One of the Most Controversial Topics of the Century

The time that it happened doesn't matter very much as someone who is not a trained medical professional can seriously harm someone whether it be with a coat hanger or a modern professional tool. That was just an example. The fact of the matter is an absolute ban on abortion could lead to inhuman acts more appalling than the original problem. People are going to try to do what they want to do and if a woman is not willing to carry her baby banning the use of safe and licensed clinics is going to turn out very bad for both her and her baby.

 

"Why are you killing your own baby?"

(a) You presuppose the baby is alive. (b) Because you don't want your own baby, or want go through the pain of a pregnancy?

Condoms break. Also, it is completely non-sequitur to go from you had sex without a condom, therefore you want a baby. No, it's more, you had sex without a condom because sex was fun, and you didn't have time to get one.

Condoms break. Why should you be forced to carry a child to term that you don't want?

Your arguments are very, very primitive, they're essentially, you should have used a condom, which is totally irrelevant.

 

Abortion is always going to exist, whether it is legal or not. We are far better off giving women the choice to abort their unborn child rather than making it illegal and just hoping that they don't try it themselves.

 

Going off ancient practices, in nordic cultures it was considered acceptable to abandon a baby as long as it had not been fed. They didn't have access to abortion or condoms but they still decided it was morally acceptable and necessary to find a solution for unwanted pregnancy. Now that we have much less cruel options, and are faced with the same problems it makes no sense at all not to take advantage of them.
On top of that there is the definition of a person. As far as I'm concerned you have to be a bit over a year old to actually become intelligent enough to count as a person, since beforehand you're a retarded lump, but the accepted definition for some is when the heart begins beating, or 10 weeks - that's where you messed up, Charlotte - However this doesn't actually work since by that definition any animal with a beating heart must be developed enough to be sentient, at which point killing it becomes murder. However if you shoot your cat it is not murder, but only slaughter, and the cat has a beating heart. As such the definition needs to be expanded to contain a deciding factor that separates humans from other animals, and as such makes an actual distinction from animals to people at that stage. I'd say you can define it according to a particular brain structure that is present in humans in a way significantly different than in other animals. For example areas in the frontal or optical cortices specialized to full color vision or coherent thinking.
tl;dr Killing fetuses with heartbeats amounts to slaughter and is as legal as killing a pregnant rabbit. Fetuses need to be distinguished from animals to even refer to them properly, as such brain development is a good factor from removing them from the category of animal-shaped-lumps and into people-shaped-lumps where they can't be killed.

 

I see what you're trying to say, but this is appeal to tradition, etc, and evades the problem; most people would respond by saying that the fact that it's an 'ancient practice' suggests it's barbaric, and that we have advanced past that. This point doesn't really matter though.

This is all good and well. IF, it could be demonstrated that a fetus does develop these particular brain structures, would you be for or against abortion then?

 

How is using a condom totally irrelevant? You couldn't even give a response worth replying too, but I will respond because you're being ignorant.

Condoms break? Yes they do, there's a description on the box of condoms you buy saying that it may break, but it's designed not to break if used correctly.

Every 4 in 1k condoms break, it's not a defect, it's how the condom is being used. There is always a risk of pregnancy, and a condom is never a guarantee of successful protection. Every person should know that, and if they don't, once again it's their fault no one elses.

Why should you be forced to carry a child to term that you don't want?

The ignorance meter just rose by 10,000%!

Carry is word I wouldn't use, rather care for, take care of. I myself wouldn't want kids, but if it came to that point where the only choice was to take care of it, I would. Speaking in the perspective of a woman. That's why you have a family, they are there to help you in times of need.

There are more options than just your family, there are daycares etc.

BUT! Let me ask you this..

Pregnant mothers should have a choice right? Well, what about the most defenseless thing in existence? They should be able to choose as well, and not be chosen for. Size doesn't determine humanity.

Who is a person to say that a person shouldn't live their life? GOD? Oh wait, let me not start a debate within a debate on a different topic.

I hope that you think before you type. I live in a family who supports the removal of abortion and it's limit so I hear about it a lot. Any human with morals, should agree with me.

Good day

 

Carry is the word, not take care of, for a reason. A fetus is essentially a parasite until it's birthed. At that point it can be taken care of, until then it's just a parasite in the host's body.

And oh boy, you must be ignorant as all hell, if you think a baby can't ruin your life. You assume everyone has a picture-perfect family, most teen mothers are actually foster kids who grew up in the system, let's look at the statistics:

50% of young women previously in foster care will become pregnant by 19 years old

Alright, so we can discard the notion of family support. Now the kid is either going to get neglected or abused, the mother might think the child is a waste of money, she'll have to take care of it, pay for it. Teen pregnancy isn't popular in the upper class, let's assume she's lower or middle-lower class, as that's the norm for teen pregnancies, so let's also assume she has a minimum wage job. She has to cover her own expenses. Nights out? Forget about it, she has to take care of the baby. Hire a babysitter? Can't afford it. Now let's get to what most people expect people to do instead of having an abortion. Adoption.

Some statistics of foster/adopted kids:

• 40% of foster children are between the ages of 13 and 21
• 50% of foster children drop out of high school
• It is estimated that nationally a foster youth change placements about once every six months
• 50% of young women previously in foster care will become pregnant by 19 years old
• 25% of young men previously in foster care will father a child by 19
• 3 in 10 of the nation’s adult homeless are former foster youth
• On average, only 7-13% of foster youth enroll in higher education
• 1% of former foster children earn a college degree
• http://azhope.com/about/foster-care-statistics.php

Now with an abortion, the mother can move on, learn from her mistake, shape her life up, and when it comes time to be a mother, she'll aim for it in her own time. She'll be a great mother then, because she's prepared. But teen pregnancy? No go. Abortion is going to happen, legal or not. It's been happening since the dawn of time.

In 340 BCE: In Aristotle's view, abortion, if performed early, was not the killing of something human, and Aristotle would permit abortion if the birth rate was too high, but only at a stage before life and sense had begun in the embryo.

200 BCE: Soranus, a 2nd century Greek physician, recommended abortion in cases involving health complications as well as emotional immaturity, and provided detailed suggestions in his work Gynecology. Diuretics, emmenagogues, enemas, fasting, and bloodletting were prescribed as safe abortion methods, although Soranus advised against the use of sharp instruments to induce miscarriage, due to the risk of organ perforation.

So on and so forth, more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#Prehistory_to_5th_century

Anyway, the fact of the matter, abortion will happen whether you legalize it or not, so keep it safe, keep it legal.

 

I must be ignorant? Funny, if you allow other people including family get in the way of ruining your life than it's your fault no one else's. As a human you must pay for your actions. When did I assume everyone has a perfect family? FACEDESKTOMYLEGTOMYEAR, you sir are retarded. Every human knows no one is perfect, there for a family cannot be perfect. You're only making a fool out of yourself by telling me I assumed that. Your assumptions were wrong, oh what a surprise.

There shouldn't be an easy way out by eliminating a human. Does not matter if it's in development, does not matter what the size, the baby should have a say.

Anyone with proper morals should know that, statistics doesn't tell the future for other people.

 

Honestly, i'm indifferent as in some cases it can go both ways, say the woman was raped and had no intention of having a baby she should have the obligation to remove that baby. Now if it's a woman at fault where she wanted to have sexual contact and on accident she got pregnant that is entirely her fault.

 

Yeah, that's how I feel. A woman wouldn't have the mental stability to raise a child whose father is a rapist.

 

Yes, parasites should have a choice in if they should stay in your body or not.

 

The use of a condom is totally irrelevant to the debate over the morality of abortion. If a zygote has rights, then whether or not you used a condom is irrelevant.

So, if condoms are used correctly, then they will never break?

Ok, but the use of a condom is still irrelevant. If the baby has no rights, what difference does a condom make?

Do you know how painful a pregnancy is? If a woman does not want to endure that pain, why are you putting a gun to their head and forcing them to? That is the defintion of making something illegal. You can only enforce via the initiation of force. Otherwise, it would be mere opinion. This is the political side of whether abortion should be legal or illegal. On to morality, do you believe that people own their own body, and that they can do with it as they please?

This presupposes the baby has already been born. It eschews the fact that you need to endure 9 months of torture, and then affect your life afterwards!

They don't have the capacity to choose. Why should bacteria not be able to choose their destiny when you wash your hands? Why should that plant not be able to choose it's destiny when you eat a salad? Why can't that rock not choose it's destiny when you skid it across the water? They are not sentient beings, they do not have the capacity to choose. You are essentially arguing that something that cannot choose should be able to choose. It is mere lunacy.

Circular reasoning, stop presupposing your premise in your conclusion, you have to show that a zygote is person first.

No, you epitomise immorality. You strive to force everyone to conform to your will. You want to force people to not abort their children. You want to force women who made mistakes (careless or otherwise) to endure the torture of labour. You want to force that child to be reared in an arguably poor environment which has serious ramifications over the child's well being.

Also, you still contradict yourself with your perspective on rape. So what if they were rape, use all your arguments you have cited against your position on rape.

 

You did say this, I simply brought up the fact that most teen pregnancies are foster children, or lower class families with only enough to feed themselves. What makes you think they can take on the financial burden of a child.

Daycares, etc, aren't free. Let's pick a random state, Florida.

The average cost of a daycare per month in Florida is ~$500+.
Minimum wage is $7.67 or $1227.
Subtract 30% tax, and that's about $860, how can they afford daycare?
They can't. Which is why they look to abortion. These are also mainly college kids or minimum wage workers, they don't have time or money to take care of a kid. It ruins their future. I hope you're not naive enough to think it doesn't. Because it does, it completely uproots them from the life they're living and forces them to provide for a baby.

Sure. it's their mistake, but really, there are tons of people on this planet, and many more suffering every day. Why not help them, instead of forcing someone who wants to have an abortion, to not have one.

 

Problem with telling people that they can't have abortions is that you violate their freedoms in favor of a parasite, secondly those who tried contraceptives but they didn't work out because of immunities/other medications ECT didn't want the child and in their actions shown this intent but through chance got impregnated. Thirdly letting these would be aborted children live results in more crime as people without stable family lives (READ orphans/foster kids (read anyone who would have been aborted)) are significantly more likely to become career criminals/degenerates to society than those who had stable home lives where the parents were open to or wanting children..

As a man (almost anyone who commented on this is a man) what gives you the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do when you are unable to experience it? If you are anti-abortion answer that for me.

 

With this topic it can easily go both ways. I believe abortion should be allowed under the circumstances that the impregnated woman was raped or forced in any form. On the other hand, if it was consensual sex and a baby was created, under no circumstances shall a woman be allowed to have an abortion.

 

im pro choice to a certian stage. After 2 months i dont believe in aborting

 

Why? What changed; what's the difference between a month and 30 days, and 2 months?

 

Two questions I have for all anti-abortionists is why for one potential life must you force two people to fuck up their entire life and secondly would you like to be forced to do something you don't want to nor have the funds to do based on an archaic belief that it should be done this way?