Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
The definition of something living includes the ability to grow, which is exactly what is going on inside a woman, who is pregnant. An abortion ceases the growing process, therefore ending the future life of a human being. This little being may not start with a heartbeat or brain activity, but cells are still dividing and allowing it to.
It arguably it is life when you can save the child in premature birth at age 24 weeks. The 24 weeks old life can both be taken and saved by the same doctors – killing the idea, that it is not a child and does not have a brain. If we would have stock strictly to the free abortion period, you could argues so, but since we do not, that argument is failing under the current laws.
Children cannot be and do not ask about being born, this is purely an option adults have. Whether the woman get pregnant or not is a choice by actions or lack of same, by two individuals – rape excepted. Pro-life individuals say abortion is taking the right to live, from a human being, a right an embryo cannot defend.
In ancient Rome infanticide were permitted under Roman law, but that doesn’t make them humane. Leaving your child on someone’s doorstep, or committing murder are considered a major penalty today, so why not abortion!! Roman law also support the institution of slavery (non-racial based slavery that is, the Romans didn’t discriminated based on race, everybody was entitled to be enslaved by Roman standard), yet today we see slavery as an abomination. Just because it is legal, does not mean is morally right or can be defended morally.
In 1973 abortions were made legal throughout the US, yet many would be more than happy to see them made illegal once more. Do you feel abortion is a woman’s right like the slave owners use to think of their rights to keep the slaves!!!
Abortion is a problem, because you can’t have the right of one part without violation the right of the other (it’s child vs mother in this case). For the taxpayers, abortion is cheaper than having many unwanted babies born and our earth is closes to being overpopulated as it is, so why is abortion a problem?
The answers is, because it ethically and morally wrong and the problem should be handled as a human rights issue, it’s hard to defend human right when the same individuals arguing for it, are so easily killing others just because they don’t have a voice or dear I say vote. Then the human rights outcry, become rather hypocritical when we don’t based our society on a moral principal and stick to it, but pick and chooses based on personal preferences, we then lose the moral justification.
Abortion Facts:
- 40 million abortion are done annually, globally
- The number of unhealthy abortions is unknown, since the statistics doesn’t support the distinction on a global level
- Having abortions legalised is beneficial for most adults, the mother and farther, society in large etc. with only one victim the child – without a vote
- Only 9 Weeks after Fertilization, more than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present (medical classification changes from an embryo to a foetus at this point) - at this point the child might be able to feel pain, but it’s unknown if it is so
- 24 Weeks after Fertilization, is the latest abortion time, however also within the reach of modern medicine to save the child if prematurely born. Here we see a clear crossover where the same child can be saved or killed, depending on the circumstances
So emotions and the law sat aside, what is morally right here?
What Girls & Guys Said
54 45Personal freedom, and nobody's business except the person going through the situation.
Conservatives love to drum up this bullshit every election cycle and preach "save the embryo", but if that embryo grows into a person that is part of the welfare system those same pro lifers are ready to burn the meek and the poor at the stake for "wasting tax dollars". So which is it? Fuck em and feed em? Or starve em and kill em?
The hypocrisy of "some" right wing pro lifers is laughable. "Some" because everyone has a right to their opinion.
pro life conservatives love unborn kids, but they cut subsidies when born kids get hungry in the US. and bomb or starve (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OLPWlMmV7s ) born kids in other countries without blinking an eye. They are OK with littering Iraq with depleted uranium shells which causes unborn kids to die or get born with malformations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qSZp7TafQ0
99% hypocrisy thus.
Exactly @jacquesvol that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Babies are a consequence of sex. In this day in age with the modern contraceptives available unplanned pregnancy should be a thing of the past and abortion should not be happening in the record numbers that they are. Abortion is not a contraceptive.
Right, we should make condoms compulsary for rapists.
Like the woman said above @BelleGirl21 (check it out) I too also doubt 40 million women a year are raped plus even if they are there's the morning after pill. Even if you do believe in abortion you have to admit that modern contraceptives make nearly all abortion unnecessary. @takumii
Most of the rape cases are kidnap + rape , So let's hope the rapist is kind enough to get the victim a pill.
I've heard of plenty of rapes but very few kidnaps and rapes where are your from Mexico? Who's going to preform the abortion the kiddnappers?
Half of pregnancies are still unplanned in the US and conservatives want to kill Planned Parenthood.
www.guttmacher.org/.../...tended-Pregnancy-US.html
www.guttmacher.org/graphics/UP-piechart-1-rev2.png
Be that as it may @jacquevol there is still no need for 40 million abortions a year with the advances in contraception. can't get contraception but they can get abortions now thats mad. Thank god for the NHS.
A matter of personal freedom. The reasons are mostly materialistic in view of the world we live in and how messed up it is, therefore, to raise a child, better be well funded. If they don't have the means to provide, there is no reason to submit that human being into such life, but it still happens, regardless for there are people who believe any life should be preserved and selflessly give birth. Well, that's a noble notion, but if a mother's instinct is to wish well for her child and protect him\her\them how much merit does their blind belief have when they have not the means to do that?
On a wholly different perspective it is the woman's body that carries the child. Her body, her decision and in that light democracy and freedom of choice directly conflicts the "ban abortion" bs. Therefore, logically, the only consistent solution is to allow the freedom of choice. Most of the northern countries are democratic, the first paragraph moreso concerns people living in the third world.
"Her body, her decision " not really, if someone is needing your help, a drowning accident for instance, and you did nothing to safe them because it's your body and nobody can say how you spend your time, then it becomes criminal neglect to be passive. When other peoples life is a stake, then your person freedom becomes limited by the events. So I actually don't see it the same way you do.
Incorrect, legally it is not criminal neglect. You will also endanger your own life when you throw yourself in the water, there is no law that says we have to rescue someone, we do it because of our morals. What if you are asthmatic, what if you can't swim? You want chaos, I want order.
I want principals, rather than political correctness as it is at the time. You don't have to endanger your own life by throwing yourself in the water, but you need to called 112 EU/ 911 US or provide whatever assistance you can. In my country it's it a criminal act by omitting life saving actions when needed, like calling 112.
Calling112 is trivial, that is not the point. There are some things that are out of your control. To be more precise, you want the principles to agree with your own beliefs. Attempting to appeal to my sense of morality by overdramatizing and drawing a connection between a pregnant woman and someone who is drowning is not the way to convince me.
I can't convince you, just like you can't convince me, that's not the point. The point was, you argument is incorrect, we don't have the moral freedom to hurt others like the unborn child. So it's not her body, her decision, it's her and the child's bodies, not her sole decision any more. I would by the arguments of society being better off without all those kids, global overpopulation, cheaper for the taxpayers etc., these are convincing arguments, yours however are not.
Aha, so you argue that every unborn child is alive before its separate existence. I agree with that, to some extent. Now, propose a solution that will not violate the woman's rights and you will have proved your point. You cannot ban abortions. I said it is the woman's body which makes it her decision, her right. She is the god of her own little world. Now, most women undoubtedly go through with giving birth, it is in their instinct to do so. To make it fair, if she is allowed to create life, so too, should she be allowed to end that life. Again it's her body, her decision and as long as the child is not born IT is part of her body. I didn't have any collective conscience or sense of self when I wasn't born. I was not alive, merely a potential of life, an organism that grew without choice of being or not being. Do you understand, now? Only the mother can decide. And papa?
And papa? Well let 's see: 1) normal couple, want kids, no disputes, highly unlikely she wants to get aborted 2) papa runs away giving no damn, she is left with a burden - her decision 3) papa wants the child, she does not - legal action 4) abusive man, husband, boyfriend, physical violence to a pregnant woman, child is born, potentially ill, deformed, born into a band of crooks stealing from your house when you are at work - preferable? 5) inability to provide for child, grows up to be a parasite of society with no proper education and suffers from effects of malnourishment while none of it is the child's fault - there are already plenty of those around Now, how much do you actually believe what you are saying?
I believe the moral principle is abortion should not be free, only in cases where the life of the mother is at risk or if the child was forced on the mother by rape or such, have anyone - doctors including - the right to kill the child. I do know society is better off with free abortion, because not having it increases overpopulation and tax expenses. So the question is, it is morally ok to kill for saving taxes and reducing global overpopulation? PS: It is a separate existence from day 1, medical fact, the issues is when do the child become a child with a sense of awareness, that is unknown, and when can it feel pain also unclear.
Apologies, I gota bit carried away, for some reason I got the feeling you were judging the situation from an armchair, but clearly you know what you are saying.
What I would like to know is, why aren't the people so opposed to abortion out there fighting for more/improved/easier birth control? That would significantly reduce the number of abortions.
Why are those fighting to save the whale not fight for the staving children of African? - priority, you can't do all at the same time, hence you do what feel the strongest about, I do however like see the disproportion in some of it. Like caring for the unborn child, but don't give a shit once born - that is obviously not acceptable and very hypocritical.
Helping the starving children of Africa won't help the whales, like better birth control would reduce abortion. Moreover, better birth control would also reduce the number of starving children in Africa...
Ah I see what you mean, yes, birth control would reduce abortion in fact the availability of birth control in our part of the world, makes freedom of abortion sort of obsolete. If birth-control was uses as it should have been, then the bulk of all abortion would have been avoided. "Moreover, better birth control would also reduce the number of starving children in Africa..." well African in particular, but also India and China needs FAR more birth-control, this is however a change of subject. The overpopulation is outside the EU and USA, in fact in the US and EU our native population are diminishing continually - only emigration is keeping up the numbers.
More babies aborted every year than jews died in the holocaust. Topkek.
I only support abortion if the fetus is gay or black, just like Margaret Sanger wanted it.
"I only support abortion if the fetus is gay or black" wow that is as bad as any pro abortionist worse even , it's also raciest and extreme gay-basing!!
"I only support abortion if the fetus is gay or black, just like Margaret Sanger wanted it." WTF!!! the shit that you read here on GAG can be dumbfounding. Where'd that even come from?
So, supporting abortion is ok but supporting abortion if the fetus is gay isn't? Why?
Because supporting abortion or not should be based on a moral principles. Being anti gay or a racist isn't a moral principal I'll support for sure.
If a woman chooses to abort her gay baby, why does it suddenly become wrong when it wasn't wrong for a different reason
The act of killing the child is still the same, the only difference is the motivation behind it
Yes, IF abortion was ok then the reason doesn't matter, but I do not think abortion is ok.
Ok I know i am going to be down voted for this like crazy. Yes I believe abortion is murder. But, Does that mean I'm going to judge someone who has had one in the past, No i'm not because I believe that judging people is wrong even if they have made poor decisions. I will also not judge anyone who decides to get one. I may try to persuade them from getting one, but I really cannot tell anyone what to do with their bodies. It is the law of the land unfortunately and we also have to remember it was the supreme courts decision to legalize it in the first place, us American citizens did not get a vote on it. There are other alternatives to Abortion if one does not want the baby. There is adoption where the baby is at least guaranteed to have a good family and a nice life. You can also sign it over to grandparents, family members, a friend, or the father's family to raise it if both parties agree. So yes I believe it is murder and am pro life. But i also will not judge if some one has on or is planning on it because we are not called to judge someone based on past decisions. in fact, we're not called to judge anyone at all no matter what we believe is right or wrong.
@smahala1991
The courts are formed through indirect democratic process.
The vote?
U. S. Still Split on Abortion: 47% Pro-Choice, 46% Pro-Life , according to Gallup polls
www.gallup.com/.../...ion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
There' one stat I'd like to see: the influence on any polls of infertile couples (those wishing to adopt) in my opinion they're the main force of the Prolife movement. Thus no moral reason but the "I wanna kid and can't have one".
Yes but when it became legal here in 1973 we didn't get to vote whether or not to legalize it
A more recent poll: www.gallup.com/.../...-first-time-seven-years.aspx
@smahala1991 There was a first (democratic) judgement and the SCOTUS ratified it: that's how Law works in the UK and US.
Why is it we can vote to legalize weed, lottery etc.. by state elections but not by federal elections.
I am pro life. But times have changed. Now that most women are in the workforce full time people are more warmed up to the idea of abortion. We all look down on bums that dont financially support their kids and thus not doing what nature requires a man to do so the "her body her choice" argument falls flat to me.
Just my 2 pennies.
Yes, the laws won't be change in our life time.
Kids are annoying. Abortions for all.
:) ok that's an opinion.
Abortion should be made a felony punished by the death penalty.
I completely agree. I believe abortion is murder and should be illegal.
You cannot dictate or realistically legislate reproductive health rights.
Men bear NONE or the hormonal changes and no of the labor
pain. I feel like it's moral and reasonable within the legal defintions and precedents
spelled out in Roe vs, Wade. It is a matter of choice, first, last and always. As a future attorney, I will fight to my last breath to maintain reproductive choice for women. To all you Pro-Choice assholes, it's settled law, let it the fuck go !
Laws changes as a future attorney you should know this by hart. PS: Roe vs. Wade, doesn't matte to all non US GaG's, besides the court was wrong in regard to abortions during the first and second trimester pregnancies. The court based the decision on "potentiality of human life", rather than see it as a human life. The court was misinformed and influence by political agendas, so the ruling was wrong. The court didn't see the unborn child as child early on, hence bases it's ruling on false premises.
I do know that laws change, The court wasn't wrong. I do somewhat have a problem with late term abortions. Furthermore I don't believe that abortion should be used as a means of birth control. But accidents happen. A friend of mines sister got pregnant back in the mid 60's in West Texas. Which I assure uou is the Buckle of the Bible Belt. Anyway, no doctor in out town would perform the procedure. So she went to Via Acuna, Mexico across from Del Rio, Texas and had it done. It was botched, horrible infection set in and she all but died. No tell me in good conscience this is right. You nor anyone else can say that it is.
"No tell me in good conscience this is right" she made her choice twice mind you, both to becoem pregnant and then to kill the baby with great riscs involved. Both choice are based on her poor judgement, not on abortion being morally right, constitutional or even scientifically not a human life or any other argument presented by the pro-choice crowd - at least no argument I have seem yet. I know abortion is not without advantages, I have said that repetitively. The question is if all the benefits can justify murder in such a scale, what kind of moral principal defends that kind of behaviour? To kill in order to reduce the natural consequences of poor choices, to kill to reduce overpopulation, to kill to save taxpayers the expenses. In cases of rape, sure a crime was committed already, in cases where the life or health of the mother is at stake sure, but to simply save money or unpleasantness... no way.
I still say it's a matter of choice. It's settled law, let it go.
The law is wrong, so I won't let it go. But we don't need to talk about of course.
i say ''murder''
Morally right? Ruining a woman's life (possibly the father's too) in exchange for one that has not even begun?
It is not logical.
Yes, but is murder ok for saving tax money and for limited the natural consequence of the mother and farther actions? Abortion is not logical, it's disproportional to the effect. The is like sying we solving global overpopulation by nuclear war, yes it would solve the problem but in a completely immoral and disproportional way.
It's not murder. It's not considered murder unless the foetus has taken a breath outside the womb.
Considered by who and based on what?
By international law. Based on the ability to sustain independant life.
True, however laws also used to support slavery and racial segregation, women not havering civil rights etc., just because it's law doesn't make it right. Laws changes and there are unjust laws because there are unjust people - or unjust lawgivers. But yes, that is how the UN and most countries laws are defining it at the moment - unlike 50 years ago where is by international law was murder.
Those laws are proven illogical via scientific evidence. If you have conclusive scientific evidence that a foetus is able to think and feel since conception, then I will support the outlawing of abortion. But since there is not, I do not support its outlawing.
Scientific evidence indicate feeling of pain is possible from week 8-10, free abortion is legal until week 12, and with medical approval until week 24. A 24 week old baby born prematurely can live, clearly also think and feel since the brain is almost fully developed but more importantly is in operation. No the cells and later the embryo is not able to think and feel, foetus however from week 9 are 90% grown, and are presumably capable of feeling pain (somewhere in week 8-10, we can't be 100% sure since such medical research is unethical). Clearly current laws are not living up to you definition. You may not support outlawing, but by your own words, you should support further restricting the age limits of with abortion is possible.
By the time the nervous system develops, an abortion is already impossible.
Nope, try to google it.
I'm on the fence about abortions honestly. I look at it two ways. There are a lot to sexually active women who ARE playing it safe by using birth control, condoms, etc and DO end up pregnant, BUT you also have dumb whores who slut around with any guy who has a dick get pregnant and dont want to have a child.
It's evidence of moral decay.
It depends on the trimester
if its the first couple of weeks its a personal choice cause its just a fertilized egg but once it grew and the nerves system and organs started to form then its murder because now its a living human being
So if we are talking the ability to feel pain, it would be from approximately week 8.
everyone keeps throwing out "use the morning after pill!" But at least here, they're $50 each. That's a lot of money to be paying and a lot of chemicals to be regularly taking. Even if that hypothetical couple has sex twice a week, thats $5200 in pills a a year. Ideally, Effective contraception shouldn't be used limiting the number of abortions, but flukes happen.
Should* I apologize, my keyboard is giving me problems. Also, the argument of "let the baby choose. No fetus would choose to be aborted" is irrelevant because I doubt any fetus would choose to be abandoned or go into foster care. Girls have a 1 in 3 change of being sexually abused, boys have a 1 in 7 chance. The odds go WAY UP in foster care and the system. I don't know anyone who would pick that option, but actually know a few people who say they would have rather been aborted.
$50 each you say, how much doses an abortion cost? I don't think the $ is the issues.
Abortions are anywhere from $350-$1500 (rarely this high) in the first trimester. There's obviously a huge difference in pricing. I doubt any woman would have an abortion every year, but she could have to take the morning after pill for 30+ years.
So the morning after pill is clearly far cheaper even if uses regularly, we can therefore disclose $ to as being a issues. Considering the morning after pill is a supplement when regular birth-control have failed, like say a condom have broken, then it's still the cheaper option not to mention ethical.
Taking the morning after pill 7 times in a year is the same price as a low cost abortion. Birth control pills are very finicky. If not taken at the same exact time every day they don't work (which is very hard to do when traveling or having plans at the time you're supposed to take it). So no, I wouldn't say its far cheaper especially if the woman is very busy or doesn't have the best memory. I'm not arguing with you on the ethical standpoint; I think every child should be be born to someone who will love and take care of them. Obviously people who abandon their babies violate this.
"Birth control pills are very finicky. If not taken at the same exact time every day they don't work (which is very hard to do when traveling or having plans at the time you're supposed to take it). So no, I wouldn't say its far cheaper especially if the woman is very busy or doesn't have the best memory" ... poor memory and being very busy doesn't free you from responsibility, besides there are other kinds of contraception as well that can be used. If you need the morning after pill 7 times a year, then you have a problem (drinking, memory issues, carelessness) that doesn't related to abortion as such. "I think every child should be be born to someone who will love and take care of them." of course you are right, still any child prefer to live without proper love and care rather than not live at all - you can ask anyone living if they would have preferred to have been an abortion, the answer is always no. Abortion is never for the sake of the child, but for the parents.
Forgetting to take a pack of birth control with you everywhere is hard to do. Traveling to someplace with a different time zone is hard when you're normal time to take it is 3:30am where you traveled to. Stop judging and bring so critical. We're all human and make mistakes. No, you're very wrong. I know many people who would've preferred to have been aborted, especially people who have seen how their mothers' lives were so negatively impacted. You don't have the right nor the evidence to make such a generalization. Also, some people have abortions if the fetus had a major birth defect. You ask a question looking for opinions yet you argue with and judge each person who doesn't agree with you. I'm done here.
"I'm done here" ok, but you arguments still doesn't make sense. "Stop judging and bring so critical" and what is 'pro-choice' people if not critical and judging about 'pro-life'... anyone on opposite in a argument is critical towards the opposite point of view. We all judging what we disagree with, both sides yourself included. "many people who would've preferred to have been aborted" and many people would've preferred to NOT have been aborted, then way to let then chose is to let then life and then make a choice. That's kid of the point really.
"You can ask anyone living if they would have preferred to have been an abortion- the answer is always no" that's what I'm referring to. You quote me yet you only pick a small thing out of what I say and twist it around. I'm not the one who asked the question then attacked everyone who answered in a different way. Nor did I go around to everyone who answered in a different way and pester them. That's the difference between stating and having your opinion vs. forcing it. Which applies to abortion. If abortion is legal no one is forced to have one. But if it's illegal everyone is forced to not have one. And pro choice people aren't going around to pro-life people telling them they should have abortions. Yet pro life people go around telling pro choicers not to have them. My argument makes sense, it'll just never makes sense to you because you don't believe in abortion. And you're missing the point that making everyone carry to term, then asking a child (which really doesn't have the
Capacity to understand this subject until they're at least 10) will force a woman to carry the fetus and for either her or someone else (government) to support it until then, and what if the answer is no? Who has the time or money to do that? Also, you completely disregarded my point of child abuse and sexual molestation in the foster care system. Put any kid in that system, let them get sexually and physically abused for a few years, and then see what your answer is. Not everything is rainbows and unicorns. You want every woman to choose adoption instead of abortion, wait till our taxes go up to 50% and our homeless population goes way up (since statistically adoptees make up 5% of the United states population, yet they make up 1/3 of the teenage homeless population. And homeless teenagers turn into homeless adults.) It's funny how everyone cries out about abortion, but when the fetus turns into a foster care kid or homeless person few people care anymore. Anyone who advocates against
Abortion and instead for adoption should adopt an older kid with special needs. It's all talk until you actually stand behind what you believe.
"I'm not the one who asked the question then attacked everyone who answered in a different way" how else do you debate and exchange views and arguments? "Nor did I go around to everyone who answered in a different way and pester them" not all feel pestered, only a certain kind of people feel pestered when argued against and their subjective opinions are challenged and they are asked to argue for then with facts. You are free to feel pestered, but don't claim to speak for everybody, because you don't. "If abortion is legal no one is forced to have one. But if it's illegal everyone is forced to not have one" yes, of course, is this a argument for why abortion isn't hurting a human being or killing a human? Because the law say so? When I uses the slave laws as an example it was to show this is not a logical argument. Laws can be wrong and unjust. It's true when legal you can choose to have an abortion and you can't when illegal, the same goes with rape, so should we allow rape!!!
Of course not, rape have a victim hence why it's illegal, so the real question is always are they a victims in abortion yes or no, you say not but don't prove why, I say yes and tries to argue and provide evidence if allowed to why their is a victim and hence why is shouldn't be allowed. That was my point, but let it end here, since if you feel like you do. There is no need to get further agitated, when the subject in your mind is victim less and it can't be influence at all, then this would serve no purpose.
It's not a matter of debate. You keep telling people what they're saying isn't true or doesn't make sense. That's attacking their beliefs and calling them liars. I can respect that you have a different opinion. I can also defend my opinion when you're staying it's not right or true. Being pestered and feeling pestered are two different things. The only difference is patience, not being "a certain kind of people." See you being up these things and take them out of context. Comparing how the legalization vs the banning of abortion allows personal freedom ve pushes beliefs on others has nothing to do with slavery. Raping an actual person is different than terminating a pregnancy. If you believe fetuses should have so many rights, then please inform me as to why parents can choose to abandon and "get rid of" children 17 and under. Just because there is a "victim" (someone negatively impacted) doesn't make it a crime. children who are surrendered to the system are technically victims of
Abandonment, yet it's not illegal. So maybe you could consider fetuses victims, but the mothers can be victims too. After all, how many choose for a condom to break? Can't they be considered victims of failed contraceptives? as you can see, victim is a very ambiguous term. It can stand for "a person who is tricked or duped." I would consider a couple whose condom broke a victim of a condom company for making defective condoms. That seems a little ridiculous though. In this world there will always be people who must suffer as a result of others.
“It's not a matter of debate” to me it is, I was hoping to create some debate, as I told somebody else here, it was my hope that one or two people would think of their beliefs concerning abortion. Maybe even moderate it or change view. “You keep telling people what they're saying isn't true or doesn't make sense.” Only when it is actually dosen’t make sense or isen’t true. If you read every comment I have made here, you’ll see I have said “make sense” even when I personally do not agree with it, but I did so because the argument or viewpoint made sense – it was not just emotional based but have a principal behind it, as reason for it to be what it is. “That's attacking their beliefs and calling them liars.” I haven’t called anybody a liar since I don’t know what they do know, but I don’t buy into arguments I know is incorrect and factually wrong.
“See you being up these things and take them out of context” no really, I know some things need a context, when I select some point and deal with them isolated it’s because that part is wrong, logically or factually – hence can’t really be uses in that context, it’s not because I actually ignorer context. “Comparing how the legalization vs the banning of abortion allows personal freedom ve pushes beliefs on others has nothing to do with slavery” actually it does I have already told you how, and many times over here. It’s not a abortion vs slavery, it’s simply to prove legality alone is meaningless if the law is unjust. Slavery was legal but it was unjust and there where millions of victims for this unjust law. Nobody today in their right mind would defend the slaves laws, yet back then, it was seen by many slave owns a fundamental right of freedom of ownership – a civil war was fought over this very issues.
In the same way, abortion today can be said to be legalised atrocities towards killing of innocent children (victims), and hence the law is not an argument for personal freedom of the mother since it come with the violation of the right of the freedom for the child to live. In the same way as slave owns claim of freedom of ownership, is invalided by the violation of freedom for all the enslaved humans in question. This is of course only the case IF the foetus is a child and should have rights, so that is the very core of the debate. Should a foetus really be redefined as a human with rights or not. How to we find out if that should be the cases, on what principal should we base those principals. Is abortion ok as long as the child feel no pain, some may argue that, other say it’s ok even when it feel paint in the name of the greater good, some say no killing no matter what, other say only when it's a result of rape or if the child is deformed or whatever.
Take my own view I am willing to let the benefit of the doubt go to the abortion IF the child have no brain activity and can’t feel any pain, when the child cannot live on it’s own or is a result of rape or incest (child rape), or if the mother life or healthy is endanger by compilation the pregnancy, then abortion can be justified.
I do not believe however in abortion as a convenience of birth control, like when you say the condom breaks, then the morning after pill would be the proper option not an abortion. You can also combines various kinds of birth-control for increased safety. The real issue however is, people today have casual sex all the time, with persons they have no intentions to ever procreate with, many are also very careless about birth-control, the result is unwanted pregnancies and as a convince instead of taking care about their behaviour, they use abortion as a safety net. They defined the right of abortion not based on truth or the consideration of the child, but based on the personal wise to be safe if the fuck without birth-control to a party being drunk or the condom breaks etc. ends up making them pregnant. This mind-set doesn't allowed any argument against abortion, because it not rational, it’s emotional based on the wishes of freedom from personal responsibility.
Yes, the parents are ‘victim’ when the condom break, but they are not innocent victims. They made a choice, unsafe lifestyle, improper protection etc. all choices they made, the child had made no choice, the child is completely innocent. “…please inform me as to why parents can choose to abandon and "get rid of" children 17 and under…” I do personally not believe, abandoning a child should go unpunished, they can’t be force to take care of the child, however, they can be held financially responsible and they should – both parents.
abortion is a human right for women and it shall never be infringed on. a fetus dosent have any thoughts and is not a living thing. if fetuses were so important then why dont we give out death certificates for when a woman has a miscariage. to say abortion is murder and to say that is like the holocaust is the stuppidest thing ever comparing something that is not alive yet has no thoughts and dosent feel pain. but comparing the holcaust where millions of humans where killed to a fetus being killed is just absurd. and its not fair that so many men who will never need to have an abortion are controlling what a woman can and can't do with her body. what if hypothtically women banned the sale of viagra and said no more men can use ed mecication that would be awful because of the fact that they will never have to use it and all of a sudden they are controlling what other men can do with their bodies. and also if you dont like abortion dont get one its that simple. but taking away the rights of others just because you dont like something makes no sense whatsoever that is like me saying that no one else can watch basketball because i dont like it. also dont give me that crap that we value life because non of you guys do none of you guys give a shit about all the wars and genocides in the middle east and africa and asia non of you guys give a shit about of the fact that in north korea they have concentration camps. non of you guys give a shit about all the thousands of people that died of gun violence and lack of healthcare of starvation but instead you're solution to all those problems is to ban all forms of gun control and get rid of healthcare and food stamps. and also i find it ridicoluis that so many people are also for the banning of birth control and abstince only sex education programs and then wonder why so many women are getting abortions. also banning abortion wouldn't end abortion it would just lead to more unsafer abortions being done. and also dont say im pro life when you're all pro war, pro guns, pro death penalty, pro torture, pro nuclear invasion and anti healthcare so i really dont wanna hear it from you guys
If the bases of you argument was right, then I would agree with you, but are not right so I don't. "abortion is a human right for women" only as long as the law say so, it didn't 50 years go and it might not in 50 years again. "it shall never be infringed on" learn from history, it changes all the time, never say never. "is not alive yet has no thoughts and dosent feel pain" please know what you are talking about, pain can be felt from somewhere between week 8-10, thoughts meaning a functional brain that happens between week 14-16. It is true that week 25 is special because EEG demonstrate regular wave patterns, however wave patterns exist however irregularly weeks before then. The right of abortion is till week 12/13 (depended on what country and state), in special cases until week 24. Life begin when the embryo exists, that happens after the first cell division - it's factually alive, but is obviously not self-aware yet nor comparable to a full grown human life.
"im pro life when you're all pro war, pro guns, pro death penalty, pro torture, pro nuclear invasion and anti healthcare so i really dont wanna hear it from you guys" I have never said that, you assume I am an American hypocrite. I am: Anti war Anti guns Pro death penalty though Anti torture Anti nuclear invasion - who isn't!!! Pro universal healthcare - I don't get why American are opposed to universal healthcare, it's the best ever
i believe if the parents know for sure the kid is gonna be born with a disease or something wrong with them (like would make their lives hard or not live for long)
then it is ok to abort... earlier the better
otherwise, no just no
if you are not ready for a kid then dont be a slut... simple a that
Sounds fair.
Our morality is a collective human construct and despite what people would like to believe it's pretty subjective. Objective a prior morality is non existent. So if I were to set my emotions aside everything becomes permissible. Laws are built to establish/acknowledge collective agreement amongst those they govern on matters that effect well being. The only way we can express and comprehend our wellbeing is through our emotional states. It's not a perfect system but it's the most accurate and useful one we have. So to ask about morality without the interference of emotions or laws is like asking for batman's mask to come to your rescue without batman. Personally I believe it's murder. Which may sound like I disagree with the right to an abortion but I don't. We murder things daily bacteria viruses bugs animals. Human beings have never had a problem with murder. What we don't like is the murder of the things we like. The things that feel close to us. The things we identify with and view favorably. Many don't like abortion because they like human beings not because they don't like murder. So they're pretty much basing their decision on a whim of protecting the stuff I like. Many will say something about the bundle of cells potential but again we ignore the potential of animals and bugs. If we use the future as our argument we'd have to respect all possible futures not just a human dominant one. Abortion will never have an easy answer. We will simply succumb to majority rule after a long long series of arguments.
You are right of course, it just sounded better than 'try to put your personal-interests aside for a monument', but I know you are right about morals, emotions and the law. Yes, I like human beings and that's why I am against abortion - at least in most cases. Yes, the law is based on majority rules.
Then I'm not sure what's left to discuss. We'll just be doing the same song and dance people have been doing for years.