[Guest]

I'll let someone else really start the discussion, but my view real quick: it should be entirely up to the mother - who else would be better to decide whether or not to do such a drastic thing? Leaving the choice up to others seems very wrong to me.

[Izzy]

I was taught that when the heart has started beating, it's alive. Then it's not abortion. many concider it murder then. I'm at a 50/50 opinion at that point.

At that point, it's still no more alive than it was at the beginning. It's no more alive than say, your fingernails, your hair, or a few skin cells. The fetus is still incapable of surviving without being a parasite, and this is hardly alive. The heart is just a muscle, it's really not anything special. I think people often inappropriately equate it with love, which.. meh. To each their own.

1. do u mean meth and crack and stuff? they shouldn't have been doing it. If it's prescription drugs, then...well either way, if they gave their consent, but were under the influence, i think it's defined as rape. 95% sure, but not completely.

2. Then they were young or stupid. Get an abortion, but i still think that if it's after it's "alive", then that was their choice.

3. doesn't that go with the above?

4. That's my point. she had no choice. they had a choice.

1. I mean anything. Personally, I think people should have complete freedom over their bodies, which involves the ingestion of amphetamines, hallucinogens, what have you. The problem comes when someone else takes advantage of your impaired state.

2,3,4. Yeah.

Meh.

[peace*out]

At that point, it's still no more alive than it was at the beginning. It's no more alive than say, your fingernails, your hair, or a few skin cells. The fetus is still incapable of surviving without being a parasite, and this is hardly alive. The heart is just a muscle, it's really not anything special. I think people often inappropriately equate it with love, which.. meh. To each their own.

Interesting...i never thought of it like that. When can the fetus start to think for itself?

1. I mean anything. Personally, I think people should have complete freedom over their bodies, which involves the ingestion of amphetamines, hallucinogens, what have you. The problem comes when someone else takes advantage of your impaired state.

2,3,4. Yeah.

Meh.

1. They should. I don't believe that doing drugs will get you anywhere, but everyone should have complete control of their body. Then, the "taking advantage" is classified as rape. Again, i think.

2. yeah? are you saying you agree with me, or is it kind of like the "Meh" you added below...?

edit: quote problems

Edited May 16, 2010 by peace*out

[Izzy]

Interesting...i never thought of it like that. When can the fetus start to think for itself?

1. They should. I don't believe that doing drugs will get you anywhere, but everyone should have complete control of their body. Then, the "taking advantage" is classified as rape. Again, i think.

2. yeah? are you saying you agree with me, or is it kind of like the "Meh" you added below...?

edit: quote problems

I just googled. 32 weeks, evidently. This is the point where personally, I'd say no for the abortion. Luckily, people usually decide before this point anyway.

1. Yeah, it's still rape. Drugs can actually be very beneficial. Lemme know if you want to discuss it haha.

2. I agree with 2 and 3. 4 I disagree with. I still think it should ultimately be up to the woman, regardless of the situation leading to pregnancy.

[peace*out]

I just googled. 32 weeks, evidently. This is the point where personally, I'd say no for the abortion. Luckily, people usually decide before this point anyway.

1. Yeah, it's still rape. Drugs can actually be very beneficial. Lemme know if you want to discuss it haha.

2. I agree with 2 and 3. 4 I disagree with. I still think it should ultimately be up to the woman, regardless of the situation leading to pregnancy.

0. yeah...

1. sure why not? should i make a new topic, or should we just discuss it? (and im not talking about prescription drugs)

2. In 4., I'm saying that it's her choice, but that it's less...idk. I just think that she would have more reason to.

you make to many good points! I'm starting to rethink my other thoughts (does that even make sence?)!

[Izzy]

Haha, yeah, it makes sense. Hmm, for the sake of not going off topic, feel free to make a new topic while I get some thoughts together.

[Framm 18]

I have given my opinion earlier in this thread, but let's see if I can give a clearer reason.

I think that the saying "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" fits well in this situation (not saying that having sex is a crime, just think that the saying fits). Too many times, people get away with stuff, because it wasn't thier fault or the other people made them do it. There is no accountability in most people anymore. [/rant]

Everything that you do, has a consequence (good or bad) that you have to live with. The consequence for having sex is having children, if you are willing to have sex, then you by the act have said that you are willing to have a child. If one does get pregnant, both the man and woman have to live with the consequence(s) that that choice has brought.

As for the rape situation, I think (as Slick has said) if there were more people willing to adopt, then that would be the best option.

As I have said this is my opinion, take it for what you will.

[peace*out]

that's basicly my opinion. I believe if it's an "accident", go ahead and get the abortion (as long as it can't think and respond to stimuli) but really - watch it carefully. you may not get the third chance. you already got the second one.

[unreality]

My veiws on this:

1) abortion's ok until the heart starts to beat. thats after about 4-5 weeks. then its not exactly abortion anymore.

This is not reasonable. What if it's one day before the heart starts beating? Then it's okay?

When you think about morality you have to factor in potential. Just because the heart hasn't started pumping baby blood yet doesn't mean it won't tomorrow. The potential to live is from the very beginning, ergo there's no point IMO where it becomes 'alive', it's a gradual process with the only real events being the Conception and the Birth. Any event picked in between is too arbitrary.

2) abortion is definate option to concider if person X was raped...after all, it's not like they had the option.

I don't know. I agree I guess, and think mothers should have the ultimate say-so, but I hope they will choose to have the child anyway. Find positive solace in a negative event, etc. The whole "unwanted" argument is just an attitude, just one perspective.

In short, I frown on abortion. I'm not religious at all but for me that makes life all the more precious. I think if someone is under 18 and/or was raped, abortion should be an option. Beyond that I'm not sure.

[peace*out]

This is not reasonable. What if it's one day before the heart starts beating? Then it's okay?

When you think about morality you have to factor in potential. Just because the heart hasn't started pumping baby blood yet doesn't mean it won't tomorrow. The potential to live is from the very beginning, ergo there's no point IMO where it becomes 'alive', it's a gradual process with the only real events being the Conception and the Birth. Any event picked in between is too arbitrary.

I changed my opinion on this.

I don't know. I agree I guess, and think mothers should have the ultimate say-so, but I hope they will choose to have the child anyway. Find positive solace in a negative event, etc. The whole "unwanted" argument is just an attitude, just one perspective.

In short, I frown on abortion. I'm not religious at all but for me that makes life all the more precious. I think if someone is under 18 and/or was raped, abortion should be an option. Beyond that I'm not sure.

I might hope so too, but you're living for 9 mo with a reminder of a horrable memory...if it was me, i wouldnt be able to stand it.

[Izzy]

Everything that you do, has a consequence (good or bad) that you have to live with. The consequence for having sex is having children, if you are willing to have sex, then you by the act have said that you are willing to have a child.

Not really. One poor decision (unprotected sex resulting in a fetus) shouldn't lead to another bad decision (an unwanted child being born and then having to endure the unwantedness).

My personal view on abortion: I couldn't do it, and I hope that no one I'm ever with does it, but I'm not against it.

[peace*out]

Not really. One poor decision (unprotected sex resulting in a fetus) shouldn't lead to another bad decision (an unwanted child being born and then having to endure the unwantedness).

that's what adoptions for...but you have a point...

all the same, if you know enough to do it, you should know the consequences.

edit: adding more

Edited May 17, 2010 by peace*out

[Guest]

my personal view is this. life begins at conception. i think women have the right to say no, they have the right to use contraception, but once pregnant, i fully support keeping the child alive even against the mother's wishes. only in the rare cases such as rape or incest would i be in favor of abortion. I'm not saying we should necessarily punish doctors who perform abortions or even lock up mothers who have them, but women should be held responsible for their decisions (as should men).

[Izzy]

Just playing devil's advocate here, what about consensual incest?

[Guest]

My opinion:

as soon as the sperm and the egg meet, the baby starts to grow, when it is actively growing, it is alive and is capable of being murdered. i agree with Framm on this, if the two people don't want to have the baby, they make sure they don't get it in the first place: don't have sex!

if they do, then have the baby. i have a friend who was born from an unmarried couple and i am sooo glad the mother didn't abort.

if they're raped, have the baby. you can call it harsh, but the kid still has potential to be someone in the world.

if the kid has some disorder, have the baby. they may not grow up to be president, but it is their life, and they should be given a chance to live it

yup, strongly pro-life

going Greek a bit here. people say that love has no gender, this refers to fileo love-loving as brothers and sisters, and agape love-unconditional love as in family or a Christian and Jesus. eros-sexual love, is preserved for the special relationship between a married man and woman (my view of homosexuality as well). but keep in mind married

[peace*out]

Controvercial thread revive!

I skimmed the thread, and i didnt see much/anything relating it to God. (tell me if i missed something).

I was looking at the SAB, and i noticed this. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html Many (not all, but many, who are usually religious) "pro-lifers" stand outside abortion clinics. however, this seems to hold the opposite point of view...

what do you think?

[Guest]

I have the opinion that once the baby starts kicking, it's alive. Getting an abortion before that is okay IMO.

And although I'm not Christian, I think that those verses relate to the fact that back then, most babies didn't survive. Kind of like the practice of not naming the baby until 3 months, so as not to get too attached to it.

[Guest]

I haven't been following this thread, but I'm going to put out an idea anyways:

There is a very significant difference between morality and politics. Morality is whether something is right or wrong. Politics is whether you are going to use force against someone or not for doing something that you think is wrong.

For example, I think that it is wrong for a parent to brainwash his child into believing that the world was created by God 6000 years ago, but I'm not going to go over to this parent with a gun and say, "Stop brainwashing your kid or I'll shoot you." Likewise, I'm not going to advocate that a government passes a law making such brainwashing punishable by X fine or X years in prison or a murderous bullet if the person refuses to pay the fine or go to prison. If the parent is raping his child, however, then I would definitely consider using the gun to prevent the child from being abused.

Now, to apply this thought to the abortion issue: My view is that in most cases in which a mother decides to get an abortion, this is a good thing for the mother to do. If I was someone who thought that this was wrong, however, I would then ask myself if I supported pointing a gun at the mother and saying, "If you get an abortion then I'll shoot."

This is the political issue. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the mother's choice to have an abortion (the moral issue), there is still the political issue of whether you are going to use force to punish the mother for her choice.

While most people I know are pro-choice, I have come across a few people who considered themselves pro-life. I mentioned this idea to just one of those people and he became pro-choice within a couple minutes. He, unlike me, thinks that abortions are wrong in the vast majority of cases. However, he, like me, agrees that it is wrong to kill / threaten to kill the mother for having an abortion. So he agreed then that he is pro-choice after all. To be anti-choice would be insane in my view. If you're pro-life (i.e. anti-choice) then that means you advocate using violent force (guns) to kill the mother if she has an abortion.

[Guest]

I realize this thread was started a while ago, and this is now the second time it is getting revived, but I'm going to quote someone from 2009:

I disagree completely. I believe that all people are equal, that the value of their lives are equal to the same amount, no matter what their profession, age, gender, race, religion, political view, what have you. Essentially, my outlook on this can be summed up in two sentences:

There is no person in the world better than me.

There is no person in the world inferior to me.

The potential in a human being is limitless. You never know until someone does something that they're going to do it, only that they're capable of it. And human beings are capable of so much more than you might think. If you value any human life over any others, then you're discriminating either for or against somebody, and with what criteria I don't know, but it's there.

Now, I agree that a doctor's actions are probably more valuable than a six year old playing house, but what if the doctor only ever saves people's lives in an ER to a total of maybe six hundred people in his career, and that six year old grows up and discovers a way to cure the entire world of hunger?

The doctor's actions at the time were more valuable than the six year old, but whose actions turned out more valuable in the end? And how are we currently capable of judging which one's actions will be more a benefit to humankind?

People who hold this view never fail to amuse me. He is saying that he'd rather kill 4000 MIT undergraduates than 4001 one-day-old babies.... Anybody who values the lives of those 4001 babies more than the lives of those 4000 MIT students is insane in my view. Is he insane? I bet he just doesn't understand what he is saying and really does NOT value everyone equally. In this case, I wouldn't call him insane, just ignorant.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Use the Force

[Guest]

The argument of abortion is whether a baby develops a soul prenatally or not. Some people may develop an emotion connection to the baby and don't want it to leave, even if they're by themselves.

Recently, my mom came to me and told me she was pregnant with twins. I went into a shock. An hour and a half later she came out and told me "April fools!" when it was March 31st. My stutter left, but I think I was most devastated when she told me she wasn't pregnant. I guess I realized what I didn't have in life.

I'm guessing some women feel the same way (or just the god thing) and force it upon others.

[Guest]

Scientific fact:

The first cellular development which is ultimately destined to become an organ is the blastopore, which in deuterostomes like us eventually forms into the anus. That's right. We all start life as a**holes. Some of us never stop being a**holes, in which case abortion can be carried out at any stage, even when the fetus has grown into an adult, and ethically it's fine.

[Guest]

Don't we actually develop human feelings ten mins. before birth? This was just something I was told by a very bias friend, so it's probably wrong.

[Guest]

Don't we actually develop human feelings ten mins. before birth? This was just something I was told by a very bias friend, so it's probably wrong.

Considering that some people never develop human feelings (), I would call in to question anything that seeks to identify a specific time for any event to occur during prenatal development. As far as I am aware, no one really knows the definitive answer to that question and it probably varies from case to case.

To change the subject a little, Mississippi has the lowest abortion rate in the US (because of their committed "pro-life" stance) and the highest childhood poverty rate in the US (because...uh because ). So when someone claims to be "pro-life," my question is, are they really "pro-life" or merely "anti-abortion"? There's a significant difference. To be anti-abortion is an easy stance. I think in reality, everyone is anti-abortion. No one thinks that abortions are a good thing. But to be pro-life is something more. You have to be willing to go beyond the point of birth, something that doesn't seem to interest the posturing politicians in states like MS.

This is a subject that has no easy answer, but people on one side of the issue want to say that they are right and move on. That's not a responsible or reasonable approach to any hard problem. Sometimes the "best" solution is still messy. That's life.

[Guest]

Pro-life is just a term to make yourself look good. To someone that doesn't know what pro-life is, it seems like a bad thing to befriend someone who is "Anti-life".

Again, it's your spiritual connection to a child, but what about those poor 16 year old girls who were raped and can't afford a single thing despite being the purest kid. What will they do?

[peace*out]

I think "Pro-life" just depends on what your definition of "life" is.

I see two jumping out at me:

1) being alive. being able to breathe. having a heart beat

2) living, but living in a world where you don't have to worry about abusive parents calling you a mistake, and being scared for your life walking to school, etc.

I think that Pro-lifers see #1, but THINK #2 doesnt come into play. Or if it does, the kid will obviously be SO happy that theyre alive.

[Guest]

Latin time:

Pro- For

Life- (well, that's not Latin)

I'm for life, I'm for Abortion.

Paradox? Noooo. But when someone accuses me of being anti-life, I ask what they think about Muslims.

Now are you pro-life? No.

And Dawh, thank you for that interesting fact, I'll be using it for a speech for abortion if you don't mind.