|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Abortion Thread
  |
| read 275 reaction(s) |
|---|
@ 06-04-2005 16:37 Lind_ | 12 posts
|  Hey you guys!!!
We're doing this projekt in school about an ethical dilemma  , and Iv'e chosen abortion. Could be really usefull to hear your oppinion  and why you think like you do. So if you feel for it pls write what you think about it.  xox Linda |
| Showing posts 226-250 of 275 | Page 10 of 11 |
| Discussion |
|---|
 0  @ 25-05-2007 17:15 Brianthegamer | 87 posts
| Thanks, Ice, for your viewpoints.
Mikey, when you get right down to it, we're all parasites. What about milk and dairy? Latex? Maple syrup? Quinine (rarely used, but it used to be an important antimalarial)? Cork? Practically every vaccine on the market? What if we need a blood transfusion or organ transplant? Are we not living off of another living creature for these?
No matter how somebody chooses to live, they are still a human being, and it's not right to take a life for purely selfish purposes.
There is a reason that we have foster homes. It is to eliminate the need for abortions. We also have contraceptives for men and women in different forms to provide yet another reason that abortions, i.e. the killing of a human being, is unnecessary.
What are the possible scenarios for pregnancy? The first is planned pregnancy, and adoption or abortion rarely results. The next would be where contraceptives fail. Adoption is an option; killing is unnecessary here. The last would be where contraceptives are neglected. Again, adoption is an alternative to responsibility, and killing is not needed.
There is really no good reason to kill a human being simply because they are maturing. | | 0 @ 25-05-2007 17:23 PunkRckr8 | 
9,392 posts
| Um, no. . .
A parasite cannot survive on its own. Case in point, an embryo cannot survive outside of the host mother's body. However, once birthed, we can survive on our own essentially (yes newborns require care, but that care can be given by anyone, not one specific host, and that is just another result of our evolutionary path of increased cranial size). Just because we utilize outside resources does not establish all of us as parasites. Parasitism relies completely on one host and ultimately is detrimental to the host (in the case of embryos, the mom has reduced nutrient availability, increased risk of injury both chronic and short-term, etc.) | | 0 @ 25-05-2007 17:59 vandy | 
9,508 posts
| you may have a point in that fetuses fit the literal definition of a parasite, but how on earth can we look at it that way when HUMAN LIFE must start as a "parasite" in that case? It gives such a negative view of pregnancy, something which is ESSENTIAL to the survival of our species? Pregnancy is a beautiful thing, the starting of life, and should be regarded as such. I mean, even with any other parasite, the parasitic being is a life, so why isn't a fetus seen that way? And if it's a life, it's a human life and deserves protection under the law. | | 0 @ 25-05-2007 18:05 PunkRckr8 |
9,392 posts
| Trust me, I find pregnancy and birth to be exceptionally amazing.
And in no way shape or form am I "pro-abortion", merely because I do consider the fetus to be a parasite. In an ideal world with plenty of good households, higher standards of living, less population cramming, etc., we would have as many offspring as we could, but the harsh reality is that in one form or another, population control is/will be a necessity (again, not saying abortion is the answer to this).
I am, however, pro-choice because as the "host", I feel that the mother has a right to decide how she cares for herself; included in that is the right to an abortion.
And mainly my point was to argue that Gamer had a horribly incorrect spin on a scientific fact/definition. | | 0 @ 25-05-2007 18:10 vandy |
9,508 posts
| Ok. I personally think that a baby's right to life needs to be protected before the mother's right to "her" body, but I understand where you're coming from and I can appreciate your appreciation for the wonder that pregnancy is. | | 0 @ 25-05-2007 18:19 PunkRckr8 |
9,392 posts
| Glad there can be so much appreciation floating around 
And you had mentioned the value of human life specifically with regards to abortion, for me I find development as a whole for any organism to be amazing. I tend to not hold human life on any pedestal above other animals (specifically our embryonic development which is nearly identical to all other placental mammals), with the exception of personal moral obligations that coincide with our social habits. | | 0 @ 26-05-2007 04:11 mikey_boy | 20,467 posts
| Mikey, when you get right down to it, we're all parasites.
no, we're not. i dont attach myself to someone and take the food they digest, suck the blood from their bodies, or give them my fecal and urinal discharge. although it'd be cool. we're not parasites because we dont live on or in a host.
and heres your problem, kind of like a lot of other people's on this forum. not everything is as black and white as you'd like it to be. theres not JUST 3 scenarios for wanting an abortion/pregnancy. there are a lot of scenario's. every person who is pregnant is pregnant for a different reason because every single person in this world is different from one another. so lets say the world-wide population was 50-50, there'd be roughly 3.7-ish billion women who are, have been, or could get pregnant all for different reasons.
and further, if the government can not protrude on oh, lets say, getting pierced, or tattooed, or anything else we have our right to do with our body, who are you, or anyone else, to say what a women can do with her body regardless of her state. be it pregnant or non-pregnant. a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases and theres nothing you or anyone else can do about it. we can sit here and debate and go around in circles as your arguments tend to do but at the end of the day, theres nothing you say nor believe that will change the laws to dis-allow a woman of aborting a baby if she so pleases because she has a right to do whatever she would like to her body. | | 0 @ 26-05-2007 04:26 mikey_boy | 20,467 posts
| you may have a point in that fetuses fit the literal definition of a parasite, but how on earth can we look at it that way when HUMAN LIFE must start as a "parasite" in that case? It gives such a negative view of pregnancy, something which is ESSENTIAL to the survival of our species? Pregnancy is a beautiful thing, the starting of life, and should be regarded as such. I mean, even with any other parasite, the parasitic being is a life, so why isn't a fetus seen that way? And if it's a life, it's a human life and deserves protection under the law.
every form of mammalian life starts off as a parasite. and it continues to be until birth. and if those lower intelligence animals had higher intelligence like ourselves they could have every right to have an abortion too. and you know, i hate to sound like a prick, which i probably already do, so here goes, we all saw the Miracle of Life video in health class, child birth as you put it is not a beautiful thing. your squeezing a watermelon out of a whole designed for a carrot-sized object. that is not beautiful to look at. no one is attempting to make pregnancy out to be awful but infant mortality rate is so high in this country that if one woman has an abortion out of 10 who are pregnant i promise you 8 out of the other 9 will live to be at least 55 years old. does the lose of 2 out of 10 really make that big difference when our population rate is growing literally at an exponential rate (worldwide and in this country)? something is going to have to give at some point and population control will need to be in place.
lets take China VS America for example. America awards parents money for having children while China awards people for not having children. and for those who have 2 and have the third bun in the oven, a lot of them give birth to the kid then either kill it or leave it for dead because of the legal trouble that goes with having 3 children. so is that ok? to kill a kid right after birth or do you think it might be more humane, for the child, to have it sucked out of you when its the size of a pea? its kind of a heavy question but think about it and answer. at some point America will HAVE to change there laws to begin to favor to people with less children and not more. | | 0 @ 29-05-2007 01:24 Brianthegamer | 87 posts
| A woman, as was stated, has every right to do with her body as she pleases. However, nobody has the right to do with the bodies of others as they please. There are many names for this latter action: assault, murder, rape. . . the list goes on, and the terminology used changes to fit the scenario. Abortion, too, is on that list, and it is wrong.
Nobody has the right to choose what happens to another living person. There are THREE people involved in an abortion: mother, father, and child. None of them have the right to take away the rights of others, and that is guaranteed in the US constitution.
In fact, according to the Constitution, no individual may have his/her rights removed without due process. Since a fetus cannot stand trial, his/her rights cannot be taken away, including the right to life. Abortion is, therefore, unconstitutional. Since all people are created equal, it is no different for them than it is for you and I. | | 0 @ 29-05-2007 01:27 mikey_boy | 20,467 posts
| There are many names for this latter action: assault, murder, rape. . . the list goes on, and the terminology used changes to fit the scenario. Abortion, too, is on that list, and it is wrong.
please find me on a legislative level where it states that a fetus is a living person and that to abort one is murder. dont give me a roundabout way of saying its a moral thing. i want to see a legal document or article that says it that has been passed through congress. | | 0 @ 29-05-2007 04:30 PunkRckr8 |
9,392 posts
| yeah, basically "child" doesn't equal "fetus"
sure it tricks people into feeling morally against abortion by calling a fetus a child, but they most definitely are not on the same level, neither biologically or legally. | | 0 @ 29-05-2007 04:44 Sgt_Pepper | 
509 posts
| I think every female should have the pleasure to experience a "good ole fashion" abortion at least once in their lifetime. | | 0 @ 29-05-2007 04:45 mikey_boy | 20,467 posts
| yeah but see thats the mind f**k he's trying to use to get over on people and get sympathy for the IT. as i noticed most supporters of anti-abortion do as well. he wont find a legal document nor article of abortion being murder because it isnt. he's fighting off his morals and not what is legal. | | 0 @ 30-05-2007 04:32 Brianthegamer | 87 posts
| There are no legal documents stating such. In fact, judges have said just the opposite of my stance on more than one occasion. However, they've been wrong before (prohibition, anyone?)
The fact is, abortions are against the constitution. They are, on top of that, against the very essence of all ethical and moral codes (unless you can find me a code of conduct that says it's okay to kill a benign individual for one's own personal gain; then I'll take back that last part.)
Those who perform abortions violate the very essence of the hippocratic oath and are unfit to wear the Caduceus. I'm currently working in the medical field, and it sickens me that a supplier of death would ever associate themselves with medicine or healing. | | 0 @ 30-05-2007 04:45 mikey_boy | 20,467 posts
| there are no legal documents. thank you. but yet, you go on to say its a FACT its against the constitution. how do you figure? once again, find me among any of the amendments where its not allowed to abort a fetus. and you bring up prohibition. if they were to ban abortion, some people would probably do what people against prohibition would do. ever hear of wire hangers? and obviously its not against the hippocratic oath or else doctors wouldnt perform them. | | 0 @ 30-05-2007 05:10 Brianthegamer | 87 posts
| As I said, it's against the constitution because the constitution GUARANTEES that no rights can be taken away without due process, and in abortion, a fetus's right to life is taken away without due process. It's all there in black and white. Sure, they're not right next to each other, but the two interact just the same.
As for the Hippocratic Oath, it is the solemn promise to do no harm. Interpreted further, it gives the doctors 2 jobs: the first to improve life, the second to prolong it.
Killing a person with a clean slate, who's life can only improve from a parasitic stage into all the beauty and majesty and miracle that is life itself, goes back on both promises. As I said, anyone who betrays their oath is unfit to to wear the caduceus, or to call themselves a healer or associate themselves with medicine. | | 0 @ 30-05-2007 05:19 mikey_boy | 20,467 posts
| ok, firstly, how do you know by not aborting the fetus the mother, who is also part of this equation your talking about, dies by giving birth to it. just a scenario. if their job is to prolong and help life, should they prolong and help the who's already basically living, functioning and such, or the one who is parasite? and secondly, like i said, it obviously isnt against the Hippocratic oath because if it was doctors wouldnt perform them and there M.D. status would be taken.
and fetus' dont have rights or it would be against the law. your using the constitution as a backing to state that a fetus has rights. it doesnt. if it did you wouldnt be able to abort them. its that simple. until they go in and physically change it from saying person to including a fetus its not against any law or any constitutional amendment. either that or if its adopted into our society its wrong, which obviously it hasnt. those are essentially the only possible ways to make it morally wrong/illegal. | | 0 @ 12-06-2007 22:22 FiVEWiSHES | 
187 posts
| actually, an abortion would only be necessary if the parent wanted it's child to live instead of themself. if the parent wanted to live, they would have an abortion. although, anyone who has kept the baby until then would most likely take the risk (not saying everyone) but that person may.
* offtopic :
i know i explained that a little loosely, and it wasn't that great, but eh. sorry if it didn't make sense.
| | 0 @ 24-12-2007 19:59 xoerinjoyox | 
411 posts
| Abortion
Is wrong. That is my first statement. Okay now everyone knows that sex can lead to pregnancy that is what it was made for, reproducing. Now I think that you just should abstain from sex until you and your partner are ready for a child preferably married. Now we are in a world were that isnt looked upon as normal.
Now If you are raped you should report it right away within a day and they will scrape your uterus for evidence using sperm. Now if you do that chances of pregnancy are almost none. but in the case you should get pregnant why kill a human being. It is not that persons fault they are brought into the world through rape. Do they deserve to die. Also if you cant afford a baby there are many programs you can get into and adoption as well.
Also think about it if someone was to murder a pregnant women it counts as a double murder, yet someone can murder a baby if they have permission since when does that make any sense? | | 0 @ 24-12-2007 20:23 Cheater138 | 
18,834 posts
| they don't scrape your uterus, they wipe you down with cotton swabs. and there is no way possible to 'scrape a uterus' to get rid of sperm. 1. that'd be highly painful & 2. that would be a surgical procedure and not something any state would pay for to put in a free rape exam.
a rape kit is not going to reduce the chance of anything. the only thing that will do that is pills. | | +1 @ 25-12-2007 00:17 JDolla | 
6,954 posts
| abortion thread on christmas eve, aaaah the internet... | | 0 @ 26-12-2007 03:01 xoerinjoyox |
411 posts
| I didnt mean they go inside and scrape a uterus with a knife its called a uterus scrape and they take out all of the blood coating in the uterus at the time following with any sperm or eggs in there now the chances that a baby will develop without any blood lining is slim to none | | 0 @ 26-12-2007 03:09 Cheater138 |
18,834 posts
| doing the same thing that the morning after pill would do only in a way that's similar to an abortion...
still doesn't seem like a cheap procedure. last thing someone who's just been raped wants to worry about, hospital bills. | | 0 @ 27-12-2007 02:12 xoerinjoyox |
411 posts
| yeah but abortion isnt cheap and having a baby isnt cheap either all of the options aren't cheap | | 0 @ 27-12-2007 02:23 sweething87 | 
247 posts
| I was in a situation where abortion was an option, but it was never an option for me. I always said I'd never do that, and I still say that. The way I see it is that it's not the baby's fault. It didn't ask to be conceived. You may not have asked for it either, but there are other options. Options that aren't so permanent. Personally, I think it's a crappy way out of a bad situation. If I were to get pregnant and I really couldn't support the baby, adoption would be my first consideration. There are thousands of families who would be more that happy to have a baby, even if it isn't their own. I just think of all the things my child could do. What he or she would become, the things they'd experience, a friend they'd be to many people. I couldn't take that away from an innocent baby. |
| |
|
|
|
TOP ARTISTS:
Coldplay, Rihanna, Jonas Brothers, Jason Mraz, Lil Wayne, Miley Cyrus, Leona Lewis, Avril Lavigne, Chris Brown, Paramore, Linkin Park, Mariah Carey, Pussycat Dolls, The, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Jordin Sparks, Usher, Akon, Eminem, Colbie Caillat, Secondhand Serenade, Nickelback, Lifehouse, Ne-Yo, Håkan Hellström, Kanye West, Simple Plan, Jesse McCartney, Metro Station, Evanescence, Sara Bareilles, Takida, John Mayer, One Republic, Christina Aguilera, Cute Is What We Aim For, Avenged Sevenfold, Lars Winnerbäck, Alanis Morissette, Fall Out Boy, Natasha Bedingfield, Enrique Iglesias, Boys Like Girls, Celine Dion, Kelly Clarkson, Beatles, The, Carrie Underwood, Alicia Keys, Death Cab For Cutie |
| Copyright © 1998-2008 LetsSingIt | add to bookmarks | disclaimer | privacy policy | advertise on this site |
|
|
