Poll: Abortion

[Teto 2609]

What about incest? That's a disgusting subject. If you get pregnant from incest (sickos), then abortion should be mandatory. Because if they're born they would end up like my avatar.

[ZuZu 10]

The world is over populated as it is, it wouldn't do any good to bring a new baby into the world if you cant provide for it, and putting it up for adoption isn't helping the problem its just shifting it onto some one else. Adoption agencies are usually full as there are more babies being put up for adoption than people adopting.

Its easy to practice safe sex and all that but still things go wrong. The number of times ive had pregnancy scares after using contraceptives.. you'd be suprised thats all im gonna say... The safest way is to use two or more forms of contraceptions (say Pill + Condom) but there is always that possibility as both only protect about 98-99%.

[Chameleon 0]

Quite frankly, if you can't handle the responsibilities that come with a baby, you really can't be ready for sex. To be ready for one you must be ready for both.

Sex and reproduction are now seperate things. It's just modern society. I know you are against sex before marriage but a lot of people aren't. Now, abortion isn't the only option, nor is it necessarily the right one. I'm just saying people can have sex even though they don't want a baby. Though they should keep in mind the possibility the girl may accidentally get pregnant.

[Teto 2609]

I've seen too many sitcoms to take the risk. It's poisoned me. Oh well. But still. Abortion isn't right actually. You can't just say, 'No, I don't want this.', and just say the word and have it done. You shouldn't have the right to choose whether it lives or dies. And I'm beginning to agree with Shadowknight. In the moral sense it shouldn't be allowed.

[Aatch 0]

Nice to see I'm not the only one around here capable of forming a logical argument.

I would like to quickly point out that the argument set out in my first post is not neccesarily my personal opinion. I would not get an abortion. But that's not my argument. Nor is that the poll.

Making abortion illegal goes against a standard that many countries strive for; personal freedom.

How would you like it if somebody in an office, with no idea what you're going through, not even capable of imagining your situation, decided that you cant have an abortion?

Many laws are designed to protect us. From one another, from ourselves. Homocide laws protect us from others, drug use laws protect us from ourselves. But an Abortion law would only protect the minds of the religious. As an atheist, living in a predominantly religious world, I strongly disagree with politics being led with religion. I disagree with notion that the strongest group should impose its own laws freely.

Many of you are basing your opinions on a religious point. But when the world contains so many different religions and religious viewpoints, its purely unethical to decide that, that should be law.

My basic argument is that abortion should be a personal choice, guided by a set of rules, ones that retain freedom without allowing outright murder. The blob of cells I was referring to in my first post contains ~35 cells. 35 cells is not a human being.

I do not wish to get into the whole "Sex before marriage argument" that is something for another topic.

[Gingerlink 2]

/\ +1 ditto

As I have absolutely nothing else to add.

[Ganny 285]

Making abortion illegal goes against a standard that many countries strive for; personal freedom.

How would you like it if somebody in an office, with no idea what you're going through, not even capable of imagining your situation, decided that you cant have an abortion?

Many laws are designed to protect us. From one another, from ourselves. Homocide laws protect us from others, drug use laws protect us from ourselves. But an Abortion law would only protect the minds of the religious. As an atheist, living in a predominantly religious world, I strongly disagree with politics being led with religion. I disagree with notion that the strongest group should impose its own laws freely.

I'm sure we'd all agree that the most weighty and pertinent argument here is whether or not life begins at conception, since whatever stance one takes on that issue generally dictates how that one would consider abortion as a whole, correct?

From my standpoint, what you just said is equivalent to: "Who is the government to keep us from killing? Just because the largest group thinks that we shouldn't be able to murder doesn't mean that this should be the law. Some countries are striving for the freedom to kill whomever they choose."

Because, really, if we want to attain complete freedom, we should be able to do whatever we feel. Let's say I want to cut your ear off. If I'm not allowed to, that is a restriction on my freedom. I have my rights to freedom, and I want to cut your ear off. Why should I not be allowed to? I should be able to do whatever I please as a result of my complete freedom, and if you don't allow me to, you're obviously in outright opposition to my rights.

Even if you don't consider it to be human yet, isn't a human's embryo more valuable than an ear?

Many of you are basing your opinions on a religious point. But when the world contains so many different religions and religious viewpoints, its purely unethical to decide that, that should be law.

This is why I haven't included any religious points in any of my arguments. The words "God," "Jesus," or even "soul" have remained absent from my posts; I'm very well aware that not everybody's a Christian, and I'm perfectly fine with that. But I'm going to use an analogy again. Let's say we live in a society made of two groups, the group For Stomach Rippings, and the group Against Stomach Rippings (I'm pretty sure we may all be able to figure what each believes- For Stomach Rippings believes that people should be able to rip the stomach out of whomever they wish, and Against Stomach Rippings believes that nobody should be allowed to rip out anybody's stomach). Society is composed mostly of Against Stomach Rippings. Should ripping out stomachs be against the law? Of course, right? Because ripping out stomachs is just an odd and ridiculous thing to do, regardless of those who want to rip them out.

35 cells is not a human being.

36 cells is a human being, then?

[Zeldafan 2]

The first post says it all! Anything else is, leftovers.

[Chameleon 0]

From my standpoint, what you just said is equivalent to: "Who is the government to keep us from killing? Just because the largest group thinks that we shouldn't be able to murder doesn't mean that this should be the law. Some countries are striving for the freedom to kill whomever they choose."

Because, really, if we want to attain complete freedom, we should be able to do whatever we feel. Let's say I want to cut your ear off. If I'm not allowed to, that is a restriction on my freedom. I have my rights to freedom, and I want to cut your ear off. Why should I not be allowed to? I should be able to do whatever I please as a result of my complete freedom, and if you don't allow me to, you're obviously in outright opposition to my rights.

Even if you don't consider it to be human yet, isn't a human's embryo more valuable than an ear?

No. That's not a good arguement. Obviously your view that abortion is wrong is justified in other terms, but not here. There is a very thin line between wether or not "life begins at conception". That "thin line" means there is no clear definition of wether or not it's murder. Though it's extraordinarily definite that shooting a 30-year-old man in the face is murder.

36 cells is a human being, then?

Again, it's a thin line...

[DungeonMaster 0]

It's all well and good if you have your own opinions but when you force it on others, then it beceoms a problem, you claim moral superiority HOWEVER, i believe that it is immoral to force your opinions on others just because they don't believe it, i accept anyone elses religious beliefs as long as it's unthreatening.

More to the point:

Abortion: Whatever you make it, people will still abort, it is not as black and white as saying "if you don't want babies, don't have sex" Because the condom might break and the girl might possibly get pregnant. You don't want your life overturned or a crying wreck of an ex girlfriend because you persuaded her to do it(directly or undirectly) However with the arguement "oh it might be a president" etc, In that sense then, i am killing off potential world changers everytime i fap. But you don't see protesters going "Everytime you masturbate, you kill people who may change the world" do you? No. However the same point(the rally protesters) can be made for abortion; since it's the more known.

I believe Abortion is going to happen in any case, making it illegal doesn't solve the problem. It only makes some old guy on a chair more happy. People might be more considerate, people might revolt. I think they daren't rish it. It's also not me to take one side or another, seeing as i'm male and the direct affectee is female, i can't side with pro choice or pro-life, The mothers also have choice over their own body, and seeing as the fetus has not yet been developed it cannot be murder since there is no conciousness, sure it's a preventive of life but not Murder.

And the laws are there for our protection, i could simply go up to you, steal a high powered sniper rifle and kill you without reprecussions, but chaos would ensue since people can do whatever they want. Which while, it is true freedom, it is not a good freedom

(other point)

And no ZuZu, our planet isn't overpopulated, since there's still plenty of space to go around.

[Chameleon 0]

our planet isn't overpopulated, since there's still plenty of space to go around.

I totally support everything you just said except for this; which doesn't matter much anyway. Space is not the only factor in overpupulation. Resources are also a very large concern.

[Ganny 285]

No. That's not a good arguement. Obviously your view that abortion is wrong is justified in other terms, but not here. There is a very thin line between wether or not "life begins at conception". That "thin line" means there is no clear definition of wether or not it's murder. Though it's extraordinarily definite that shooting a 30-year-old man in the face is murder.

I'd like to know more about this "thin line," then. My personal view, as previously stated, is that human life begins at the fusion of the male and female reproductive cells; now where is this line, again?

(No arrogance or anything was intended here, etc., I'm being sincere)

Killing an embryo should be just as definite as killing a thirty-year-old man- the embryo is no less human than that man is. An infant at a week old would have no more consciousness than the fetus in the womb, and reversely, the fetus in the womb has just as much consciousness as the infant.

[Chameleon 0]

I'd like to know more about this "thin line," then. My personal view, as previously stated, is that human life begins at the fusion of the male and female reproductive cells; now where is this line, again?

(No arrogance or anything was intended here, etc., I'm being sincere)

Killing an embryo should be just as definite as killing a thirty-year-old man- the embryo is no less human than that man is. An infant at a week old would have no more consciousness than the fetus in the womb, and reversely, the fetus in the womb has just as much consciousness as the infant.

Maybe it's not a thin line to you, but this is a matter of opinion. Certainly there is life at conception (nobody should deny that...), just as a bacteria cell is alive. Obviously it's human, too; it's being composed of the same cells. It's just that some people don't see it as a valid form of life. Although, you have to realize not all pro-abortinists believe that; a lot of them believe it should only be excusable when neccessary (although "neccessary" is also up for definition).

I don't see why anti-abortionists aren't concerned about life support being pulled on people in comas and such. Going by the way you are arguing this, isn't that the same thing?

[Shadowknight 54]

Once again, g333 has stataed my argument for me.

Anyway, cutting life support is way different than abortion. An unborn baby has the opportunity to go somewhere in life. They have a future ahead of them. The patient that has been in a coma for years and lies in the hospital in a vegitative state, however, doesn't have a future ahead of them. They are done in this world.

Basically, abortion is killing the baby. Everybody has the chance to be great unless they aren't born. By depriving the baby of life you are depriving it of that chance. If a mother has an abortion because the pregnancy was unwanted, she is being selfish beyond belief. Taking a life because it isn't convenient for you? Sounds like murder to me.

[Chameleon 0]

Once again, g333 has stataed my argument for me.

Anyway, cutting life support is way different than abortion. An unborn baby has the opportunity to go somewhere in life. They have a future ahead of them. The patient that has been in a coma for years and lies in the hospital in a vegitative state, however, doesn't have a future ahead of them. They are done in this world.

Basically, abortion is killing the baby. Everybody has the chance to be great unless they aren't born. By depriving the baby of life you are depriving it of that chance. If a mother has an abortion because the pregnancy was unwanted, she is being selfish beyond belief. Taking a life because it isn't convenient for you? Sounds like murder to me.

Plenty of people have been cut from life support who still had a chance of recovering and having a brilliant future ahead of them. Certainly there are some circumstances that are different, but I don't see how it's that different. You're still killing someone.