Abortion

Okay, Xakota, basically I'd like to say this;

You keep arguing that abortion is taking a life, but in order to determine that we have to set a line for where that life begins. You seem to believe that conception is the beginning of life, which I won't argue although my thoughts are slightly different (ie, I have big problems with late-term abortions).

I'd also like to bring the fact back up that Hitler's mother wanted an abortion before her doctor talked her out of it. Had she had that abortion, she would've taken one life, but consequentially stopped the trivial deaths of ten million other people. Of course, this could go both ways, I mean, what if Gandhi's mother had gotten an abortion? It really boils down to the fact that the child would influence the world on some scale, and it could be for the better or for the worse and we wouldn't know unless the kid was born. So really this boils down to whether you would rather see a war end than not see another war beginning, an argument that's impossible to have.

In conclusion, xakota, well go back to the question at hand; Is it moral? We could argue this for decades and decades and decades and never get anywhere, but as long as the people's right of freedom to choose what they do for themselves is preserved I'd say that they really don't care. Sad? Yes. But also true.

 

When does life actually begin? Without a definite answer to this there can't really be a general agreement upon the morality of abortions. Is it when the brain begins to function? Is it when the embryo first begins to form? Depending upon how far back you go, then even condoms or birth control could be considered killing the "child" because, hey, it had the opportunity to exist.
There aren't as many people clamoring to adopt children as some people seem to think. There are children in orphanages and foster care because of poor family situations or deaths. Why should opportunity be taken away from them when a woman knows that she will not want a child, and has the opportunity not to give birth to it?
A child should grow up in the best, healthiest environment it can. There's nothing more terrible than being told that you were never wanted. Teen pregnancies destroy the social life and, in most cases, entire future of the mother, as she will probably have to drop out of school to care for the child. Even if the pregnancy was caused by rash and immature behavior, if it was preventable, if the mother should have known better - all the more likely that the child will not grow up as loved as it should. If a mother is not ready for a child, if she did not plan for one, then she should be able to wait. Rape victims should have the option open for them. If a woman has a health issue or the pregnancy somehow endangers her life, then the option should be open. A woman should have the right to choose whether or not she wants to have a life growing inside her for the next nine months.
There's a discussion of the Butterfly Effect going on right now, and that's the direction this seems to be heading. The child could grow up into the next Mother Teresa, yes. And here comes the unknown unknowns, things that we wouldn't miss if they did not come to pass, because we would never know of their existence. Because the child could just as well grow up to be a serial killer. Abortions should not be non-legalized (ick, double negative) just because of what the possible future may have in store, possibilities that have no basis.

 

Just like all the other sensible people in this thread, I'm going to say that it depends on the situation. Rape, potentially harm to the kid or to the mother are perfectly good reasons to have an abortion.

In response to the 'when does life begin' thing, if the child is likely to grow up with a life of suffering due to an inherited disease or in an unloved enviorment, then that really doesn't make a difference. True, it may be alive, but I doubt it will be able to comprehend and suffer until it is born.

And as for the 'it had the potential to be great' arguement, as Dalk said, they also have the potential to be horrible. Its a moot point.

 

Okay, so lets say that life begins at...i dont know, 4.5 months. thats halfway into the pregnancy. Even if it isnt considered alive at two months, why isn't still considered taking a life? You're still denying a child the chance to "live", or "become alive" as you would say. There's seriously no difference there.
And as for this "butterfly effect", well you've already killed your own argument. If some of the mothers of the most important people in the world had abortions, we'd live in an entirely different place. that can also be said about the worst people in the world, but like you said, its seriously impossible to know if this child will be an evil dictator, or if he will end world hunger, or if he will just be a regular person and not have an effect on the world.

As for arguing whether its moral or not... I just fail to see how anyone can consider denying a child the right to life moral, in any way, shape, or form.

 

I don't like to put a specific time on when life starts in a pregnancy, but we can get into all sorts of theoretical shit now that you've brought up the "right to life". As we've said before, one birth can cause the death of millions, and granted it's no guarantee that this will happen with any given birth, what happened to the "right to life" of those people, and their children and grandchildren so on and so forth? And I realize this argument goes both ways once again, not only with the child saving the lives of people but with the child in and of itself, but this is exactly what I'm arguing. Granted this argument has been killed by me, but that's okay because it's an argument we can't have because we don't know. It really just boils down to chance and whether or not you're willing to take it. I'm not trying to get into the "butterfly effect" here, but I'm instead taking a look at how every life has an impact on the world, and it seems recently that more lives have a negative rather than positive impact, sad as it may be.

And how do we even know that this child has the "right to life" anyway? What if the child is born only to be a thoughtless vegetable their entire life? I myself wouldn't say that that's life, a sad and totally empty excuse for one even if it is. What if the child is stillborn? I realize that these are morbid thoughts but it is worth bringing up for the sake of argument.

[Insert other "right to life" instances that I'm way too lazy to type up (ie stem cells)]

And I can realize how you don't find this moral, it's completely understandable. But as I've said before, morals are a tricky thing and we could debate over them forever and barely get anywhere (if we get anywhere at all).

 

Well while there's absolutely no way to know that some kid is going to grow up and kill a bunch of people, there's really no way to argue with your last point. The world is pretty bad lately.

Well, this society has plenty of technology to know whether or not that child will be stillborn, or a thoughtless vegetable. And in cases like that, abortion isn't such a bad thing.
[Insert arguments to your "right to life' instances that you were way too lazy to type up]

It's certainly true that everyone has their own thoughts and opinions. But is it seriously impossible to find the common ground that KILLING CHILDREN is a bad thing?

 

Yeah, see?
[Insert witty responses to your arguments to my "right to life" instances that I was way too lazy to type up]

Oh it's horrible to be killing children. But we first have to reach the consensus that abortion = killing children. And besides, there are some positive effects to abortion, this is inarguable. I'd like to use an example from my previous post, stem cells. A person could be born with a fatal defect curable by stem cells, does that give them less of a "right to life" than the unborn fetus, arguable if it's even alive yet, and most likely heading towards a negative life if there ever was one?

 

Okay, I'd like to point out something here.
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but a few months ago I was looking into stem cell research.
The stem cells that come from destroyed embryos have, for all this time, just been being researched. They haven't actually cured anything at all.

However, the kind of stem cells that come from the umbilical cord of a baby that was just born, which are in fact different, have been used to treat over 70 diseases. and it doesn't kill anyone.

 

As true as this may be, things like this must be researched and figured out before they are put to use, or else something may go horribly, horribly wrong. That's just how it is. And since abortion is legal atm there should be no problem with finding a positive to an arguable negative. Granted that positive is still being found, but who knows what we could do and what we could cure with these stem cells?

 

Well exactly, we've been researching this for a long time, and we still haven't found anything. I have a hard time believing Anything is actually going to be found after all this time.It looks to me like its just a waste of time and money that could be used researching other things.

 

The phrase "patience is a virtue" comes to mind.

 

Well then, we wait. While innocent children are getting killed and people are trying to cure people with it. I'll just be patient.

 

This is, of course, granted that abortion = killing children, something that I don't necessarily agree with under all conditions.

 

if stem cells could cure cancer/aids/anything else serious, not a damn person on this earth would think twice about not having an abortion but if thats the easist and cheapest cure i say go for it because people suffering should be helps also i think we forget.THIS PLANET IS ABOUT 6 TIMES OVER WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO HOLD!!! so maybe to help lower population we do abortions it may help ever consider that?

 

See, overpopulation was to go into that "[Insert other "right to life" instances that I'm way too lazy to type up (ie stem cells)]". So I have no problem discussing that now, albeit I'm not sure where to stand on this one.

 

You're totally against abortion? What if the mother isn't in the position to bring up a child well? What if she was raped? The child in her womb would still be "innocent" but what if she isn't ready for a kid and doesn't want to bring the child up reminded of her ordeal?

And fyi, there has been quite a lot of sucess when it comes to researching stem cells- and the oppertunities are almost endless. It's only due to moral issues that stem cell research is being held back. If they can get stem cells from aborted embryos, why not?

 

yea ^ this is true and really adoption isnt a great option because when you tell the kid or they find out that you arent the true parent problems will surface fast

 

yes, but theres no reason to believe that stem cells are actually going to do anything about cancer/aids/anything else serious.

oh yeah, kill people to stop overpopulation that doesnt sound horrible at all. We're overpopulated, but I'm still alive, you're still alive, and lots of people are still alive. Yes, a lot of people are starving, but society is growing. we can support overpopulation.

Adoption.

There has been alot of success from the research of stem cells that come from umbilical cords, but almost no success from the kind that come from fetuses.

 

No, actually...we can't ::L:

 

Just throwing this out here, but this here is the worst argument to overpopulation you could've made. It's not that we're overpopulated now, it's that we're going to get so overpopulated that the earth's resources won't be enough. And your justification for this is "Yes, a lot of people are starving, but society is growing,"? That's the problem at hand, good sir.

Adoption isn't as successful an industry as you might think.

Links or this is bullshit.