Is abortion really wrong?

Diest,

No big deal. I guess I just don't understand why you would prefer the woman to have a baby instead of an abortion.

flushd,

(You didn't ask me, but...) The unborn has its own interests, separate from the mother's; that seems pretty clear, to me. What else is required in order to make a choice?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Diest,

No big deal. I guess I just don't understand why you would prefer the woman to have a baby instead of an abortion.

flushd,

(You didn't ask me, but...) The unborn has its own interests, separate from the mother's; that seems pretty clear, to me. What else is required in order to make a choice?

Understood. I see you're question. In my experiance, I have met women who have had abortions for several reasons. I;ve met women that felt that they wouldn't be able to take care of a child, but they wanted to have a child, but they were in no position to raise a child. I wish we had support programs etc for those women.

I don't judge women who have had or will have abortions. I just want for them to be, keyword: enabled for sucess. I don't think that a girl in college should have to stop going to college to take care of a child if she wants to have a child someday later after when she has established a career. I believe that if we had a less judgemental culture and more support programs said girl might feel better about keeping a child because it would have to be such a conflict.

But above all, it should be choice not law.

0 Replies

Quote:

Understood. I see you're question. In my experiance, I have met women who have had abortions for several reasons. I;ve met women that felt that they wouldn't be able to take care of a child, but they wanted to have a child, but they were in no position to raise a child. I wish we had support programs etc for those women.

I don't judge women who have had or will have abortions. I just want for them to be, keyword: enabled for sucess. I don't think that a girl in college should have to stop going to college to take care of a child if she wants to have a child someday later after when she has established a career. I believe that if we had a less judgemental culture and more support programs said girl might feel better about keeping a child because it would have to be such a conflict.

But above all, it should be choice not law.

Deist:

There are several support programs for women who chose to abort their fetus' life - and of course there is also the "choice" of adoption.

And I will do my best not to judge women who abort, just as I will do my best not to judge murderers, rapists, etc. Like you - I hope they are enabled for success - by enabling themselves!

And there are many colleges & universities that have support programs for student-mothers. Most, in fact have such programs. However - to infer that a student's only choices are to abort or quit going to school if choosing birth seems a bit extreme to me.

As to "choice"; I have a question and let's use the college girl analogy. (Picture 2 different college girls, both become pregnant after having unprotected sex.) Girl-1 thinks it "would be cool to have a baby" however after further thinking about the inconveniences that would no doubt crop up during a "normal" college career decides to have an abortion late in her 2nd trimester. [Meaning the live-fetus with a pumping heart, hands, feet, eyes, ears, brain, etc would be vacuumed out of her body piece by piece.] By your own admission - this is not only acceptable, but should be supported by all of us!

Girl-2 decides to give birth to a healthy baby. However after 6-months realizes that this baby is very much an inconvenience, so she kills it. In your estimation - why should girl-2 be held "under law" and not be allowed to kill by choice - due to inconvenience?

Note: It is not my intention to attack you about this - I am only trying to understand the moral-difference!

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't judge women who have had or will have abortions.

That's good. I don't, either.

Quote:

I just want for them to be, keyword: enabled for sucess. I don't think that a girl in college should have to stop going to college to take care of a child if she wants to have a child someday later after when she has established a career.

I agree.

Quote:

I believe that if we had a less judgemental culture and more support programs said girl might feel better about keeping a child because it would have to be such a conflict.

Less judgmental, how?

Quote:

But above all, it should be choice not law.

It will always be a choice. But it shouldn't be one supported by law. In my view, the debate should focus on how we, as a society, respond to someone who has made that choice.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

And I will do my best not to judge women who abort, just as I will do my best not to judge murderers, rapists, etc.

Come on, dog. That's a totally different category. Murderers and rapists have the benefit of clarity regarding society's opinion.

0 Replies

Quote:

Come on, dog. That's a totally different category. Murderers and rapists have the benefit of clarity regarding society's opinion.

Yep - you got me on that one echi! :wink:

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Quote:
I don't judge women who have had or will have abortions.

That's good. I don't, either.

Quote:
I just want for them to be, keyword: enabled for sucess. I don't think that a girl in college should have to stop going to college to take care of a child if she wants to have a child someday later after when she has established a career.
I agree.

Quote:
I believe that if we had a less judgemental culture and more support programs said girl might feel better about keeping a child because it would have to be such a conflict.
Less judgmental, how?

Quote:
But above all, it should be choice not law.

It will always be a choice. But it shouldn't be one supported by law. In my view, the debate should focus on how we, as a society, respond to someone who has made that choice.

Then I think we are onthe same page.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

flushd,

(You didn't ask me, but...) The unborn has its own interests, separate from the mother's; that seems pretty clear, to me. What else is required in order to make a choice?

A mind and a voice.

0 Replies

Quote:

A mind and a voice.

A late 2nd trimester fetus has the same mind as a 90 day premature infant.

And there are thousands of people (from infants to grandparents) who are unable to speak. Are they not worthy of choice?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Quote:
A mind and a voice.

A late 2nd trimester fetus has the same mind as a 90 day premature infant.

And there are thousands of people (from infants to grandparents) who are unable to speak. Are they not worthy of choice?

An infant is not given choice either. Adults decide what it is best for an infant.

Those who can not speak have advocates - unless they can communicate in another way to let their choice be known. Depending on the state of their minds and capabilities - others may be choosing for them.

0 Replies

An infant's choice, like that of an unborn child, may not be respected, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Are you suggesting that an unborn fetus, and an infant, have an equal number to choices to an adult - and that they are capable of making those choices and being able to communicate them?

What choices specifically are you referring to?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

echi wrote:

flushd,

(You didn't ask me, but...) The unborn has its own interests, separate from the mother's; that seems pretty clear, to me. What else is required in order to make a choice?

A mind and a voice.

Taking this to the literal extreme.... Would you also allow that a brain damaged person who cannot speak should be put out their misery?

0 Replies

flushd,

I'm saying that a fetus prefers that which is beneficial to its nature, and it will resist any change that is not beneficial.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

flushd wrote:
echi wrote:

flushd,

(You didn't ask me, but...) The unborn has its own interests, separate from the mother's; that seems pretty clear, to me. What else is required in order to make a choice?

A mind and a voice.

Taking this to the literal extreme.... Would you also allow that a brain damaged person who cannot speak should be put out their misery?

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. There are no easy answers, no black and white, no 100% guarantees. I'd like to think that all in involved would be taken into consideration. And this topic is very close to my heart.

And who is making the choice?

The point is: they can not choose for themselves - we must interpret and decide to a degree.

echi, you didn't answer my question though. What choices are a fetus capable of making and how do they communicate this?

You interpret things one way, but perhaps that is not what a fetus 'prefers' at all. How do you know with absolute certainty? Because the cells duplicate?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

echi wrote:
Diest TKO: "I'd hope that a person would choose to keep a child to term and keep it after ..."

Why?

I'm just saying that I'd like for everyone to be enabled to keep their pregnancies to term and keep their children after term. I don't want parentless children in the world. It would be nice. I'm pro-choice because I believe we should choose to keep our children not be forced to do so. Legality doesn't equate to morality.

Real Life - So if a clump of cells has it's own distict DNA, it has a distintion? What about the cells in the placenta that don't belong to the mother or father? Are they protected? Having a seperate DNA structure doesn't validate the removal of someone's ability to choose. Whether it be for the unborn, or themselves.

If you start arguing that anytime one person makes a choice that involves the death of cells that are genetically different than their own, you really create a big stupid hole.

You could claim obtuse things as the tanning salon is trying to abort me! Their murdering my skin cells that are totolly genetically different than thiers!

You could claim murder for everyone who coughs on a train.

Hell, birth is still the leading cause of death.

You choosing to place your own buns in the tanning booth is far different from someone else choosing to terminate the unborn.

You never run out of silly analogies, do you?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

echi wrote:

flushd,

(You didn't ask me, but...) The unborn has its own interests, separate from the mother's; that seems pretty clear, to me. What else is required in order to make a choice?

A mind and a voice.

So how about a newborn?

Can't speak.

No power of mind to reason or decide yet.

Ok to kill him too?

How about a 1 month old?

Two month old?

Shall we continue?

How about someone in a coma, or mentally retarded or disabled --

Kill them if they can't speak up?

Edit:

Oh I see you've already answered Intrepid on this one.

Just waste 'em if they're brain damaged, eh?

Put them out of our misery?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
echi wrote:
Diest TKO: "I'd hope that a person would choose to keep a child to term and keep it after ..."

Why?

I'm just saying that I'd like for everyone to be enabled to keep their pregnancies to term and keep their children after term. I don't want parentless children in the world. It would be nice. I'm pro-choice because I believe we should choose to keep our children not be forced to do so. Legality doesn't equate to morality.

Real Life - So if a clump of cells has it's own distict DNA, it has a distintion? What about the cells in the placenta that don't belong to the mother or father? Are they protected? Having a seperate DNA structure doesn't validate the removal of someone's ability to choose. Whether it be for the unborn, or themselves.

If you start arguing that anytime one person makes a choice that involves the death of cells that are genetically different than their own, you really create a big stupid hole.

You could claim obtuse things as the tanning salon is trying to abort me! Their murdering my skin cells that are totolly genetically different than thiers!

You could claim murder for everyone who coughs on a train.

Hell, birth is still the leading cause of death.

You choosing to place your own buns in the tanning booth is far different from someone else choosing to terminate the unborn.

You never run out of silly analogies, do you?

That's the point: Saying that a clump of cell shave an opinion is making a silly analogy.

Survival is our nature, so one could infer that it "wants" to continue cellular growth. However it is no more than the will that a single sperm has to reach and egg, or a runt animal that can't make it to the breast of it's mother to feed. It's nature not will or desire. Calling it anything else is false.

Would you advocate for all the sperm that doesn't make it to the egg? What choice did they have? It's ridiculous.

I've said it before, you won't gain any ground on the biology road. And last time I checked, bible thumpers and biologists have their own beef. Be careful, in the persuit of being right, you might just prove yourself wrong.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Edit:

Oh I see you've already answered Intrepid on this one.

Just waste 'em if they're brain damaged, eh?

Put them out of our misery?

Please read what I wrote one more time. I did not say "just waste 'em if they are brain damaged".

Do you truly think these issues are so simplistic, RL and Intrepid?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

That's the point: Saying that a clump of cell shave an opinion is making a silly analogy.

Survival is our nature, so one could infer that it "wants" to continue cellular growth. However it is no more than the will that a single sperm has to reach and egg, or a runt animal that can't make it to the breast of it's mother to feed. It's nature not will or desire. Calling it anything else is false.

Would you advocate for all the sperm that doesn't make it to the egg? What choice did they have? It's ridiculous.
/quote]

Thank you. That is what I have been trying to say.

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know