Topic: Where do you stand on abortion? Let's have a civil debate. - page 3. (Read 2019 times)

I agree,  I didnt see anything good about abortion.  For me it was always a wrong thing to do.  Whats in the womb is a blessing,  even it was plan or not.  Still must live and see the world.  Abortion is killing an innocent child. Just always put your situation on to someones shoes before you decide weather it was right or wrong. 

The answer is simple.  A person starts when the mother has the baby.  Thats also when they write the birth certificate, assign a name, etc.    Everything that happens before that is up to the woman and her medical professionals.  Not the men on a bitcoin board.

Then what if your mother do abort you? How would you feel? Even that was not born or it was not a baby, that was alive and I think that was considered as a crime. So when do a person start? Of course from the womb so it was still considered to a murder.

By whose definition? Yours?

A skin cells contains all the same genetic material that a fertilized egg does. It also contains the exact same ability to think, feel, interact, feel pain, or indeed feel anything at all - i.e. none. We can also take the genetic material from a skin cell, place it in the right conditions, and use it to grow an entire organism. Why is one human life and the other isn't?

Of course they did. I agree with that statement. It doesn't change the fact that a fertilized egg is no more a human being than a skin cell is.

No, I don't think it's a hyperbole.

Sperm,eggs, or skin are not human life.
Look at the third question in the research paper again


What is elimination of human life if not murder?

It's not a hyperbole, it's a logical sequence. "Pro-choice" is pro-murder. You have been mislead it's not murder, but we've established it's elimination of human life. What is it then?
And it's not your fault for thinking that, because everyone is shoving selective information down your throat through the media constantly. You had no help but to think otherwise.
But if you choose to ignore the data presented to you, only then you can be blamed.

Here's the recreational thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10794046


So, only 51% of abortion patients used contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant. In the whole month! 51% of them didn't use contraceptives at least once in the whole month!
People aren't using contraceptive methods because they're taught abortion is just dumping a clump of cells.  They rely on abortion if they accidently get someone pregnant so they don't try to stop pregnancy happening at all.
And there are people pushing for free abortions to make people use contraceptives even less, since now, the only thing making them be careful is the 500$ price of the abortion.

 Firstly, "a girl has the right to abort a baby for whatever reason they like as long as it's in womb" is a misconception the time period. Most abortions are performed  by ≤13 weeks' gestation.
Secondly, who are you to say a girl what she should do with her body? Pro-choice King?

You don't think the phrases "recreational abortion" and "pro-murder" are hyperbolic?

The rest of your argument is entirely missing the point. Of course a fertilized egg is alive. So are unfertilized egg cells and sperm. So are all your skin cells that you wash off every day. So are the organs of the deceased which we remove and carry in a box to transplant in to someone else.

All those things are alive. None of them are a person.

I would recommend everyone against opening this link since it's his first post and the link itself doesn't seem related to the subject.

Just because it doesn't align with your interests it doesn't make it false.
How is it a hyperbole?
Would you or would you not accept abortion being legal only in case of rape and when the mothers life is in danger?
If your answer is no then my statement is 100% correct.




https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

Not my words but interesting:

"Our individual DNA process is a continuous process, unfurling from the moment of conception. There is no later stage of our existence that is not dependent on earlier stages of our existence, as a continuous entity in space and time. Our DNA process is continuous in both space and time from the moment of our conception, to the moment of our death.

Acceptance, rationalization of the termination of an already unfurling DNA process, once invited to unfurl, requires the irrational acceptance of temporal bias. In the continuum of space/time, that continuously unfurling DNA process is not a complete individual human 'yet.' That is because we are not regarding that human over the complete time-space continuum that it exists in. But, the only thing required to see the complete individual human is the passage of time.

We are of course much more than our unfurling DNA processes, but whatever we are, the basis of our life, cannot exist without the unmolested possession of that unfurling DNA process.

The fetus is a concrete example of a new individual DNA process, unfurling. There is and has been a conflict to define the most fundamental aspect of an individual -- the term of its existence. The resolution of this conflict -- between the newest individual and others -- is resolved by others, based on whatever philosophical or moral guidance they bring to the conflict. The rationalizations in support of abortion boil down to the convenience of the others, based mostly on a shaky temporal bias that is permitted to stand, unquestioned"

Okay let's consider those possibilities, but have you consider if that those parents cannot raise a child due to financial crisis that's why they chose abortion. If they can't even feed themselves then how do you expect for them to raise a child properly ?

I've seen children on the streets asking for food or money cause their parents couldn't provide those things, they couldn't even go to school cause they need to earn for a living. For me its better to die than suffer a life like this.

People who doesn't agree with abortion should prove that their statement is correct and reach out to those children who are in really poor conditions.

I already consider it as murder so I am against it,
We should be ready for the responsibility you couldn't just do it and kill it if you aren't ready that is why wehave contraceptive's to prevent having a baby while you are not yet ready.

Absolutely. Everyone who is pro-choice is pro-murder. Further, they all want to ban condoms and other contraception, because abortion should be the only necessary contraception method.

Or maybe your ridiculous hyperbole does nothing to help the debate other than to prove that no one should take what you say seriously.

Its better I say I don't stand but would prefer to look at each situation as it presents itself as I see myself changing if some situations that beyond human comprehension should happen.

For example, in a case where the pregnancy is due to philandering activities then abortion should not be tolerated but in situations where it poses a threat to the life of the mother or its a case of rape which the victim is not ready to keep, then I would support an abortion for it the pregnancy to be terminated.

I don't think the pro-murder gang would ever accept those terms.
They want recreational abortion.
It has nothing to do with rape or risky pregnancy.

Abortion is always a tricky subject in politics. There are an equally good amount of arguments that stem from both sides pro lifers and pro abortionists. I don't think it should really be that hard of a decision to please both parties. In my opinion it should go something like this, women who are forced into having children by some sort of sexual violence towards them, women who face complications that could cause the baby to become born deformed, and women are unfit or unstable financially should be some of the only reasonable arguments for obtaining abortions.
   Women shouldn't be able to abort because of sexual carelessness, "like oops, I'm pregnant" because they didn't properly use protection with their partners, Or because of narcissistic selfishness.
  I think if the pregnancy results from consensual sex and it was just an honest mistake, then the father should have a stake in the claim, it shouldn't just be the women who get to decide on their own, since it takes two to tangle.
   Just my two cents!

No, it shouldn't be because you shouldn't be able to legally agree to end someones life.

It should be a decision of both father and mother of the child rather than only mother. I agree that most of the pain goes to a mother but if the two had done with each other's permission then this also should be taken with each other's permission.

This is the same as saying, if your wife wants to kill your neighbour

its her choice to which you have to agree(stay with her) or disagree(get a divorce). she still has the control
its you that has to agree or disagree to HER decision

It's her who chooses to kill or not to kill the neighbour.


The baby is not her body. They are 2 seperate bodies.

And if they were 1 body then your statement would be contradictory because "being allowed to do what you want" and "a limit must be set" does not align with eachother.

firstly im glad your wife is in agreement. but you worded it as if it was purely your choice.
its her choice to which you have to agree(stay with her) or disagree(get a divorce). she still has the control
its you that has to agree or disagree to HER decision

there is no one rule for everything
life and awareness are 2 different things
take a 40yo person who is getting dementia. they become no longer aware and no longer capable of looking after themselves. so its not a case of not putting someone in as their carer/guardian because they passed some age limit of awareness

take a terminal cancer patient who is fully aware of his actions and wants to die. he should be allowed to, and not be forced to be put on life saving treatment

take a terminal cancer patient who is in a coma and unaware of his actions. should be kept on life support for 1000 years? instead someone who has care/guardian status of someone unable to make independant decisions has the power to make independant decisions

so for pregnancy, the MOTHERS has the power
obviously the decision should be on the best interests of the child, but also how it will affect the womens future

so when we know that at say 25 weeks a fetus wont survive if birthed or surgically removed(c-section) the fetus's best interest is not to be punished with 1000 years of life support because it doesnt even have developed lungs of its own
and wont have the brain capacity to learn and live an active independant life

however if a fetus gets to be the stage where science knows it has a good chance of a good active independant life. then it should be much harder to warrant an abortion. unless its proven that the child would negatively impact the mother beyond reasonable amount

it also impacts the debate of 'loss of life: murder or self defense'
loss of life is just loss of life but the reasons for it need to be defined

just calling all death murder is ignorant
death happens. its the why that counts and who gets to decide that counts

so if a mother knows for sure that the baby is going to cause more harm than benefit to the mothers life and negatively impact her life more than she can expect to cope with. then its self defense