This subject is one of those, I feel, that isn't strictly right or strictly wrong. Like many other issues, it is very gray and instances can… more change depending on the situation. People like to put the labels "right" or "wrong", "moral" or "immoral", on things they don't understand. Psychopaths are labeled as "evil" by people who don't understand mental illness and its effects. Animals are "vicious" when they attack out of fear or defense. We shouldn't be so quick to attach labels or make something illegal without first understanding the cause for it.
I am pro-choice, solely because I believe that the decisions a woman makes regarding her body and baby belong ONLY to the woman herself. No one else should be able to decide what she can and can't do, and no one should shame her for making the choice to abort her child. The decision to have an abortion is a difficult and heartbreaking one for most women to make, and it has the ability to leave s… [view original content]
Before you are born, you do not count as human being lawwise.
That's not true though. When a person kills the woman's fetus and the woman wants to have the baby, that person could be arrested over fetal homicide. Besides, why does it matter what dry law says about a fetus? Biologically, it's human.
Your second and third point all stem from the assumption that fetus is not human. That is not true. I'd like to know what's your criteria to what's human and what not, because they have all it takes to be defined as human.
* Before you are born, you do not count as human being lawwise. Ergo: You have no rights. Sounds cruel, but this is the trurth.
* Murder … moreis killing an other human being. So if you terminate a festus, it is not a murder. (First point)
* As festuses are not human beings they have no choice, and acutally are unable to choose. (First point)
So it is pro-choice. The human being can choose.
* Before you are born, you do not count as human being lawwise. Ergo: You have no rights. Sounds cruel, but this is the trurth.
* Murder … moreis killing an other human being. So if you terminate a festus, it is not a murder. (First point)
* As festuses are not human beings they have no choice, and acutally are unable to choose. (First point)
So it is pro-choice. The human being can choose.
Before you are born, you do not count as human being lawwise.
That's not true though. When a person kills the woman's fetus and the … morewoman wants to have the baby, that person could be arrested over fetal homicide. Besides, why does it matter what dry law says about a fetus? Biologically, it's human.
Your second and third point all stem from the assumption that fetus is not human. That is not true. I'd like to know what's your criteria to what's human and what not, because they have all it takes to be defined as human.
But how are they part of the mother? They are not a part of her body, they are a living human organism inside her body. Now... I don't really understand how someone's existence is made valid just because they passed through the gates of their mother's vagina? It has no magical essence to it, the baby must have been human at least a while before being birthed into the world. The thing is, it's always been human, because it was conceived. It's not coincidence that this process has a name. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Wouldn't it be weird if you said "oh I can feel part of my body kicking!" or hear someone saying "How's your body?" It would, because it's not true, the baby growing inside of you is not part of your body, it's a growing body. It started out very small, and it's growing, but it isn't just a lump of flesh that decided to detach from your body and start to grow on its own.
I think that fetal homicide counts against the mother because the fetus never really had the chance to exist on its own, and since we never even saw the fetus besides some blurry ultrasound photos, they address the crime as it was committed towards the mother, but the law itself clearly acknowledges the fetus as a living being with intrinsic value, because if it wasn't then this wouldn't be a crime at all.
Someone's existence matters after their birth. Before that, they part of the mother.
And yes, fetal homicide exists, but that is an act against the mother not the festus.
I am on the fence with abortion at the moment. I agree that it is killing (not murder, as you stated, for that would imply criminal conduct) a defenceless innocent. However, all the same, Sometimes the reasons for abortion can be of merit (for example, certain health risks for the mother and rape). I have no side, but I do aknowledge both sides of the arguement. I would say it is a double-edged sword of sorts.
This subject is one of those, I feel, that isn't strictly right or strictly wrong. Like many other issues, it is very gray and instances can… more change depending on the situation. People like to put the labels "right" or "wrong", "moral" or "immoral", on things they don't understand. Psychopaths are labeled as "evil" by people who don't understand mental illness and its effects. Animals are "vicious" when they attack out of fear or defense. We shouldn't be so quick to attach labels or make something illegal without first understanding the cause for it.
I am pro-choice, solely because I believe that the decisions a woman makes regarding her body and baby belong ONLY to the woman herself. No one else should be able to decide what she can and can't do, and no one should shame her for making the choice to abort her child. The decision to have an abortion is a difficult and heartbreaking one for most women to make, and it has the ability to leave s… [view original content]
Well, if that thing that has his own 46 chromosomes could live outside other person's body - it would've been considered as another being right from the start. As long it needs someone else's body, it's no better than a parasite by the defenition. No one's ought to share their body with something they don't want to see there. It's not women's fault or problem they can't just take it out, toss into a petri dish and grow it there.
But how are they part of the mother? They are not a part of her body, they are a living human organism inside her body. Now... I don't reall… morey understand how someone's existence is made valid just because they passed through the gates of their mother's vagina? It has no magical essence to it, the baby must have been human at least a while before being birthed into the world. The thing is, it's always been human, because it was conceived. It's not coincidence that this process has a name. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Wouldn't it be weird if you said "oh I can feel part of my body kicking!" or hear someone saying "How's your body?" It would, because it's not true, the baby growing inside of you is not part of your body, it's a growing body. It started out very small, and it's growing, but it isn't just a lump of flesh that decided to detach from your body and start to grow on its own.
I think that … [view original content]
I don't think that's a legitimate argument. If we shouldn't abort fetuses because they will at some point become sentient, then how is not getting pregnant any different? You get the same result.
People with down syndrome have lower intellect compared to normal brain patterns. even so, we don't go around killing these people indiscrim… moreinately just because of their brain power. the same could be said of animals. they all have the right to live.
Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is bound to be one in the future. and unless there's a significant enough justification ( like the rape example). I don't think we have the power and/or the right to interfere in this process.
no offense to you. but I think this logic is just cold.. I believe that life should be respected above all. ethics should persist. otherwise we'll not be different from a machine.
Here's one thing I think you're not taking into account; that some people have different reasons for aborting. Teen mothers, for example, would be more likely to abort because of how difficult it would be to carry a child for nine months. She'd have to give up on school, which would make getting anywhere in life difficult. I don't think anyone deserves lifelong punishment for an accident.
That is your opinion.
But the truth is, it is morally wrong to kill a baby, under any circumstances.
Especially if the woman in question just doesn't wanna be "bothered" with the responsibility of taking care of kid.
You're literally ignoring everything outside of the fact that both are non-sentient, and then saying they're "exactly" alike. That makes no sense. Did you even read what I said in my last post? The fact that the fetus will eventually become sentient is what makes it totally different. You're comparing a developing human life to something that very obviously will never anything more than what it already is. There is no comparison. By aborting the fetus, you're putting a stop to human life, period.
Your post here has almost nothing to do with the points that I made in my previous post to you, but alright.
During your life you destroy millions of microrganisms.
.. okay? Throughout my life I certainly do not destroy millions of human lives, though. There is a difference. We're talking about destroying human life here. There is no comparison.
And, you know, pro choice means that I can decide if I want one. And yes if the reason is "just becuse" others might think that I'm stupid, but that is not the point. I have the freedom of choosing if I want an offspring. If I don't=abortion If I want=I keep it. That is win-win.
I understand what it means to be pro choice. You may see it as a win-win situation, but obviously people that are pro life do not see it that way. That should go without saying.
And becuse it is your baby, you are the best man/woman to decide if you want it or not. Being pro-choice means that you have options, you have freedom.
Freedom? As in the freedom to kill unborn children? Definitely does not sound like a freedom that should be protected, just as you don't have the freedom to steal or assault people.
During your life you destroy millions of microrganisms.
And, you know, pro choice means that I can decide if I want one. And yes if the r… moreeason is "just becuse" others might think that I'm stupid, but that is not the point. I have the freedom of choosing if I want an offspring. If I don't=abortion If I want=I keep it. That is win-win.
And becuse it is your baby, you are the best man/woman to decide if you want it or not. Being pro-choice means that you have options, you have freedom.
Seeing as the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, I would think that at the very least we could ban the procedure for other less "controversial" reasons. I personally don't believe rape should be justification for an abortion, but I would be happy with the progress at least.
I am on the fence with abortion at the moment. I agree that it is killing (not murder, as you stated, for that would imply criminal conduct)… more a defenceless innocent. However, all the same, Sometimes the reasons for abortion can be of merit (for example, certain health risks for the mother and rape). I have no side, but I do aknowledge both sides of the arguement. I would say it is a double-edged sword of sorts.
"Non-sentient" is "non-sentient" that is literally all that matters. Going by your logic male masturbation is genocide and vasectomie or tube-tying is akin to kidnapping/imprisonment.
You're literally ignoring everything outside of the fact that both are non-sentient, and then saying they're "exactly" alike. That makes no … moresense. Did you even read what I said in my last post? The fact that the fetus will eventually become sentient is what makes it totally different. You're comparing a developing human life to something that very obviously will never anything more than what it already is. There is no comparison. By aborting the fetus, you're putting a stop to human life, period.
My logic is cold. There's no offense taken. I feel that those with down syndrome should have been aborted. I feel all animal life is important (they all contribute to the ecosystem and their extinction would screw something up permanently in their ecosystem) but some animals are more valuable on account of their sentience (i.e apes, elephants, etc.) Sperm is also bound to be sentient, but male masturbation isn't considered genocide.
People with down syndrome have lower intellect compared to normal brain patterns. even so, we don't go around killing these people indiscrim… moreinately just because of their brain power. the same could be said of animals. they all have the right to live.
Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is bound to be one in the future. and unless there's a significant enough justification ( like the rape example). I don't think we have the power and/or the right to interfere in this process.
no offense to you. but I think this logic is just cold.. I believe that life should be respected above all. ethics should persist. otherwise we'll not be different from a machine.
"Non-sentient" is "non-sentient" that is literally all that matters.
No, that is not all that matters. There is no actual basis for your thinking here, you're just saying whatever without even trying to add rationale to your viewpoint. You're continuing to ignore the fact that we're looking at a developing human life, not just some random bodily cell that will never be anything more than what it already is. Of course a fetus isn't sentient, but that doesn't justify doing whatever you want to it. This is because it is going to develop sentience. This is a really obvious and important difference that makes it vastly different from random bodily cells. Sentient or not, the fetus is a developing human life. That can't be argued against. If you stop that human development, you obviously take away a human life. There is no comparison to killing body cells and putting a stop to someone's life before they can even be born.
Going by your logic male masturbation is genocide
Going by my logic..? No. Sperm cells are not developing human lives. Going through sperm cells has nothing to do with killing unborn children.
"Non-sentient" is "non-sentient" that is literally all that matters. Going by your logic male masturbation is genocide and vasectomie or tube-tying is akin to kidnapping/imprisonment.
What about in the instance where a mother knows they won't be able to give up the baby for adoption? What if the area the mother lives in is on economical collapse? What if she can't afford to take care of her baby? Do both the mother and baby have to suffer the unfair life they were given? Which the mother's suffering would only increase. I'm not saying it's right, I agree that it's horrible but the mother still has the right to choose in my opinion. The baby is a human being, yes, but the baby is using the mother to grow, it's like saying someone that leeches money, food or life essence off you has the right to do so, but you can't do anything but wait for them to stop. Also, what if the baby was sent to adoption and that baby lives out the rest of it's life horribly? There's allot of factors in this controversial topic, I technically have no right to comment on this anyway, I'm not a female and I doubt I'll ever be pregnant, plus if I were a pregnant woman I would never think of abortion, but that doesn't mean what I think is right is what's right, everyone is allowed their opinion, and the mother has the right to choose whether she wants to bring new life to the world - she shouldn't be forced to give birth if she never gave consent just because abortions are morally ill.
Allot of abortions happen when the baby hasn't even fully developed a brain, in all technicality, any form of sexual intercourse is practica… morelly a mass murder since only a single sperm cell of millions survive.
While it's true that a lot of abortions happen during the first weeks, that: a. does not justify the ones that happen after the first 3-4 months b. does not matter, because the ability to feel pain is not the standard upon which we decide what is human and what deserves to live. Even though the fact that they feel pain pretty much shows why we shouldn't hurt them.
To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gameto… [view original content]
A day year old baby is also completely and utterly dependent on the mother's care, does that mean it's not human?
It's not the woman's fault if she didn't want to get pregnant, and the will of the mother doesn't matter when there's another human life in question. The baby is there, it's alive, it's breathing and no sooner than numerous weeks after conception, it's also feeling and responding to touch. I don't think that the will of the mother determines the fate of the baby, it is just cruel and unfair for the baby.
Well, if that thing that has his own 46 chromosomes could live outside other person's body - it would've been considered as another being ri… moreght from the start. As long it needs someone else's body, it's no better than a parasite by the defenition. No one's ought to share their body with something they don't want to see there. It's not women's fault or problem they can't just take it out, toss into a petri dish and grow it there.
A day year old baby is also completely and utterly dependent on the mother's care, does that mean it's not human?
It's not the woman's fa… moreult if she didn't want to get pregnant, and the will of the mother doesn't matter when there's another human life in question. The baby is there, it's alive, it's breathing and no sooner than numerous weeks after conception, it's also feeling and responding to touch. I don't think that the will of the mother determines the fate of the baby, it is just cruel and unfair for the baby.
To those who don't "believe" a human fetus is human by definition, I'd like to know when exactly you pinpoint the label "human" on a living … morething.
By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example by recoiling. Does that make him estimable? Four or five weeks after fertilization, pain receptors appear around the mouth, followed by nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. By 18 weeks, pain receptors have appeared throughout the body. Around week 6, the fetus first responds to touch. Is he human now?
By the 20th week, all parts are in place and everything is as it should be. Human, or not human?
Here's a question: if the doctor delivers your baby, and then smashes its' head against a wall, how would you react? Is there some kind of magical change that happens when the head pops out of t… [view original content]
@Viva-La-Lee has a point. We're wired to be sexually active. It's just how we are as a species. And I'll again say that I think you're missing something: not wanting to raise the child isn't always the reason for a woman to abort (seeing how easy it is for women to give up responsibility of their children. Same can't be said for men), especially when it comes to teenage mothers. Going through with carrying a child and giving birth to it is hard, not just physically but mentally. A pregnant teen would have to give up on almost an entire year of school, probably sending most of their dreams down the drain, not to mention how women are slut-shamed far more than men (as far as I know), it's far from unlikely that a teen mother would want to hide that her pregnancy ever happened.
Although I do agree with you on one thing: we need to encourage the use of protection, from the start of ex ed. Since teens become more sexually active at high school (not much we can do about that), then I reckon it would be best to ensure that they're at least taking the proper precautions.
"Does population count justify killing human beings?"
No, it certainly does not!
Children are precious.
And they have the right to life.
… more
So many people abort babies because the do not want the responsibility of having a child.
If someone does not want a pregnancy on their hands, or are just to damned lazy to take on the resposibilty of a taking care of a child, they should do one of two things.
Either use protection, or DO NOT have sex.
PERIOD!
It's not dependent on his mother. Any person can take care of him when he's a 1-day old. A person who wants to do it. And a 1-day old won't die anymore just because he's not connected by the umbilical cord to someone else. He would die only if someone won't feed him and take care of him which is a big goddamn difference. NOW and only now it's a separated, independent being.
I don't think that the will of the mother determines the fate of the baby, it is just cruel and unfair for the baby.
I don't think that will of a something that doesn't even developed a brain and several centimeters long determines the fate of the mother. It's just cruel and unfair to the mother when you make her go though a nine months of this bs and labour. You know, that mother is also pretty goddamn capable of feeling pain, fear and anger. Because guess what, she's also alive and on top of that, she also feels everything already, from day one. But I get it. Fetus has all the rights in the world. Adult has none because apparently your well-being no longer matters if you're an adult. And it isn't hypocritical at all.
A day year old baby is also completely and utterly dependent on the mother's care, does that mean it's not human?
It's not the woman's fa… moreult if she didn't want to get pregnant, and the will of the mother doesn't matter when there's another human life in question. The baby is there, it's alive, it's breathing and no sooner than numerous weeks after conception, it's also feeling and responding to touch. I don't think that the will of the mother determines the fate of the baby, it is just cruel and unfair for the baby.
Now, where are the results that say if those women really wanted to do those abortions or not? What was the cause of suicidal thoughts - the process, the judgemental bs people might've given them or something else entirely? - and things like that. Because without answering those questions, those results are bs.
Women who had abortions had:
* 59 percent increased risk for suicidal thoughts
* 61 percent increased risk for mood disorders
* 6… more1 percent increased risk for social anxiety disorders
* 261 percent increased risk for alcohol abuse
* 280 percent increased risk for any substance use disorder
It's dependent on the mother because it's in the mother, not because she's the only one it can depend on.
It's a seperate being from the moment of conception, despite that you think it is just a part of the mother until then.
Who said that it's ok to keep the baby alive even if it leads to maternal death? If it leads to maternal death, then the mother had every right to abort it, because it's her life or his. It might be hard for her, but the other option is the death of the baby, so basically it's just what causes less harm.
It's not dependent on his mother. Any person can take care of him when he's a 1-day old. A person who wants to do it. And a 1-day old won't … moredie anymore just because he's not connected by the umbilical cord to someone else. He would die only if someone won't feed him and take care of him which is a big goddamn difference. NOW and only now it's a separated, independent being.
I don't think that the will of the mother determines the fate of the baby, it is just cruel and unfair for the baby.
I don't think that will of a something that doesn't even developed a brain and several centimeters long determines the fate of the mother. It's just cruel and unfair to the mother when you make her go though a nine months of this bs and labour. You know, that mother is also pretty goddamn capable of feeling pain, fear and anger. Because guess what, she's also alive and on top of that, she also feels everything already, from day one. But I get i… [view original content]
Now, where are the results that say if those women really wanted to do those abortions or not? What was the cause of suicidal thoughts - the… more process, the judgemental bs people might've given them or something else entirely? - and things like that. Because without answering those questions, those results are bs.
Seeing as the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, I would think that at the very least we could ban the procedure for o… morether less "controversial" reasons. I personally don't believe rape should be justification for an abortion, but I would be happy with the progress at least.
She's the only one it can depend on because it can't live outside of her.
If it was a separate being, it could live outside the mother's body.
Who said? People of Ireland, for example, where it's banned and illegal - which is what every pro-choice here aim for. That country is known for it's stupid laws in that matter, many goddamn awful things happen there because of it, including a 10-years old girl (I think she was 10) who was raped by her father or stepfather and was denied the right to end this bs even though her parents wanted it. They were also denied the right to take her away from Ireland and do abortion in other country. Why? Because f*ck this little 10 years old girl, that's why. It might be hard for her, but fetus is more important.
It's dependent on the mother because it's in the mother, not because she's the only one it can depend on.
It's a seperate being from the … moremoment of conception, despite that you think it is just a part of the mother until then.
Who said that it's ok to keep the baby alive even if it leads to maternal death? If it leads to maternal death, then the mother had every right to abort it, because it's her life or his. It might be hard for her, but the other option is the death of the baby, so basically it's just what causes less harm.
That's not to mention that it's 23 weeks - that's more than 5 monts old. It's illegal to do abortions on that stage, majority of countries provide it only till it's 3 months old.
Do they both have to suffer an unfair life? No, but it's not our choice whether to let a person live or not. If they grow up to be miserable, they can take their own lives, but we cannot just assume that a baby shouldn't live because they would grow in poor conditions, we have no right to do that. The person ou are killing might actually want to live, and you are taking that from them by killing them.
It's not the same as a leech, because they are growing to be a independent human being that deserves to live. They need the care for the time that they are growing, and could give back by the time that they are old. Luckily, we don't live in his hypothetical scenario, and a child can be given to another person's care or to adoption, a foster home etc.
The approach that just because you're not a female means that you will never have the right judgment to a a process that only females undertake is untrue, because you don't have to feel what it's like to reach an objective conclusion. What you think is what you think, and what other women might think won't change the nature of things: circumstances aside - a human dies. The only way to justify this to me is if it could save the life of another human being, i.e prevent maternal death.
What about in the instance where a mother knows they won't be able to give up the baby for adoption? What if the area the mother lives in is… more on economical collapse? What if she can't afford to take care of her baby? Do both the mother and baby have to suffer the unfair life they were given? Which the mother's suffering would only increase. I'm not saying it's right, I agree that it's horrible but the mother still has the right to choose in my opinion. The baby is a human being, yes, but the baby is using the mother to grow, it's like saying someone that leeches money, food or life essence off you has the right to do so, but you can't do anything but wait for them to stop. Also, what if the baby was sent to adoption and that baby lives out the rest of it's life horribly? There's allot of factors in this controversial topic, I technically have no right to comment on this anyway, I'm not a female and I doubt I'll ever be pregnant, plus if I were… [view original content]
I believe it's was olso in the fiorst link in google:
The new study affirms that mental health problems associated with abortion cannot be solely explained by an exposure to other forms of violence. The earlier 2008 study also found that abortion was more likely to cause mental health problems among women than was a history of other traumas such as childhood sexual abuse, rape, physical violence or neglect.
Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon, who has worked on more than a dozen studies on mental health issues after abortion, said that further research is also needed to look at the other side of the equation: whether having an abortion is likely to increase a women’s risk of suffering violence or abuse.
He expressed concern that the study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry made no distinction between exposure to violence that occurred before the abortion and exposure which occurred after the abortion, noting that violence may actually be an aftereffect of abortion.
“I believe this is a very important distinction which should be investigated, as we have evidence from surveys and interviews with women which indicate that abortion may increase a woman’s risk of experiencing violence in numerous ways,” Reardon said. “In short, controlling for exposure to violence which occurs after an abortion may be taking out one of the effects of abortion rather than an independent factor.”
Other studies have found an increase in suicide, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, sleep disorders, symptoms of post-traumatic stress and other problems. This latest study adds more evidence to the need for meaningful help and alternatives to abortion, as well as measures, such as that recently passed in Nebraska, that would hold abortion businesses liable for failing to screen for coercion and other known factors that put women and teens at risk for mental health disorders after abortion.
Yeah, right, you don't want me to list all the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.
Their sample size is large enough, here is one of the studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0041378/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23859662
also not to mention increased breast cancer risk.
I believe it's was olso in the fiorst link in google:
The new study affirms that mental health problems associated with abortion canno… moret be solely explained by an exposure to other forms of violence. The earlier 2008 study also found that abortion was more likely to cause mental health problems among women than was a history of other traumas such as childhood sexual abuse, rape, physical violence or neglect.
Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon, who has worked on more than a dozen studies on mental health issues after abortion, said that further research is also needed to look at the other side of the equation: whether having an abortion is likely to increase a women’s risk of suffering violence or abuse.
He expressed concern that the study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry made no distinction between exposure to violence that occurred before the abortion and exposure which occurred after the abortion, … [view original content]
Okay that doesn't justify it, 8 weeks or more old fetuses actually feel pain.
I stood at a doctor's side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure, and what I saw is branded forever on my mind. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating…. Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he'd used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just 'reflexes.' I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death—people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.
Meh.
That's not to mention that it's 23 weeks - that's more than 5 monts old. It's illegal to do abortions on that stage, majority of countries provide it only till it's 3 months old.
My god, the majority of these reasons are just so self-centered that it's sickening, especially the "school or career concern", it's not the first time people sacrifice babies for prosperity.
Meh.
That's not to mention that it's 23 weeks - that's more than 5 monts old. It's illegal to do abortions on that stage, majority of countries provide it only till it's 3 months old.
Comments
Did you steal my thoughts?
That's not true though. When a person kills the woman's fetus and the woman wants to have the baby, that person could be arrested over fetal homicide. Besides, why does it matter what dry law says about a fetus? Biologically, it's human.
Your second and third point all stem from the assumption that fetus is not human. That is not true. I'd like to know what's your criteria to what's human and what not, because they have all it takes to be defined as human.
I'll toss this word your way, it might help you make sense of your own stance. "Sentience"
Thanks, english is not my first language.
Someone's existence matters after their birth. Before that, they part of the mother.
And yes, fetal homicide exists, but that is an act against the mother not the festus.
Where's the basis for that? Just because a person is able to reproduce doesn't mean they have the strength or mental fortitude to raise a child.
But how are they part of the mother? They are not a part of her body, they are a living human organism inside her body. Now... I don't really understand how someone's existence is made valid just because they passed through the gates of their mother's vagina? It has no magical essence to it, the baby must have been human at least a while before being birthed into the world. The thing is, it's always been human, because it was conceived. It's not coincidence that this process has a name. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Wouldn't it be weird if you said "oh I can feel part of my body kicking!" or hear someone saying "How's your body?" It would, because it's not true, the baby growing inside of you is not part of your body, it's a growing body. It started out very small, and it's growing, but it isn't just a lump of flesh that decided to detach from your body and start to grow on its own.
I think that fetal homicide counts against the mother because the fetus never really had the chance to exist on its own, and since we never even saw the fetus besides some blurry ultrasound photos, they address the crime as it was committed towards the mother, but the law itself clearly acknowledges the fetus as a living being with intrinsic value, because if it wasn't then this wouldn't be a crime at all.
I am on the fence with abortion at the moment. I agree that it is killing (not murder, as you stated, for that would imply criminal conduct) a defenceless innocent. However, all the same, Sometimes the reasons for abortion can be of merit (for example, certain health risks for the mother and rape). I have no side, but I do aknowledge both sides of the arguement. I would say it is a double-edged sword of sorts.
Well said, my friend. Well said.
You're right. I was tired when I wrote that and I don't know what was going through my head at the time.
Well, if that thing that has his own 46 chromosomes could live outside other person's body - it would've been considered as another being right from the start. As long it needs someone else's body, it's no better than a parasite by the defenition. No one's ought to share their body with something they don't want to see there. It's not women's fault or problem they can't just take it out, toss into a petri dish and grow it there.
I don't think that's a legitimate argument. If we shouldn't abort fetuses because they will at some point become sentient, then how is not getting pregnant any different? You get the same result.
Here's one thing I think you're not taking into account; that some people have different reasons for aborting. Teen mothers, for example, would be more likely to abort because of how difficult it would be to carry a child for nine months. She'd have to give up on school, which would make getting anywhere in life difficult. I don't think anyone deserves lifelong punishment for an accident.
You're literally ignoring everything outside of the fact that both are non-sentient, and then saying they're "exactly" alike. That makes no sense. Did you even read what I said in my last post? The fact that the fetus will eventually become sentient is what makes it totally different. You're comparing a developing human life to something that very obviously will never anything more than what it already is. There is no comparison. By aborting the fetus, you're putting a stop to human life, period.
Your post here has almost nothing to do with the points that I made in my previous post to you, but alright.
.. okay? Throughout my life I certainly do not destroy millions of human lives, though. There is a difference. We're talking about destroying human life here. There is no comparison.
I understand what it means to be pro choice. You may see it as a win-win situation, but obviously people that are pro life do not see it that way. That should go without saying.
Freedom? As in the freedom to kill unborn children? Definitely does not sound like a freedom that should be protected, just as you don't have the freedom to steal or assault people.
Seeing as the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, I would think that at the very least we could ban the procedure for other less "controversial" reasons. I personally don't believe rape should be justification for an abortion, but I would be happy with the progress at least.
It's cool mate. Shit happens sometimes.
"Non-sentient" is "non-sentient" that is literally all that matters. Going by your logic male masturbation is genocide and vasectomie or tube-tying is akin to kidnapping/imprisonment.
My logic is cold. There's no offense taken. I feel that those with down syndrome should have been aborted. I feel all animal life is important (they all contribute to the ecosystem and their extinction would screw something up permanently in their ecosystem) but some animals are more valuable on account of their sentience (i.e apes, elephants, etc.) Sperm is also bound to be sentient, but male masturbation isn't considered genocide.
No, that is not all that matters. There is no actual basis for your thinking here, you're just saying whatever without even trying to add rationale to your viewpoint. You're continuing to ignore the fact that we're looking at a developing human life, not just some random bodily cell that will never be anything more than what it already is. Of course a fetus isn't sentient, but that doesn't justify doing whatever you want to it. This is because it is going to develop sentience. This is a really obvious and important difference that makes it vastly different from random bodily cells. Sentient or not, the fetus is a developing human life. That can't be argued against. If you stop that human development, you obviously take away a human life. There is no comparison to killing body cells and putting a stop to someone's life before they can even be born.
Going by my logic..? No. Sperm cells are not developing human lives. Going through sperm cells has nothing to do with killing unborn children.
What about in the instance where a mother knows they won't be able to give up the baby for adoption? What if the area the mother lives in is on economical collapse? What if she can't afford to take care of her baby? Do both the mother and baby have to suffer the unfair life they were given? Which the mother's suffering would only increase. I'm not saying it's right, I agree that it's horrible but the mother still has the right to choose in my opinion. The baby is a human being, yes, but the baby is using the mother to grow, it's like saying someone that leeches money, food or life essence off you has the right to do so, but you can't do anything but wait for them to stop. Also, what if the baby was sent to adoption and that baby lives out the rest of it's life horribly? There's allot of factors in this controversial topic, I technically have no right to comment on this anyway, I'm not a female and I doubt I'll ever be pregnant, plus if I were a pregnant woman I would never think of abortion, but that doesn't mean what I think is right is what's right, everyone is allowed their opinion, and the mother has the right to choose whether she wants to bring new life to the world - she shouldn't be forced to give birth if she never gave consent just because abortions are morally ill.
A day year old baby is also completely and utterly dependent on the mother's care, does that mean it's not human?
It's not the woman's fault if she didn't want to get pregnant, and the will of the mother doesn't matter when there's another human life in question. The baby is there, it's alive, it's breathing and no sooner than numerous weeks after conception, it's also feeling and responding to touch. I don't think that the will of the mother determines the fate of the baby, it is just cruel and unfair for the baby.
Women who had abortions had:
59 percent increased risk for suicidal thoughts
61 percent increased risk for mood disorders
61 percent increased risk for social anxiety disorders
261 percent increased risk for alcohol abuse
280 percent increased risk for any substance use disorder
Thank you!
Fantastic argument!
I think you have actually stated my stance better than I did.
It's wonderful to see I'm not alone in my viewpoint.
@Viva-La-Lee has a point. We're wired to be sexually active. It's just how we are as a species. And I'll again say that I think you're missing something: not wanting to raise the child isn't always the reason for a woman to abort (seeing how easy it is for women to give up responsibility of their children. Same can't be said for men), especially when it comes to teenage mothers. Going through with carrying a child and giving birth to it is hard, not just physically but mentally. A pregnant teen would have to give up on almost an entire year of school, probably sending most of their dreams down the drain, not to mention how women are slut-shamed far more than men (as far as I know), it's far from unlikely that a teen mother would want to hide that her pregnancy ever happened.
Although I do agree with you on one thing: we need to encourage the use of protection, from the start of ex ed. Since teens become more sexually active at high school (not much we can do about that), then I reckon it would be best to ensure that they're at least taking the proper precautions.
It's not dependent on his mother. Any person can take care of him when he's a 1-day old. A person who wants to do it. And a 1-day old won't die anymore just because he's not connected by the umbilical cord to someone else. He would die only if someone won't feed him and take care of him which is a big goddamn difference. NOW and only now it's a separated, independent being.
I don't think that will of a something that doesn't even developed a brain and several centimeters long determines the fate of the mother. It's just cruel and unfair to the mother when you make her go though a nine months of this bs and labour. You know, that mother is also pretty goddamn capable of feeling pain, fear and anger. Because guess what, she's also alive and on top of that, she also feels everything already, from day one. But I get it. Fetus has all the rights in the world. Adult has none because apparently your well-being no longer matters if you're an adult. And it isn't hypocritical at all.
Now, where are the results that say if those women really wanted to do those abortions or not? What was the cause of suicidal thoughts - the process, the judgemental bs people might've given them or something else entirely? - and things like that. Because without answering those questions, those results are bs.
It's dependent on the mother because it's in the mother, not because she's the only one it can depend on.
It's a seperate being from the moment of conception, despite that you think it is just a part of the mother until then.
Who said that it's ok to keep the baby alive even if it leads to maternal death? If it leads to maternal death, then the mother had every right to abort it, because it's her life or his. It might be hard for her, but the other option is the death of the baby, so basically it's just what causes less harm.
Their sample size is large enough, here is one of the studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0041378/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23859662
also not to mention increased breast cancer risk.
horrible
She's the only one it can depend on because it can't live outside of her.
If it was a separate being, it could live outside the mother's body.
Who said? People of Ireland, for example, where it's banned and illegal - which is what every pro-choice here aim for. That country is known for it's stupid laws in that matter, many goddamn awful things happen there because of it, including a 10-years old girl (I think she was 10) who was raped by her father or stepfather and was denied the right to end this bs even though her parents wanted it. They were also denied the right to take her away from Ireland and do abortion in other country. Why? Because f*ck this little 10 years old girl, that's why. It might be hard for her, but fetus is more important.
Meh.
That's not to mention that it's 23 weeks - that's more than 5 monts old. It's illegal to do abortions on that stage, majority of countries provide it only till it's 3 months old.
Do they both have to suffer an unfair life? No, but it's not our choice whether to let a person live or not. If they grow up to be miserable, they can take their own lives, but we cannot just assume that a baby shouldn't live because they would grow in poor conditions, we have no right to do that. The person ou are killing might actually want to live, and you are taking that from them by killing them.
It's not the same as a leech, because they are growing to be a independent human being that deserves to live. They need the care for the time that they are growing, and could give back by the time that they are old. Luckily, we don't live in his hypothetical scenario, and a child can be given to another person's care or to adoption, a foster home etc.
The approach that just because you're not a female means that you will never have the right judgment to a a process that only females undertake is untrue, because you don't have to feel what it's like to reach an objective conclusion. What you think is what you think, and what other women might think won't change the nature of things: circumstances aside - a human dies. The only way to justify this to me is if it could save the life of another human being, i.e prevent maternal death.
I believe it's was olso in the fiorst link in google:
Yeah, right, you don't want me to list all the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.
o-okay?
funny you say that, abortion is more dangerous than childbirth.
Okay that doesn't justify it, 8 weeks or more old fetuses actually feel pain.
My god, the majority of these reasons are just so self-centered that it's sickening, especially the "school or career concern", it's not the first time people sacrifice babies for prosperity.
Is it actually illegal to have abortions in most countries after the 3rd month of pregnancy? I've never heard of that.