Abortion

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Do you believe in abortion

  • Yes

    Votes: 147 65.3%

  • No

    Votes: 78 34.7%
  • Total voters
    225
  • Poll closed .
MsKrispyKreme said:
🙄
I look for the greater good. The dead child is in Heaven which is a much better place than being raped by their mom's new boyfriend and committing suicide at age 15. (Yes, I'm talking about an actual case.) I've spent the majority of volunteer time since high school working with unwanted children. It's not pretty...

Does it make murder right? No. Does it make it understandable? Yes
Click to expand...

Anecdotes don't make it right. Who's to say what will happen in that childs life. I'm also a christian but that doesn't make me want to kill babies just so they can go to heaven faster, thats Heaven's Gate-esque type behavior. And what if the baby is an atheist, does it still go to heaven? Ok that was a joke but think about.
 
Bacchus said:
This topic has great potential, especially for an interview question. "Hypothetically, if a patient (15 y/o) came to you requesting an abortion, would you perform the procedure and honor her request to not tell her parents?"

To me, abortion is case dependent.
Click to expand...


No, I would not perform the operation. Why? My friend tore her ACL when she was 15. The first orthopaedic surgeon she saw refused to perform the operation. He would have had to drill through her growth plate which has the potential to stunt the growth of the leg causing one to be shorter than the other. Denying to perform the abortive operation parallels this scenario.
 
Track8001254 said:
I will give you the fact that fertilization is not universally applicable to life on a definition scale. But on a human scale it is, and the morals applied to humans are not the same applied to parthenogenic whiptail lizards. Also a zygote which is fertilized can develop in a dangerous way. You could say spina bifida or down syndrome are dangerous developmental disorders. Should these children have less of a shot at life? And a parasite, while I am sure some women during a pregnancy think this haha, Im not going there.

I would just like to add that this is a fuitfull discussion, and good practice for interview season
Click to expand...

Your right that the morals applied to humans are different then the rest of the natural world. But I can't help but think that when we are dealing with such universall topics as the nature of life and when life begins, that we cannot focus merely on the example of a single normal human. To do so, while perhaps practical for being able to arbitrarily demarcate among various human moral circumstances, does little to resolve the fundamental questions about the nature of life. If our decisions about the status of an embryo and the beginning of life are to impact our philosophy about the nature of personhood, then we really owe it to ourselves to make such decisions inclusively, with respect to all life and with an eye towards universall application of our philosophy. That's all.
 
Last edited:
ejay286 said:
Anecdotes don't make it right. Who's to say what will happen in that childs life. I'm also a christian but that doesn't make me want to kill babies just so they can go to heaven faster, thats Heaven's Gate-esque type behavior. And what if the baby is an atheist, does it still go to heaven? Ok that was a joke but think about.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I can't take your response seriously. 🙄 This is such an emotional issue that people aren't even READING each other's responses holistically (just picking out certain portions). I stated from the beginning that I would not perform an abortion unless there were extenuating circumstances (ectopic pregnancy, rape victim, underage incest victim) AND there was no other physician available to do it.

The "anecdotes" that I listed were explaining why I do support the legislation (Roe vs. Wade) despite my personal/religious beliefs (thus my quote from Matthew).

Understand or do I need to repeat myself again?

Sweet Jesus! :meanie:
 
Haemulon said:
Your right that the morals applied to humans are different then the rest of the natural world.
Click to expand...
But it's so important to keep in mind why that is true. It's not because humans are special in some fundamental way; it's because humans are the ones who came up with morals. It's also good to keep in mind that that is why God is imagined to look like a homo sapien.
 
To tell you the truth, it seems to me that life never really begins at all, just continues (now anyway). After all, the egg is alive, the sperm is alive, when they join the mechanism of life does not stop or start ... just continues. Heck, even with humans it is the maternal genes that are expressed even through the first few divisions. The sperm genome isn't activated immediately. So does this mean that the real individual does not begin until after both pronuclei are united and the embryonic transcriptional machinery begins after a few divisions? Just some interesting pondering.
 
Last edited:
MsKrispyKreme said:
🙄

I believe it is alive, wholeheartedly. My opinions and my beliefs are not mutually exclusive...nor does my religion indicate that I should have codes of behavior that are not flexible or inconsistent with SOME values of the secular world's. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. (Matthew 22:21)
Click to expand...

Life is God's, not the government's.

MsKrispyKreme said:
Let me tell you a story. One day this mentally ill kid was recklessly throwing darts everywhere, and my 2-year old nephew and I were walking by his house when one came at his face. I threw myself over him, and the dart got stuck in my arm. This left a scar. My religion forbids body mutiliation, but do you think God cared in that situation? :laugh: What if it had hit my jugular instead, and I died? Technically that's suicide, right? Do you think I would've gone to hell? :scared:
Click to expand...

What an absolutely asinine analogy. You are comparing premeditated murder to instinctually protecting a loved one. Let's move on, as I've given this far more attention than it truly deserves.

MsKrispyKreme said:
I look for the greater good. The dead child is in Heaven which is a much better place than being raped by their mom's new boyfriend and committing suicide at age 15. (Yes, I'm talking about an actual case.) I've spent the majority of volunteer time since high school working with unwanted children. It's not pretty...

Does it make murder right? No. Does it make it understandable? Yes
Click to expand...


Sorry, this is an absolutely horrific way to look at life. Hey, no worries, they'll just end up in heaven anyway! Why bother with social workers, then. Abused children should just be put down quickly, for their own good. 🙄


It is either murder or it is not. That is the bottom line. If you believe it is murder, then you can never morally justify it. Period.
 
I definitely agree with abortion. As for performing them, I'd definitely consider it, though I am not sure.
 
DrSno said:
But it's so important to keep in mind why that is true. It's not because humans are special in some fundamental way; it's because humans are the ones who came up with morals. It's also good to keep in mind that that is why God is imagined to look like a homo sapien.
Click to expand...

Very true. Morality is human-centered because we developed the concept around our need to, among other things, preseve our social integrity. But also be carefull in remembering that religion and morality are not necessarily interchangeable concepts. And neither concept has to be involved with determining biological definitions of developmental stages.
 
Last edited:
Can this poll be changed to "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice"? There are a lot of ways that the current one can be interpreted (or misinterpreted), such as "do you believe in abortion as a choice for yourself?" "do you believe that abortion should be legal?" "do you believe that abortion is a good idea most of the time?" "do you believe that abortion is ever the right choice?" "do you believe that women have the right to choose?"

Pro-choice vs. anti-choice is more accurate, IMO. "I feel that women have the right to choose an abortion, and should continue to have that right" vs. "I do not feel that abortions should be available, and that women do not have the right to choose to have abortions"
 
MsKrispyKreme said:
I'm sorry, but I can't take your response seriously. 🙄 This is such an emotional issue that people aren't even READING each other's responses holistically (just picking out certain portions). I stated from the beginning that I would not perform an abortion unless there were extenuating circumstances (ectopic pregnancy, rape victim, underage incest victim) AND there was no other physician available to do it.

The "anecdotes" that I listed were explaining why I do support the legislation (Roe vs. Wade) despite my personal/religious beliefs (thus my quote from Matthew).

Understand or do I need to repeat myself again?

Sweet Jesus! :meanie:
Click to expand...

Don't get emotional, thats how threads get locked. Although there are certain cases where an abortion could be deemed necessary, my main point is that the prediction that the quality of the child's life will be low should not be one of them.
 
So if you make abortion illegal - what's the penalty. How much time does the women get in prison?
 
I feel that all human beings have the right to make decisions about their bodies. Because I do not believe that embryos and fetuses have autonomy or agency until they are physically capable of exercising that autonomy or agency, I feel that the mother of the fetus has the right to do with it what she pleases. I do not believe in mandatory abortion, mandatory birth control, mandatory ANYTHING besides education - I think that if all Americans (and all people in the world - but this is beyond the scope of this discussion) should have access to understandable, factual, and accurate information about family planning options. Once they are educated, they should be able to make their own decisions about what is best for them, their relationships, and their families because I am not a part of their family and am therefore not in a position to make decisions about it.

The problem with most people in this debate is that it tends to get to the point of "WHY DON'T YOU VALUE LIFE? ABORTION IS MURDER" vs. "WHY DON'T YOU RESPECT WOMEN?" when, in fact, those are not the issues. The issue should be "should women be legally allowed to make decisions about their bodies?"

On a sidenote, I feel that it's pretty effing stupid to encourage women who claim that they should not be mothers (by expressing interest in abortion) to be mothers. That's just not a good idea.

Abortion is never an easy decision - I feel that women should not be punished for mistakes by being given children. I also do not feel that children should be punished for their mother's mistakes by being brought into the world and being situated in families that, much of the time, do not have the resources available to raise them.

My main problem with the abortion situation in the states is that instead of trying to minimize the rate of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing the availability of, access to, and education about birth control and family planning options, the government has decided that teenagers shouldn't be educated about it at all.
 
Begaster said:
Sorry, this is an absolutely horrific way to look at life. Hey, no worries, they'll just end up in heaven anyway! Why bother with social workers, then. Abused children should just be put down quickly, for their own good. 🙄


It is either murder or it is not. That is the bottom line. If you believe it is murder, then you can never morally justify it. Period.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is a rather narrow-minded way to view this. There is absolutely no grey area between murder or not?

Also, nobody is saying that abused children should be killed, or babies killed indiscriminately (as someone suggested earlier). I think we can agree that unwanted children have very difficult lives, and the imprisonment/suicide/criminal/etc records are far greater for children who have been abused, right? Unless I'm insane I think this has been established pretty well.

The mother, regardless of all other circumstances, is considering an abortion. I think this signifies that she is NOT READY to have a baby. I personally don't think having children in the world who are not wanted by the parents is a great idea. Also, given that underaged children and young adults in general will not be able to provide a stable, comfortable environment for the child, why would it be better for the child to be born into this kind of setting? I realize that there are holes in this logic - please don't bring outlandish statements like poor people shouldnt be allowed to reproduce, there are plenty of single mothers who raised great children, etc. The first is ridiculous, the second is the exception, not the rule.

I don't think the vast majority of this board understand what it means to grow up in a single parent, low-income home. It is a difficult life at best. You live in a low-income area - there is higher crime, worse education, etc. Blanket, overgeneralized statements like those strewn all over this thread I think indicate that many people have lived a nice, comfortable life that allows them to make condescending, ignorant remarks like abortion = murder without any consideration of the effects on the child or parents. There are many things worse than death in this world.

Just my rambling, sometimes incoherent 2 cents.

JOF
 
lainapox said:
Can this poll be changed to "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice"? There are a lot of ways that the current one can be interpreted (or misinterpreted), such as "do you believe in abortion as a choice for yourself?" "do you believe that abortion should be legal?" "do you believe that abortion is a good idea most of the time?" "do you believe that abortion is ever the right choice?" "do you believe that women have the right to choose?"

Pro-choice vs. anti-choice is more accurate, IMO. "I feel that women have the right to choose an abortion, and should continue to have that right" vs. "I do not feel that abortions should be available, and that women do not have the right to choose to have abortions"
Click to expand...

lol. "Anti-choice"?? That's putting a little spin on things, don't ya think? How 'bout we go with Pro-choice and Pro-life. Or, if you'd rather, pro-life and "anti-life."
 
JoltOfFuel said:
I'm sorry, but this is a rather narrow-minded way to view this. There is absolutely no grey area between murder or not?

Also, nobody is saying that abused children should be killed, or babies killed indiscriminately (as someone suggested earlier). I think we can agree that unwanted children have very difficult lives, and the imprisonment/suicide/criminal/etc records are far greater for children who have been abused, right? Unless I'm insane I think this has been established pretty well.

The mother, regardless of all other circumstances, is considering an abortion. I think this signifies that she is NOT READY to have a baby. I personally don't think having children in the world who are not wanted by the parents is a great idea. Also, given that underaged children and young adults in general will not be able to provide a stable, comfortable environment for the child, why would it be better for the child to be born into this kind of setting? I realize that there are holes in this logic - please don't bring outlandish statements like poor people shouldnt be allowed to reproduce, there are plenty of single mothers who raised great children, etc. The first is ridiculous, the second is the exception, not the rule.

I don't think the vast majority of this board understand what it means to grow up in a single parent, low-income home. It is a difficult life at best. You live in a low-income area - there is higher crime, worse education, etc. Blanket, overgeneralized statements like those strewn all over this thread I think indicate that many people have lived a nice, comfortable life that allows them to make condescending, ignorant remarks like abortion = murder without any consideration of the effects on the child or parents. There are many things worse than death in this world.

Just my rambling, sometimes incoherent 2 cents.

JOF
Click to expand...

Adoption, anyone?
 
SarsMO said:
lol. "Anti-choice"?? That's putting a little spin on things, don't ya think? How 'bout we go with Pro-choice and Pro-life. Or, if you'd rather, pro-life and "anti-life."
Click to expand...

No, because people who are pro-choice aren't anti-life. No pro-choice person who I have ever come across believes in mass murder of EVERY FETUS EVER. I know many people who are personally pro-life, in that they would not get abortions themselves, but are, on a more political and national scale, pro-choice. Additionally, several 'pro-lifers' have injured or killed abortion provider - since when is homicide pro-life? I say anti-choice because they are against giving women the choice of abortion. We could also change it to:
pro-choice
vs.
anti-abortion
 
lainapox said:
The problem with most people in this debate is that it tends to get to the point of "WHY DON'T YOU VALUE LIFE? ABORTION IS MURDER" vs. "WHY DON'T YOU RESPECT WOMEN?" when, in fact, those are not the issues. The issue should be "should women be legally allowed to make decisions about their bodies?"
Click to expand...

That pretty much falls into the latter one. You just changed the rhetoric.
 
lainapox said:
The problem with most people in this debate is that it tends to get to the point of "WHY DON'T YOU VALUE LIFE? ABORTION IS MURDER" vs. "WHY DON'T YOU RESPECT WOMEN?" when, in fact, those are not the issues. The issue should be "should women be legally allowed to make decisions about their bodies?"
Actually I think the issue is a conflict of rights.....who has more of a right?, does the fetus' right to life outweigh the mother's right to choose? that's the real question.....we all obvious value life (I hope)....some of you think a mother's rights outweigh's a fetus' rights....and other people see it the other way around.......basically I think a pro-abortion person should say why they dont think a fetus has a right to life....I am sincerely intersested in some responses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SarsMO said:
Adoption, anyone?
Click to expand...

Step 1: find homes for all of the orphans in the country
Step 2: find homes for all of the orphans in the world

Then we'll talk about adoption being an adequate choice for all unintended pregnancies.

Also: consider this: a significant portion of children living in foster care are abused or mistreated.
 
rockydoc said:
lainapox said:
The problem with most people in this debate is that it tends to get to the point of "WHY DON'T YOU VALUE LIFE? ABORTION IS MURDER" vs. "WHY DON'T YOU RESPECT WOMEN?" when, in fact, those are not the issues. The issue should be "should women be legally allowed to make decisions about their bodies?"
Actually I think the issue is a conflict of rights.....who has more of a right?, does the fetus' right to life outweigh the mother's right to choose? that's the real question.....we all obvious value life (I hope)....some of you think a mother's rights outweigh's a fetus' rights....and other people see it the other way around.......basically I think a pro-abortion person should say why they dont think a fetus has a right to life....I am sincerely intersested in some responses.
Click to expand...

I am not "pro-abortion" I am Pro-Choice. There is a huge difference.

Additionally, I feel that a fetus does not have a right to life until that fetus is capable of personally exercising that right. If it cannot survive outside of the uterus, it does not, in my opinion, have autonomy/agency/a right to life.

Also, I'm wondering: how many anti-abortion people out there are carnivores? How 'bout that life?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There are already plenty of kids in the world that can be adopted. It's not as though there is a surplus of couples looking to adopt (perhaps homosexuals, but that's an issue for another day). It is far more likely that the child will be be in the system until he/she is 18. I don't have any experience or in-depth knowledge of the adoption system, but I doubt these kids lead stable lives.
 
JoltOfFuel said:
I'm sorry, but this is a rather narrow-minded way to view this. There is absolutely no grey area between murder or not?
Click to expand...

If a human is alive and you kill it, it is murder. The question, of course, is whether or not you can consider a fetus alive, not alive, or something in between.


JOF said:
Also, nobody is saying that abused children should be killed, or babies killed indiscriminately (as someone suggested earlier). I think we can agree that unwanted children have very difficult lives, and the imprisonment/suicide/criminal/etc records are far greater for children who have been abused, right? Unless I'm insane I think this has been established pretty well.
Click to expand...

Okay.


JOF said:
The mother, regardless of all other circumstances, is considering an abortion. I think this signifies that she is NOT READY to have a baby. I personally don't think having children in the world who are not wanted by the parents is a great idea. Also, given that underaged children and young adults in general will not be able to provide a stable, comfortable environment for the child, why would it be better for the child to be born into this kind of setting? I realize that there are holes in this logic - please don't bring outlandish statements like poor people shouldnt be allowed to reproduce, there are plenty of single mothers who raised great children, etc. The first is ridiculous, the second is the exception, not the rule.
Click to expand...

Okay.


JOF said:
I don't think the vast majority of this board understand what it means to grow up in a single parent, low-income home. It is a difficult life at best. You live in a low-income area - there is higher crime, worse education, etc. Blanket, overgeneralized statements like those strewn all over this thread I think indicate that many people have lived a nice, comfortable life that allows them to make condescending, ignorant remarks like abortion = murder without any consideration of the effects on the child or parents. There are many things worse than death in this world.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't particularly disagree.

I think you've missed my point. I am not arguing against abortion. I do not believe abortion is murder. I am arguing against the notion that you can consider abortion to be murder (as pro-life people claim), all the while having no problems with it when the child is a product of rape. As if it makes murder any less unconscionable in such a matter.


One thing on adoption, for a white baby, it is basically a seller's market. They are in demand. Minority babies are not.
 
lainapox said:
This is semantics -
Babies vs. embryos.

Also, a VERY significant portion of fertilized eggs are miscarried. Does this make menstruation a crime?
Click to expand...

Yes, women should be put in jail every 28 days.
 
lainapox said:
rockydoc said:
lainapox said:
Additionally, I feel that a fetus does not have a right to life until that fetus is capable of personally exercising that right. If it cannot survive outside of the uterus, it does not, in my opinion, have autonomy/agency/a right to life.

Also, I'm wondering: how many anti-abortion people out there are carnivores? How 'bout that life?
Click to expand...

Wow, does not have the right to life? What would exercizing that right mean exactly? A baby cannot survive without the mother or care taker, thus it does not have autonomy, and in your opinion a right to life. When would a person gain that right, 5!?

And there is absolutely no connection between eating meat and abortion. These are two completely different topics, one dealing with an unborn human fetus and the other with where you decide to get your daily protein
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
lainapox said:
I am not "pro-abortion" I am Pro-Choice. There is a huge difference.

Additionally, I feel that a fetus does not have a right to life until that fetus is capable of personally exercising that right. If it cannot survive outside of the uterus, it does not, in my opinion, have autonomy/agency/a right to life.

Also, I'm wondering: how many anti-abortion people out there are carnivores? How 'bout that life?
Click to expand...

Sorry about the "pro-abortion" semantic...I understand the difference...

And now, I think we are getting somewhere with the rights discussion.

The reason I disagree with your "right to life" requirement is b/c where do you draw the line between that and a freshly newborn child and a fetus? I actually do know of some renown pro-choice philosophers that also make ammends for infanticide because they cant reconcile aborting a fetus vs being charged with murder if you kill that same being once it exits the uterus. To me, if one is allowed, the other should be also......another reason I am pro-life.
 
While I tend to shy away from internet discussions on topics like this I'd like to offer a few suggestions.

- Using "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" is a gross misrepresentation of a position, I'd recommend saying "pro-choice" and "not pro-choice". Similarirly the term "anti-pro-choice" is a misrepresentation.

- If you are hoping to have a civil and intellectual discussion the phrases "most" "many" and "a significant number" are completely irrelevant without researched, hard numbers. I don't recommend using those terms unless you can provide the research, it weakens your argument.

- Don't present this as one option or the other. As has been discussed there is a whole lot more gray area on this topic than there is black and white.

It seems to me the issue here is not the morality of abortion but whether a democratically elected body should have a say on this particular issue.

These threads deteriorate fast. Lets stay away from faith-bashing, name calling, and fallacy filled argumentation.
 
I'm leaving this forum now, because I've had a pretty good loving-SDN streak and I don't want this to ruin it.

I think we can all agree that:
1) Nobody on here wants to murder people
2) Some people value fetal livelihood over maternal livelihood
3) Some people value maternal livelihood over fetal livelihood
4) We're all getting emotional about this for no reason, because when someone is emotional they do not become convinced of the opposing viewpoint.

I personally believe in the autonomy and agency of adults. I believe that until someone is capable of exercising it, they do not have it. This is also why I agree with "legal adult" status - under a specified age, we have as a society concluded that people are not informed or mature enough to be autonomous legal beings. Similarly, until a certain stage of development (which, to me, depends on the technology and funds available), I do not think that an embryo should be capable of being valued over the mother that is carrying it.

We can argue semantics and yell about murder all we want - but is it getting us anywhere?

And consider this - The US has the highest rate of teen pregnancy and abortion of all of the developed nations. We also are the only ones to implement abstinence-only education. Don't you feel that both sides - choice and antichoice - would be pacified if accurate information about and access to birth control were widely available?

Regardless of our personal views, we are going to (hopefully) become physicians and serve the populations that come to us for help - we should learn to put our personal and private views on the back-burner so as to, in the future, best treat our patients ethically and legally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/051606/teensex.html
 
Begaster -

What about accidental killings? Mercy killings? Those are all equivalent, as well?

The latter part of my post wasn't directed towards your argument, rather towards the entire thread. I completely agree with your logic that rape is completely irrelevant if abortion is murder, and there can be no exceptions for rape or incest. I was only addressing the part about all killings of humans being murder regardless of circumstances.

And :laugh: about white babies. I don't know if that's true, but if so I'm not quite sure what to think. I'm sure someone will infer that only minorities should be allowed to have abortions 🙄
 
I still have to laugh about the every 28 days jail time. I think I will be leaving the discussion now as well. It has been interesting.
 
Track8001254 said:
Wow, does not have the right to life? What would exercizing that right mean exactly? A baby cannot survive without the mother or care taker, thus it does not have autonomy, and in your opinion a right to life. When would a person gain that right, 5!?

And there is absolutely no connection between eating meat and abortion. These are two completely different topics, one dealing with an unborn human fetus and the other with where you decide to get your daily protein
Click to expand...

regarding exercising that right: if the fetus is in a state of development in which it can die within minutes or hours of being separated from the placenta/uterus/maternal system, I do not think that it can exercise its "right" to be alive. A newborn, however, is an organism whose basic survival - breathing, moving, etc - is not limited by the placenta or mother. It is being taken care of by its mother, and will likely die within days or weeks if it is not fed or cared for, but can survive outside of the womb. It is dependent upon a mother, but the mother is not necessary for its Basic Survival (though a caretaker, be it a mother or not, is).
 
Last edited:
lainapox said:
4) We're all getting emotional about this for no reason, because when someone is emotional they do not become convinced of the opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I actually think this has been a pretty intelligient discussion thus far w/o surplus emotion....I think it is healthy to discuss these things and see the viewpoint of the other side...it helps you grow in your own viewpoint....if you never discuss things and get challenged on them, then what are your viewpoints worth?
 
JoltOfFuel said:
Begaster -

What about accidental killings? Mercy killings? Those are all equivalent, as well?
Click to expand...

To murder? No. Accidents are not premeditated, mercy killings are on the behest of the victim.


JOF said:
I completely agree with your logic that rape is completely irrelevant if abortion is murder, and there can be no exceptions for rape or incest. I was only addressing the part about all killings of humans being murder regardless of circumstances.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.


JOF said:
And :laugh: about white babies. I don't know if that's true, but if so I'm not quite sure what to think. I'm sure someone will infer that only minorities should be allowed to have abortions 🙄
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91834&page=1
 
I know many people probably hate hearing a fetus referred to as a parasite living off the mother's body, but this is in fact the case. While I will agree that a fetus is potential life (as is sperm or an egg) I don't think you can argue that it is human life since it still depends on the mothers' body in order to survive. Here, you are in essences saying the fetus’ life is more important than the mothers and the mother must do whatever she can to allow that life to become a human even if it goes against her own wants or wishes. I believe that a woman should have a right to determine what she wants in her own body. Through this context, I believe the mother is not necessarily choosing to kill the fetus; she is simply deciding that she does not want the fetus to live off of her body. The fetus dying is only a consequence of removing it from the mother's uterus. If it was capable of survival outside the uterus then I believe abortion would be immoral, but not at any point before this since it could not survive on its own. Someone mentioned that newborns would not be able to survive without human interaction either…this is true but for a different reason. If you provide the newborn and an aborted fetus with the same level of care the newborn would survive but the fetus would not. A newborn is not dependent on the mothers’ body necessarily, only on someone else’s assistance.

I find it curious that many people say a woman may have an abortion if they were raped because they did not choose to be raped or because the mother's life is put in jeopardy but they may not have an abortion for any other reason because that would be wrong. If the morality of abortion is based on the killing of a human life then why is abortion ever okay? The unborn fetus did not have a say in the mother's rape why should it be morally permissible to end its life? This argument is based on feeling not on logic.
 
lainapox said:
Track8001254 said:
lainapox said:
regarding exercising that right: if the fetus is in a state of development in which it can die within minutes or hours of being separated from the placenta/uterus/maternal system, I do not think that it can exercise its "right" to be alive. A newborn, however, is an organism whose basic survival - breathing, moving, etc - is not limited by the placenta or mother. It is being taken care of by its mother, and will likely die within days or weeks if it is not fed or cared for, but can survive outside of the womb. It is dependent upon a mother, but the mother is not necessary for its Basic Survival (though a caretaker, be it a mother or not, is).
Click to expand...

ummm......how did I get mis-quoted....I didnt say that....did you accidentally put my username in quotes??
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Laina, you really ought to leave this thread if it is making you upset. These debates are utterly pointless - a fun diversion. If you're not enjoying yourself, head elsewhere. Ultimately, you will never, ever convince people who are on the other side of the aisle that you are correct, and just get more frustrated if you continue to try.
 
rockydoc said:
ummm......how did I get mis-quoted....I didnt say that....did you accidentally put my username in quotes??
Click to expand...

Guh, I think the person I was quoting quoted you and everything got messed up?
Sorry for that - obviously not directed toward you =)
 
foster033 said:
I know many people probably hate hearing a fetus referred to as a parasite living off the mother's body, but this is in fact the case. While I will agree that a fetus is potential life (as is sperm or an egg) I don't think you can argue that it is human life since it still depends on the mothers' body in order to survive. Here, you are in essences saying the fetus' life is more important than the mothers and the mother must do whatever she can to allow that life to become a human even if it goes against her own wants or wishes. I believe that a woman should have a right to determine what she wants in her own body. Through this context, I believe the mother is not necessarily choosing to kill the fetus; she is simply deciding that she does not want the fetus to live off of her body. The fetus dying is only a consequence of removing it from the mother's uterus. If it was capable of survival outside the uterus then I believe abortion would be immoral, but not at any point before this since it could not survive on its own. Someone mentioned that newborns would not be able to survive without human interaction either…this is true but for a different reason. If you provide the newborn and an aborted fetus with the same level of care the newborn would survive but the fetus would not. A newborn is not dependent on the mothers' body necessarily, only on someone else's assistance.

I find it curious that many people say a woman may have an abortion if they were raped because they did not choose to be raped or because the mother's life is put in jeopardy but they may not have an abortion for any other reason because that would be wrong. If the morality of abortion is based on the killing of a human life then why is abortion ever okay? The unborn fetus did not have a say in the mother's rape why should it be morally permissible to end its life? This argument is based on feeling not on logic.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous "Ailing Violinist Analogy".....b/c your argument sounds just like it. You are basically saying that "refusal of life support" is not congruent with "denying a right to life"......hence, the mother has a right to "deny life support" to the fetus w/o being morally responsible of denying any right to life.
 
Begaster said:
One thing on adoption, for a white baby, it is basically a seller's market. They are in demand. Minority babies are not.
Click to expand...

Unless you are a celebrity. White babies are pretty taboo in hollywood.
 
Begaster-

Wow. That is something else. Thanks for the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Volunteering with Abortion Fund
Replies
9
Views
2K
deleted480308
D
I
Abortion in PS?
Replies
31
Views
4K
BombsAway
B
D
Interview question (abortion)
Replies
21
Views
10K
gyngyn
gyngyn
N
abortion taught in med school?
2
Replies
82
Views
12K
487806
4
MedPR
ACA And Abortion
Replies
35
Views
4K
skais595
S
Top