make the point that if the same act was committed a few months later then it would be considered murder. Therefore the difference between abortion and murder is a few months.

Consider your life as a timeline that starts at your conception. Why is it that six months along the start of the timeline is fair game, but if someone killed you six months before you turned ten it would be different?

It could be argued that since a child cannot speak before they are 14 months old, they are not fully developed and can still be killed.
 
I totally get your point. Especially why the 6 months is the line. I think that is a moral question, which I can answer, but that's my opinion. I guess it's the same with animals.

Why don't people care about ants and flies we kill, but when a dog gets hit by a car, that's horrible all of a sudden. We kill rats and don't mind toxicating them, but hamsters are sweet and nice and you don't kill them. It's all in the mind, you can much easilier take an embryo outof a womens body and get rid of it than getting a full-grown baby out of it and getting rid of that.
 
Top