Abortion?

Negative cyborg Shredder. If it is not too bold to say, I think you have become a bit too presumptuous in your reasoning. Logic is not always the answer, posting impertinent one-liners here and there won't get you anywhere on issues of the heart. There are people far more intelligent than us, who also have debated this issue, and it remains a conundrum. It requires something more than cold-calculating logic, it requires agreement. Agreement is not always attainable through logic, as you can see many people in this World are very set in their irrational ways of thought.

It is a womans issue to be resolved by women, whom possess ovaries.

 

If logic isn't the answer, does it follow that something illogical is the answer?

"They can't resolve it, so that must mean that you are wrong, and that it's unresolvable."

The only reason that it hasn't been resolved already is that over-emotional blockheads try to attribute rights to something that looks human.

Your rights are defined by logic, and by nothing else. The emotions of others do not affect that.

If the fetus was actually deserving of human rights, then abortion would be murder, and your possession of ovaries would not justify that. If you try to resolve this issue based upon emotion, then you concede that strength of emotion is what determines rights (of course, that is ridiculous, rights are universal and unaffected by how happy or sad a person is).

 

How is this logic again? Remind me..

Looks like a lot of clever inverse statements.

 

dude ur a cunt noone is gonna eat their baby

 

I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

It basically is logic, using your mind to give you a opinion to determine if a fetus has rights to live and grow. This subject, as you said, has been discussed by many other people and has not been accepted or denied officially because it never will. In reality, I would say logic over health and rights on Abortion mainly because the fetus, or the "being" that is being developed is not a human, yet.

 

Ya know what, I've been thinking lately and discussing this with a few people, and I definitely think abortion to be allowed prior to the very beginning of the third trimester, when the baby would have the ability to survive outside the womb if given extensive treatment. This is when I feel it deserves rights. I don't think it should be disallowed before this, as the baby NEEDS the mother to survive, thus draining the mother of energy and a lot of other things. Plus, it is a pretty painful process to deliver a baby - if the mother considers this prior to giving support to the baby for over 6 months, I don't see what right we have to stop her. However, if she was like "hmm, I want a baby I want a baby, I want to care for a baby" for 6 months, and then decides "actually it's pretty painful, let's kill it before I have to give birth to it" in 6 months, I don't think that's right because the baby could function fully without her given advanced medical support.

 

Hard to say, while it IS murder, that's what makes it bad, but at the same time, if a girl is raped, and becomes pregnant, obviously it will have no father, which will only provide a bad upbringing for the child.

 

1) Why is it murder?
2) If it is murder, why do you condone it under special circumstances?

 

These two questions, and also:
3) Does having just a single parent always lead to children being unhappy?
4) If it does, should we just kill all babies that were "accidents" even if the mother wants to raise it? Also, what's wrong with adoption?
5) If it doesn't, how come we are making exceptions to single motherswho are rape victims?

 

Im guessing you think it's wrong because you think we shouldnt kill an innocent being, but if you feel that way, how can you feel it is ok in rape cases, are you saying if a girl gets raped that gives her the right to "kill the baby", sounds like your saying 2 wrongs make a right,

 

I agree with it if it is necessary or not. If the lady will die by having a baby then it would be fine to abort.

 

You're condoning "murder" [I'm assuming you consider an abortion murder, since that's the only reason for it to be wrong] in some circumstances but not others.

"I had to kill the man, because otherwise at some point I was going to die" doesn't exactly work unless there is direct evidence that the murder-victim was going to murder the murderer [confusing sentence :S].

How could you know after a few weeks of pregnancy if having the child would actually kill the woman?

 

well.... if u got a bitch preg.... ud want it gone

 

please post intellectual statements, not unintellectual spam to increase your post count.

if you are saying that it's wrong unless there's a good reason because if you abort it for no reason you are considering that murder (seeing as that is the most commonly used reason for being against abortion is feeling its murder) does that mean you feel it's ok to murder if the mother is going to die? or even in other necessary cases, are you saying if a girl is raped that it now becomes the baby's fault? which would be practically saying 2 wrongs make a right. i don't see how someone can be against it except in certain circumstances.

 

Please use semi-proper English when posting in the debate forum. Anyways, ROFL - do you even bother re-reading your posts before posting? You say that it's okay in some situations (I don't see how someone can be against it except in certain circumstances), b8t you also ask how come it's the babies fault in some circumstances (are you saying if a girl is raped that it now becomes the baby's fault?).

Contradiction city? If I'm wrong, please post how.

 

I myself, agree completely.

If you can't give that child a nice life,you shouldn't have it.

 

Idc about the child inside the mother, you should'nt say that your killing someone because they dont get to live. In a way thats true but lives that aren't lived affect nothing and no one.

 

Completely agreed. Women are protected by rights and can do whatever they want to.

 

nothing wrong with it there rights they can do it idk dont bother me