Should abortion be legal?
- Thread starter SuF
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1,234
- Messages
- 14,211
Fetuses do not have the knowledge or intellectual power to even understand what abortion is and thus they can not have a position on it and thus it limits not only those who favor abortion to those who have already been born but also limits those who do not favor abortion to those who have already been born. That is a meaningless statement.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 900
- Messages
- 5,679
Yes I believe abortion should be legal.
The punch line is, it's their body, and it's their choice.
While I respect that the controversy is with the unborn child, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the baby continue it's natural development, or in other words, forcing the mother to carry the baby to term.
The punch line is, it's their body, and it's their choice.
While I respect that the controversy is with the unborn child, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the baby continue it's natural development, or in other words, forcing the mother to carry the baby to term.
Couldn't of said it any better, ^This is what it comes down too,
Who is he Government to choose whether or not someone is to live with their mistake or not.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 13
- Messages
- 4,990
Abortion should be legal. It is the woman's body and therefore should be her decision. Also, consider the fact that in the first trimester, the embryo is no more conscious than a kidney. State should really not be able to impose law on what a woman wants to do with her own body's contents and self.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 900
- Messages
- 5,679
If a person doesn't consent to having sex, then it is rape. If it rape, then, I'm assuming you're ok with an abortion. The only discernible difference is the consent.
How about a person who cut themselves purposefully due to depression or otherwise. Would you allow them to go to the hospital and seek treatment?
How about a person who consented to having sex WITH multiple contraceptives: the pill and a condom? This eliminates the chance of fertilization exponentially, and given that they consented to sex, as per what you've stated, would you deny them an abortion. Why, or why not?
How about a person who consented to driving their automobile to and from work. What if they got into a car crash. Would you allow them to seek medication?
While I know that we've gone through this tirade before, I was still flummoxed as to why you held your position, and I think enough time has elapsed that we can discuss it again. The above examples are really trying to elucidate where you draw the line.
Gurtaton
Grand Master
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 2,912
How did my guts tell me that the secret invisible user watching this thread was you...
We all go through depressions at some point in our lives, and I see no reason why we should stop someone who wishes to recover from it.
You still pulled the act, knowing that there was even the smallest chance that the worst might happen.
The car crash was most likely an accident, and as humans, such mistakes can happen. So yes, I would allow.
Well, there's my line.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 900
- Messages
- 5,679
You didn't answer part a!
Depression, or otherwise. I'll grant it that maybe they weren't thinking straight and slit their wrist. What about those who knew what they were doing? You don't have to suffer from a cognitive impairing illness to turn masochistic.
Many car crashes actually aren't accidents, they are brought about due to incompetency, mental impairment, or carelessness. Regardless, yes, some car accidents are indeed accidents (stupid tautological words).
Wikipedia defines an accident as: An accident or mishap is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention or necessity.
I believe abortion fits into this, as, if someone is taken multiple contraceptives, a pregnancy is most certainly unplanned.
Time to beat closer.
Would you allow someone to self induce a miscarriage. For example, getting someone to push them down a flight of stairs? What about people who had spontaneous abortions (natural miscarriages), they haven't been held accountable, is there anything wrong with this? It seems that they've 'gotten off scott free'. This has the same effect as an abortion via the pill. Are you against this more drastic method? Would you make this action impermissible (illegal) as I think you'd make abortion via the pill illegal, correct?
Trinity19
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 590
Instead of jumping into an already running conversation I'll just simply leave my opinion on the subject and my reasoning.
1.) Yes it should be legal. This is because as with all things this can come about from unwanted circumstances, (Condom breaking, rape, etc) so there should be an opt out as well.
Even so there should also be taken into account the randomness of life to the point where you could be stable for a child at one point and a week later barely able to provide for yourself. While its true many people would just still have the baby, (lacking the common sense to realize how their actually continuing the agony longer than need be) people that actually logically think things through are ostracized for simply understanding they can't take care of the baby.
2.) I fully believe that any consideration for the "feelings" or the "future" of the fetus are moot points and completely irrelevant to this topic.
As for "feelings", sorry but all the fetus is, is a collection of cells. It has no more capacity to feel than a tumor forming on the inside of your colon. Actually if you think about the processes each preforms, the tumor probably has a more responsive system than the fetus but I digress. The fact of the matter is, it isn't alive on the level people would like to think it is.
As for it's "future" as a human being, well I'll dive more into this point on my next subject but simply put, we live in a reality based solely on the idea of probability, if you simply make a decision based on the idea of "could be" then you have absolutely no thinking process at all because this is basic to every action and consequence in every part of our lives.
3.) (Please don't reply to this portion without strong reasoning as to why I am wrong. I will not respond to basic idealogical arguments based on the sanctity of life)
I personally believe abortion should not just be legal, but required in some circumstances. Such circumstances which would be included are:
-Families who keep having kids yet cannot support them, these are becoming more and more prevalent in todays society. Women are seeing having children becoming less of a responsibility and more of a measure of stature, meaning they simply have children because they want children. Resulting in very little regard the childs future. Now this could go against what I said earlier and mean I'm looking at the fetus's 'future' however because of the womans situation I can make more of an educated guess than rely solely on probability.
-A child would be born which a severe illness (Let's say..leukemia?), and they would only live for 5 years (best medical guess). However the parents still have the baby because they want someone to love and want to give the child all the love they can give.
Because they have made this selfish decision, this child had to live through 5 years of unending pain just to inevitably die. We are seeing this more as well, people are taking professional medical opinions and throwing them at the wind because they think they know better, yes your kid has a very slim chance of surviving but is that really worth putting them through all that?
-Someone has a child who is deaf and blind and can't move their arms or legs, yet they still have them because they want a kid. They are warned of these problems yet they don't retract the pregnancy. Now we have a member of society who will never be able to contribute anything and will always need to be cared for.
1.) Yes it should be legal. This is because as with all things this can come about from unwanted circumstances, (Condom breaking, rape, etc) so there should be an opt out as well.
Even so there should also be taken into account the randomness of life to the point where you could be stable for a child at one point and a week later barely able to provide for yourself. While its true many people would just still have the baby, (lacking the common sense to realize how their actually continuing the agony longer than need be) people that actually logically think things through are ostracized for simply understanding they can't take care of the baby.
2.) I fully believe that any consideration for the "feelings" or the "future" of the fetus are moot points and completely irrelevant to this topic.
As for "feelings", sorry but all the fetus is, is a collection of cells. It has no more capacity to feel than a tumor forming on the inside of your colon. Actually if you think about the processes each preforms, the tumor probably has a more responsive system than the fetus but I digress. The fact of the matter is, it isn't alive on the level people would like to think it is.
As for it's "future" as a human being, well I'll dive more into this point on my next subject but simply put, we live in a reality based solely on the idea of probability, if you simply make a decision based on the idea of "could be" then you have absolutely no thinking process at all because this is basic to every action and consequence in every part of our lives.
3.) (Please don't reply to this portion without strong reasoning as to why I am wrong. I will not respond to basic idealogical arguments based on the sanctity of life)
I personally believe abortion should not just be legal, but required in some circumstances. Such circumstances which would be included are:
-Families who keep having kids yet cannot support them, these are becoming more and more prevalent in todays society. Women are seeing having children becoming less of a responsibility and more of a measure of stature, meaning they simply have children because they want children. Resulting in very little regard the childs future. Now this could go against what I said earlier and mean I'm looking at the fetus's 'future' however because of the womans situation I can make more of an educated guess than rely solely on probability.
-A child would be born which a severe illness (Let's say..leukemia?), and they would only live for 5 years (best medical guess). However the parents still have the baby because they want someone to love and want to give the child all the love they can give.
Because they have made this selfish decision, this child had to live through 5 years of unending pain just to inevitably die. We are seeing this more as well, people are taking professional medical opinions and throwing them at the wind because they think they know better, yes your kid has a very slim chance of surviving but is that really worth putting them through all that?
-Someone has a child who is deaf and blind and can't move their arms or legs, yet they still have them because they want a kid. They are warned of these problems yet they don't retract the pregnancy. Now we have a member of society who will never be able to contribute anything and will always need to be cared for.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 900
- Messages
- 5,679
I'll have to disagree with you Trinity on the requirement.
I can understand where you're coming from, and appreciate how if we were to implement such legislation it may solve some issues.
Notwithstanding that, I believe it is a breach of rights to require anyone, a women, to take something against there will. There are many quite some side-effects from having an abortion via the pill, it's not like a mild painkiller you can find at the chemist (drug store). In fact, it does in VERY rare circumstances have the chance to kill you. I could go on, but:
The bottom line is, we have no right to force someone to do something that's a) against their will, and b) potentially harmful to them. While Utilitarianism is a very convincing ethical system, I dislike the system as it does have the potential, and in this case, will violate ones human rights. It's their body, and their choice, you can't force them to do something against their volition.
I can understand where you're coming from, and appreciate how if we were to implement such legislation it may solve some issues.
Notwithstanding that, I believe it is a breach of rights to require anyone, a women, to take something against there will. There are many quite some side-effects from having an abortion via the pill, it's not like a mild painkiller you can find at the chemist (drug store). In fact, it does in VERY rare circumstances have the chance to kill you. I could go on, but:
The bottom line is, we have no right to force someone to do something that's a) against their will, and b) potentially harmful to them. While Utilitarianism is a very convincing ethical system, I dislike the system as it does have the potential, and in this case, will violate ones human rights. It's their body, and their choice, you can't force them to do something against their volition.
Perhaps ideally, but this doesn't address the issue at hand.
Because you presumably don't accept freedom of choice, despite its being foundational to all Western societies.
I'm not really sure. The fact that the legality of abortion has virtually no effect on the rate of abortion really murks the issue for the anti-abortion side.
Source for legality of abortion having no effect on abortion rates:
Source for legality of abortion having no effect on abortion rates:
Code:
Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Ã…hman E, Shah IH. Induced abortion: rates and trends worldwide. Lancet 2007; 370: 1338–45.It's the same thing as killing someone alive. A baby is a human being too. So I wouldn't agree to make it legal.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 93
- Messages
- 7,159
It isn't legally alive until it takes the first breath. A woman has the right to do with her body as she wants; just as I have the right to go get my body completely covered in tattoos if I wanted to. It isn't some old man's choice in the legislative body to decide what can happen to MY body. While I do not agree with some abortions I will defend a woman's choice to get one.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1,234
- Messages
- 14,211
So we should allow people to do anything they want if making it illegal doesn't change the rates in which they are doing the action? This might not apply here, but if it can apply in other situations you can not use it to justify a position.
Many USA states are trying to get amendments passed into their constitutions that make the word "person" define from the point of conception on. Regardless, why does a woman have the right to do whatever she wants to her body? Cocaine is illegal. Other harmful substances are illegal. The argument that she has a "right" to do what she wants to her body is flawed because there are plenty of things that the government will not allow you to do to yourself.