Abortion! right or wrong?

[adammcg]

In the United States an abortion is legal right into the thrid trimester (as per Roe v Wade). What is the difference between aborting a child 5 minutes before it is born in the womb (legal) and 5 minutes after (illegal)? Honestly I cannot imagine a sane person aborting a child in this period (because theres no doubt about that at that stage).

A fetus has protection of the law and if you are a doctor and you damage it you can be sent to jail. If you murder a woman and her fetus dies you can be done for double murder. The child therefore has some legal protection and I don't think its right therefore for a women to end that life. I think those who insist that it is not "living" in the human sense need to be careful because where do they draw the line and at what stage?

It's not "her body" because half of them are male and I think its disgusting to see it as a parasite. People need to grow up and have safe sex, have the child or don't have sex at all. And if they accidently have a child they don't want. Deal with it but don't kill it. There are more people looking to adopt children than there are abortions.

[elliotknell]

Originally Posted by fosking

Over the past few years I've had friends fall pregnant and have been left with the dilemma to either have an abortion, or, to go through with the pregnancy and have a child.

In my opinion, to have an abortion under the right circumstances, e.g. Not being able to support the child financially or simply too young and not in a suitable environment, are very legitimate reasons for an abortion.

For these reasons I am pro abortion and think that it is in the best interests of the child. Although I do believe that the time frame to have the abortion should be reduced.

Should or shouldn't abortions be allowed?

So you think it is better for the child to be dead then alive in a bad situation?

[elliotknell]

Originally Posted by tronsmith

There are alot of people saying that having an abortion is killing a baby?

Well we need to establish whether a featus is a human being. I beleive not, if it's human, why when a mother has a miscarriage there is no funeral? if a featus is a human being why doesn't the cencus count them? Mothers don't say "I have three children" but instead "I have 2 and one on the way". How far back do you go before it becomes immoral to kill? Masturbate and you kill millions of potentia life. When does sperm (after entering a woman) become so special that by no means nessecary should it's life be terminated (even though millions of it's friends died horrifically trying to get to the egg)?

Errrm, anyway, I am pro-abortion.

Being human is not defined by having a funeral when you die or being counted on a census. And saying that you are killing sperm by masturbating is just like saying you are killing cells when you clip your fingernails. Fingernails are just as alive as sperm, they are both cells in your body.

[the_icks]

damn, I am a genocidal maniac!!

[oXoDCoXo]

Originally Posted by the_icks

damn, I am a genocidal maniac!!

lmao, i didnt need to know that ian

[the_icks]

Originally Posted by oXoDCoXo

lmao, i didnt need to know that ian

it's ok, I have been despoffinated!

[Amiethest]

The population of this world has trebled in the last 50 years.. that's right! There are 3 times more people on this planet than 50 years ago....

The world is a finite resource and we cannot continue like this. Although I hate the idea of abortion, if people will continue to not practice safe sex then it is the only way to deal with the products of conception.

[jhbwolverin]

Originally Posted by adammcg

A fetus has protection of the law and if you are a doctor and you damage it you can be sent to jail. If you murder a woman and her fetus dies you can be done for double murder. The child therefore has some legal protection and I don't think its right therefore for a women to end that life. I think those who insist that it is not "living" in the human sense need to be careful because where do they draw the line and at what stage?

I think that this is something that absolutely needs brought up by the government. There should be a guideline on when a fetus becomes a baby. Why not look at what the earliest a baby has been delivered is and lived (I think it's around 23 or 24 weeks), and use that as a guideline. If it's before that date, then it at least had a chance of living on it's own as a separate entity, and it should be entitled to protection under the law. If it's before that date and not capable of surviving outside its mother's body, then it's not a separate person yet, and it doesn't have any rights.

I see abortion as similar to taking a person off of life support. If I were in a car accident and was rendered brain-dead and the machines were the only things keeping me alive, then my wife would have the right to have me removed from life support and allowed to die, and it wouldn't be murder. It's the same with a fetus. If it can't be removed from the mother's body and live on its own, then the mother has the right to terminate, and it's not murder.

Now personally, I do feel like people have abortions way too often these days, and I personally believe they should only be a last resort, for cases where the mother's health is at risk, the baby would be born with a very low life expectancy, rape, etc. However, I also believe that the decision of whether to have an abortion is an intensely personal one, and that governments have no right to say you aren't allowed.

[TheDoctor]

Wrong.
Abortions are Murder...

[Harvez]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

Wrong.
Abortions are Murder...

its a discussion try adding something rather than just blerting out with no explanation or your view.

[TheDoctor]

are you joking?
i said its wrong which is the answer to the OPs questions
and MY VIEW IS that its murder.

I think thats all i needed to say.

[jhbwolverin]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

Wrong.
Abortions are Murder...

At what point does it become murder? I'm not trying to mock your views here, I'm really curious as to how you feel. Part of the way that birth control pills work is by making it so a fertilized egg cannot implant in the uterine wall, so the embryo is released during the woman's period. So are birth control pills murder too?

[ElectroGirl]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

are you joking?
i said its wrong which is the answer to the OPs questions
and MY VIEW IS that its murder.

I think thats all i needed to say.

Not really, this is the debating forum

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by jhbwolverin

At what point does it become murder? I'm not trying to mock your views here, I'm really curious as to how you feel. Part of the way that birth control pills work is by making it so a fertilized egg cannot implant in the uterine wall, so the embryo is released during the woman's period. So are birth control pills murder too?

no because it stops the woman from getting pregnant
whereas when you have an abortion, the baby has had time to develop
and has a heart beat.

and im a vegetarian that is why i believe Abortions are wrong
and meat and abortions are murder

[jhbwolverin]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

no because it stops the woman from getting pregnant
whereas when you have an abortion, the baby has had time to develop
and has a heart beat.

and im a vegetarian that is why i believe Abortions are wrong
and meat and abortions are murder

So it's just a matter of degree with you then? If an egg is fertilized it could survive in the woman for nearly 2 weeks before the embryo is flushed out during the period. So is 2 weeks the cutoff before it becomes murder? Or is it 3 weeks, or 4, or 2 months?

I'm going to leave the vegetarian comment alone. I'm not really sure what the two have to do with each other.

[TheDoctor]

well i dont know i just think theyre wrong
and i said the vegetarian comment because that could show you the type of person i am and could help you understand the reason why i believe Abortions are Wrong

[paoxav]

I'm pro-choice so it will depend on the situation..

I hate abortion if the child is un-wanted and the 2 irresponsible couple decided to abort their child.

It's fine with me if the fetus, embryo, or the child at the womb is on a worst situation. I rather see the fetus died quickly than to see it slowly..

[the_saint]

Originally Posted by the_icks

I can hear the saint exercising his typing fingers as we speak.

Ha ha, better late than never!

To be honest, I can see both side's of the debate. I had to do an dissertation on this topic in my Law and Medical Ethics module for my degree so i've heard most of the arguments, and having heard them i'm now pro choice. Before I did my dissertation I didn't really have any strong feelings on it either way.

I got bored reading the thread but i'll give brief (ish) responses to some of the more commonly raised arguments.

Originally Posted by bmh16

I am against it, it's murder i think personally and i can't see how it's justifiable.

*puts pedantic lawyer hat on* it's not murder as this is a legal term for the "unlawful intentional killing of a human being under the queen's peace", but legally you don't become a human being until you are born so abortion is not murder (there's case law on that point).
*takes hat off* from a moral perspective obviously it is less clear cut, the issue is when does a foetus count as a human? It's been hinted at, but essentially government opinion is the earlierst that a baby/foetus can survive outside it's mother - this is reflected in the cut off points where it is allowed. Over the years and with the advancement of medicine this has dropped.

Originally Posted by joewarne

Im probably gonna get flamed for this but...

I think with a topic like this no one should get flame for their opinion. By all means disagree, and by all means point out errors in any logic, but so long as you have reasons for your opinion you should not get flamed and you should not flame.

My reasoning is that from conception, in my opinion there is a living thing in the mothers womb.

There is a living cell, or bundle of cells, but I don't think that counts as a whole "human being" more than any other bundle of human cells.

OK there is the potentiality argument which gets used a lot - i.e. it has the potential to become a human. Well the counter to that is that I have the potential to become an airline pilot but you should treat me as if I already one and let me fly a commercial jet! We all have the potential to get 100 greens next month but FreebieJeebies shouldn't treated us as if we already have them and let us cash out.

My sperm have the potential to become human beings, but you shouldn't treat them like they already are - otherwise (and I apologise for lowering the tone) I would be committing a crime whenever I, erm, well, you know where i'm going!!

I dont think killing a child can be said as being in the best interests of it.

I agree with that, I think a child would have to have the most damned miserable life to be able to argue that it would have been better for it to have never have lived. That's a very level high level of misery to reach and i'm not sure it could be reached, other than in very exceptional circumstances.

God is the only one who should be able to take lives away.

I'll try not to get involved in any religious debate as clearly if you believe in god then that is what you have to believe and there can be no argument against it really, other than to question whether God exists which is outside the scope of this thread.

Originally Posted by Harvez

only reason i would have an abortion or agree an unborn child be aborted would be if they found some major defect and that it would have a very low quality of life and low life span.

As said above, I can see the sentiment behind that but I would question whether any child would ever have such a miserable life that it would have been better to have never been born.

I have a disabled brother (not since birth though) and while I would never wish the struggles he faces on anyone, I think if you asked him would he rather have never been born he wouldn't hesitate to say no he would have rather have had some life (**not to imply that you were suggesting my bro would have been better off not alive, hope you understand where i'm coming from**)

Originally Posted by fosking

I know its pushing the debate to extreme cases but would rape, incest or any other violent act change the minds of people againt abortions?

Whatever you think about abortion, i'm of the opinion that the above shouldn't change you view as:
pro choice:
Well, not a lot to say s you would believe the mother has the right to choose anyway,
Anti abortion:
If murder is wrong, if it is a human, etc then it shouldn't matter how it came to be, murder is wrong and it would be wrong to murder someone based on how they came into existence.

Originally Posted by jhbwolverin

Why not look at what the earliest a baby has been delivered is and lived (I think it's around 23 or 24 weeks), and use that as a guideline. If it's before that date, then it at least had a chance of living on it's own as a separate entity, and it should be entitled to protection under the law. If it's before that date and not capable of surviving outside its mother's body, then it's not a separate person yet, and it doesn't have any rights.

As said above that is what the government does. I think in the 60's the cut off was 30 weeks and has been regularly reviewed and changed since then.

Though even that approach opens up a lot of issues and question, which I won't go into here.

[bmh16]

Originally Posted by the_saint

Ha ha, better late than never!

To be honest, I can see both side's of the debate. I had to do an dissertation on this topic in my Law and Medical Ethics module for my degree so i've heard most of the arguments, and having heard them i'm now pro choice. Before I did my dissertation I didn't really have any strong feelings on it either way.

I got bored reading the thread but i'll give brief (ish) responses to some of the more commonly raised arguments.


*puts pedantic lawyer hat on* it's not murder as this is a legal term for the "unlawful intentional killing of a human being under the queen's peace", but legally you don't become a human being until you are born so abortion is not murder (there's case law on that point).
*takes hat off* from a moral perspective obviously it is less clear cut, the issue is when does a foetus count as a human? It's been hinted at, but essentially government opinion is the earlierst that a baby/foetus can survive outside it's mother - this is reflected in the cut off points where it is allowed. Over the years and with the advancement of medicine this has dropped.



I think with a topic like this no one should get flame for their opinion. By all means disagree, and by all means point out errors in any logic, but so long as you have reasons for your opinion you should not get flamed and you should not flame.


There is a living cell, or bundle of cells, but I don't think that counts as a whole "human being" more than any other bundle of human cells.

OK there is the potentiality argument which gets used a lot - i.e. it has the potential to become a human. Well the counter to that is that I have the potential to become an airline pilot but you should treat me as if I already one and let me fly a commercial jet! We all have the potential to get 100 greens next month but FreebieJeebies shouldn't treated us as if we already have them and let us cash out.

My sperm have the potential to become human beings, but you shouldn't treat them like they already are - otherwise (and I apologise for lowering the tone) I would be committing a crime whenever I, erm, well, you know where i'm going!!


I agree with that, I think a child would have to have the most damned miserable life to be able to argue that it would have been better for it to have never have lived. That's a very level high level of misery to reach and i'm not sure it could be reached, other than in very exceptional circumstances.

I'll try not to get involved in any religious debate as clearly if you believe in god then that is what you have to believe and there can be no argument against it really, other than to question whether God exists which is outside the scope of this thread.


As said above, I can see the sentiment behind that but I would question whether any child would ever have such a miserable life that it would have been better to have never been born.

I have a disabled brother (not since birth though) and while I would never wish the struggles he faces on anyone, I think if you asked him would he rather have never been born he wouldn't hesitate to say no he would have rather have had some life (**not to imply that you were suggesting my bro would have been better off not alive, hope you understand where i'm coming from**)


Whatever you think about abortion, i'm of the opinion that the above shouldn't change you view as:
pro choice:
Well, not a lot to say s you would believe the mother has the right to choose anyway,
Anti abortion:
If murder is wrong, if it is a human, etc then it shouldn't matter how it came to be, murder is wrong and it would be wrong to murder someone based on how they came into existence.


As said above that is what the government does. I think in the 60's the cut off was 30 weeks and has been regularly reviewed and changed since then.

Though even that approach opens up a lot of issues and question, which I won't go into here.

To reply to my quote. I know you do Law and so i know in that for example murder and killing can be interpreted very differently. Ultimately these children are seen to be moving around and sucking their thumbs. It's pre meditated too. And that is what murder is like to any real life human being is it not? With manslaughter just when you do it as a thing you don't plan and do on a burst of anger or something? First is that right?

For me abortion is premeditated. The child is alive for me and that is why i think it is killing unlawfully at least whatever the term is for that. Well the later month abortions are just disgusting. They could do it at any time early in their pregnancy when the child is less developed, but aborting at over 16 weeks is revolting i think and then even higher is even worse. The law is at 24 currently right? And weren't there protests to increase that at some point? Sick i think. I question the morality of anyone wanting to increase abortion law as why do you need to wait so long to decide to abort the child? Why not do it straight away if that's what you want?

[the_saint]

Originally Posted by bmh16

To reply to my quote. I know you do Law and so i know in that for example murder and killing can be interpreted very differently.

Essentially murder is intentional killing.

Ultimately these children are seen to be moving around and sucking their thumbs.

Is this before or after the current limit? Do we know they are conscious or cognitive? Movement does not mean cognitive.

It's pre meditated too. And that is what murder is like to any real life human being is it not?

Yes, but the point I was making is that a foetus is not legally a human being, so it can't be murder.

Is a foetus morally a human being? Well when the sperm and egg fuse I don't think there is a human, but a minute before the foetus is born I think it is a human. At what point between those two points does it become human? Who knows?! The law seeks to deal with this by setting a limit as to when you can and can't abort.

With manslaughter just when you do it as a thing you don't plan and do on a burst of anger or something? First is that right?

Yes and no. Manslaughter is homicide without the intention to kill (or commit serious harm.

The child is alive for me and that is why i think it is killing unlawfully at least whatever the term is for that. Well the later month abortions are just disgusting. They could do it at any time early in their pregnancy when the child is less developed, but aborting at over 16 weeks is revolting i think and then even higher is even worse.

I don't understand, killing at any term is unlawful/disgusting, but over 16 weeks even worse? Surely the severity of the offense shouldn't increase with age? Is it worse to kill and 80 year old than a 1 year old?

And weren't there protests to increase that at some point? Sick i think.

As i've said, essentially the time limit is set by when it is medically accepted that a foetus can survive outside the womb. But there is a difference between survive and thrive. The people who want to up the limit wish to do so on the basis that a foetus may just about survive outside the womb at 24 weeks, but wouldn't survive and on that basis using the "survival" test does not serve the intention behind it properly.

I question the morality of anyone wanting to increase abortion law as why do you need to wait so long to decide to abort the child?

I don't think it's to give people longer to think about it, it's because the underlying jurisprudence behind abortion laws are that once it can survive outside the womb it should be treated as equivalent to a human being and not be aborted (though see above comments about survival). The wish to up the limit is not because of concerns of the rights of the parents, rather because of concerns as to when the foetus should be given the right not to be aborted.

Why not do it straight away if that's what you want?

I think whether you agree with abortion or not you must accept that it is a big, life changing decision. These types of decisions should not be rushed and I would suggest someone making a snap decision is more likely to regret it later than someone who takes their time to consider what it is they want. Though i'm pro-choice, I would have concerns about anyone rushing this type of decision.