"Abortion"

paul andrew bourne wrote:

Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
I have deliberately not use the word fact as that term is absolute and this discourse is relatively absolute.

Relatively absolute, or absolutely relative?

If you're looking for science to back up either side of the abortion debate, you're out of luck, because science hasn't progressed far enough to objectively define when a fetus becomes a human being. Or even to define what constitutes a human being. There is no science in this debate, only opinions.

0 Replies

Mmmm, abortion. Fun topic.

People are funny.

Day 7: (or whatever, I'm not familiar with the human reproductive cycle nor do I wish to be). It's a collection of cells with human DNA that are growing into what will one day (most likely) be a human. It has no heartbeat yet.

Yeah, kill it... whatever.

Day 8: It's a collection of cells with human DNA that are growing into what will one day (most likely) be a human. A collection of muscle cells are beggining to pulsate within it.

Nooooo... sacred life, must protect.

Your DNA is programmed to prevent you from killing anything you identify as human. It's a fairly weak injunction that can be bypassed with relative ease, yet none the less it exists. It's on an instinctual level, nowhere near logical thought, so it's based on identifying sensory input. With that sensory input (faces, motion, heartbeat, etc) the injunction kicks in. Without it it doesn't. Humans are confused about the morality of abortion because the child begins with no identifying human features, then over time develops them, yet for a moment is in a grey area that our brain has trouble dealing with.

Every day a human consumes other life to survive. Its immune system kills thousands of microbiotic life forms. We kill to survive. Sometimes we kill for convenience.

If you wish to abort the child, go for it. It's none of my business.

0 Replies

Im very pro contraception.
I cant believe there are religions that stop people from using it!!

0 Replies

Crazielady420 wrote:

Well I am pro Choice.. I myself couldn't do it, but it is your choice, everything happens for a reason. Certain situations, if certain people where not able to have this choice then the babies life could be ruined.... or if you are raped or your life is at risk. All reasons for abortion, but like I said I myself could never do it (unless I was raped or my babies life was in danger)

This is my take on the subject as well. I could never personally have an abortion, unless my life was at stake, but what others do is none of my business.

0 Replies

Re: "Abortion"

paul andrew bourne wrote:

. . . Therefore, if a woman has the right over her own body, then "why is abortion an external issue of debate?"

Debate, public discussion, and litigation over the issue of abortion have helped the following concepts to develop:

All individuals have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But no right is absolute. Rights are qualified. People are not allowed to exercise their rights to the detriment of others and society.

Likewise, women have a qualified right over their bodies. In the early stages of pregnancy, a woman may lawfully choose to terminate her pregnancy.

Society may regulate abortions to ensure the health of the mother, but society may not outlaw early-term abortions nor make abortions unduly burdensome.

In the later stages of pregnancy, societal interests increase as the fetus becomes viable -- capable of survival outside of the mother's womb. Society may forbid abortions when the fetus is viable.

paul andrew bourne wrote:

I am requesting a critique of the abortion phenomenon. Is it wrong and-or right? Based on your response to the question asked, justify your stance with unbiased arguments.

Whether abortion is right or wrong is an individual decision.

I think the true issue is whether or not one individual (or society as a whole) may impose his (or its) views of right or wrong on others. And that leads us back to where we started: The concepts that have developed due to public debate and litigation.

0 Replies

In response to debra_law, a child is a human being from the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg. So no, a woman dosn't have the right to decide to kill the child in the early stages of development because it's like killing a retard or someone severly handicaped. Is that right? No, its not, so how can you say that she can kill the child even with the morning after pill. The only diference between the human fetus or you and me is that I have more cells than that child. If I have 1 million cells and you have 999,999 cells, does that make me more human than you? no, so how can you even consider abortion an option? answer me that

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

In response to debra_law, a child is a human being from the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg.

According to whom?

0 Replies

Public Debate

thunder_runner32 wrote:

In response to debra_law, a child is a human being from the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg. So no, a woman dosn't have the right to decide to kill the child in the early stages of development because it's like killing a retard or someone severly handicaped. Is that right? No, its not, so how can you say that she can kill the child even with the morning after pill. The only diference between the human fetus or you and me is that I have more cells than that child. If I have 1 million cells and you have 999,999 cells, does that make me more human than you? no, so how can you even consider abortion an option? answer me that

Hi Thunder_Runner32:

You are entitled to your opinion. You believe that a human embryo constitutes "life" that no person has the right to terminate.

BUT, suppose the pregnancy constitutes an undeniable threat to the life of the mother? Suppose a team of expert doctors has determined, if the mother carries the developing fetus in her womb until the fetus is viable, that the mother will undoubtedly die. Would the woman then have the "right" to terminate the pregnancy in order to save her own life?

If you answer this question, I'll be in a better position to answer your question.

Debra

0 Replies

Sorry, double post, and I, for some strange reason, decided to get rid of the first one. Even I will admit that that is wierd :wink:

0 Replies

Also, think about this...If we delegalize (is that a word?) abortion, women will still do it, just like they used to. So, think about this...would you rather a woman get her abortion in a hospital, with a trained staff, or at home, by herself, with a coathanger? Riddle me this, riddle me that.

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

Also, think about this...If we delegalize (is that a word?) abortion, women will still do it, just like they used to. So, think about this...would you rather a woman get her abortion in a hospital, with a trained staff, or at home, by herself, with a coathanger? Riddle me this, riddle me that.

That's a rather weak argument, along the lines of: "would you rather someone get his heroin from an FDA-approved supplier, or would you rather he got it from some unregulated street dealer?"

0 Replies

supplier

0 Replies

j/k I was just pointing out that woman are in charge of their own bodies, and if they don't want a baby, they won't have it.

0 Replies

i feel that no matter what a woman should never get an abortion because she has had her life to live and the baby should get a chance to live and maybe change the world yournever know

0 Replies

it is not just the womans choice to get the abortion the father should have a say in it too!! yeah it is the mothers body but that does not mean that she can get an abortion just because she cant bear the birth process

0 Replies

hyper426

I do not agree with your idea that "women are in charge of their bodies". Well, they are, but no right is absolute.
Imagine this: and if all women in the planet decided to make an abortion every time they get pregnant? Do you think that women (or men) have the right to decide, in that case, the extinction of humankind?
And, if women are in charge of their bodies, as an absolute right, why not make an abortion in the eighth month of pregnancy?

Now, imagine this: a woman has a baby. There are no other women available in several miles. And that woman decides not to suckle the baby. After all, it is her own body. Even if the baby dies. Do you think she has that right?

0 Replies

hmmmm...I will get back to that later...you have made me think...thank God i am open minded, i may change my mind....just watch.

0 Replies

ben_dover wrote:

i feel that no matter what a woman should never get an abortion because she has had her life to live and the baby should get a chance to live and maybe change the world yournever know

Strongly Disagree... what if she is only 14.. you would say she has had a life to live?? She is still a baby herself!!! You say she should never get an abortion... ok what if the doctors says... if you have this baby you and the baby would die.. we need to abort this baby...you would have her say no??? What if the woman was raped by her father or uncle...Never say never! Mad

0 Replies

val wrote:

hyper426

I do not agree with your idea that "women are in charge of their bodies". Well, they are, but no right is absolute.
Imagine this: and if all women in the planet decided to make an abortion every time they get pregnant? Do you think that women (or men) have the right to decide, in that case, the extinction of humankind?
And, if women are in charge of their bodies, as an absolute right, why not make an abortion in the eighth month of pregnancy?

Now, imagine this: a woman has a baby. There are no other women available in several miles. And that woman decides not to suckle the baby. After all, it is her own body. Even if the baby dies. Do you think she has that right?

You have a wild imagination. Fortunately, a woman does not have to take the far-fetched wildness of your imagination into consideration when she make the individual choice whether to continue or terminate a early term pregnancy.

The right to choose is a qualified right. The state may prohibit abortions when the fetus becomes viable.

A woman may choose to bring a pregnancy to term and give birth, and upon live birth, she does not have the right to kill that child. However, a woman is not required to keep the child nor is she required to breast feed. She can relinquish her parental rights and surrender the child for adoption. She can feed the child with a bottle. If she intentionally starves her child to death, this is depraved indifference and the woman is subject to criminal penalties.

Your wild imagination and immature and absurd scenarios do not carry any weight.

0 Replies

Debra Law

My last reply had to do with hyper426 statement about "women being in charge of their bodies". Assuming that he was talking of an absolute right, I tried to show that even that right has limitations.

Abortion, in my opinion, is not about women being in charge of their bodies. If it was, then,I repeat, why not an abortion in the eighth month of pregnancy? The right would be appliable no matter the age of foetus is.

You talk about the right to choose. But you also establish limits. So, the question is: what is the basis of that right? Why do you think that a woman has the right to choose to bring a pregnancy to term and give birth, or, instead, make an abortion?
And why, in the last case, establish a temporal limit?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know