Abortion

Lilith wrote:

Ook! Lilith's back!!!

And I'm sure glad for that

Lilith wrote:

Well, ok...That's far from being stupid, but I disagree with this argument. The baby can totally ruin the life of that girl.

If she voluntarily got pregnant, she must make herself responsible for the consequences of having sex.

Lilith wrote:

Maybe she study and she don't have the time, the energy and don't have the money.

*maybe she studies, she doesn't have the time *studies, doesn't have for singular.


That's why we say, give the baby in adoption. If you can't handle the baby, why killing him? Others would be sure glad to take care of him/her.

Lilith wrote:

There's many girls between 13 and 18 years old that got raped.

I know cases of girls raped at the age of 9 that got pregnant, it's much more common than it seems.

Lilith wrote:

I'm thinking about that since many days, and you know, I just think that the only person that have the right to decide is the woman.

I'd just agree, maybe, in the case of rape. After all she's not culprit. But anyway, it's a human life we're talking about.

Lilith wrote:

Believe me, that's an hard choice to do, for anyone, anywhere. Nobody can do that kind of decision without thinking, thinking, and thinking again about the situation.

Except for several women for which abortion is a routine procedure to get rid of pregnancy.

Lilith wrote:

But I still disagree abortion after 3 months. There's a limit for all.

Just because it's when the baby is aqcuiring shape? Just a wonder.

Well, personally I'm Pro-choice, but not completely - when a woman wants to have the abortion she has to give a clarified reason to actually do it, meaning a woman that just had a too big shot at a disco and come to a abortion clinic with 18 potential fathers, than thats a no-no then she can't have a abortion.

So what I'm saying is - Abortion should be allowed exclusively for special occasions, like the woman not being able to stay out of a job for 9 month ( in cases she's the only one working in the house - or better yet is the only inhabitant) or rape, or any other serious reasons for which she cant have the baby - if a Stupid slut, decided it'll be fun to get boned without any sort of protection then she's going to take the bust for her ignorance - of course such individuals shall be monitored closely after having the child to determine if shes fitting parent - I seen too much News about Children being found in Dumpsters...


oh and It's good to have you back Lilith ^^

I totally support your idea, Cyprian, but we may think that it's really hard to determine what can be considerated like "good reasons" or "bad reasons". Nobody can really know if the girl took care when she had sex or not. How can we really know? She can say anything she wants. But I think your idea still have sense.

ok, for Zealot:

Quote :

If she voluntarily got pregnant, she must make herself responsible for the consequences of having sex.

I totally agree with that. There's just something unfair here between being a man or a woman... I mean, men have to be responsible too... Both have to be responsible.

Quote :

*maybe she studies, she doesn't have the time *studies, doesn't have for singular.

Sorry, I went too fast

I don't think that abortion is morally correct, but I think that for certain cases, it would be acceptable. I think that every women may have the choice. Life is a delicate subject. Each person may be able to make their own descision. Personnally, I prefer to make the choice to keep my baby instead of being obligated to keep him/her. I don't think I would use abortion -including those bas cases-, but I still think everyone may do their own decision.

Quote :

Except for several women for which abortion is a routine procedure to get rid of pregnancy.

Yeah, there you got a point, but you know, I think that we can find a way to control it. We can take notes about how many times and when she used abortion.

Lilith wrote:

Nobody can really know if the girl took care when she had sex or not. How can we really know? She can say anything she wants. But I think your idea still have sense.

97% of chances are she didn't take care.

Lilith wrote:

ok, for Zealot:

I totally agree with that. There's just something unfair here between being a man or a woman... I mean, men have to be responsible too... Both have to be responsible.

Well Lilith, imagine yourself in that scenario. If you're with your boyfriend and you are about to have sex you'll notice wether he's being responsible or not, if he isn't you can simply refuse to procede unless the proper measures are taken, forcing him thus to be responsible and being responsible yourself.

Lilith wrote:

Quote :

*maybe she studies, she doesn't have the time *studies, doesn't have for singular.

Sorry, I went too fast

It's ok

Lilith wrote:

I don't think that abortion is morally correct, but I think that for certain cases, it would be acceptable. I think that every women may have the choice. Life is a delicate subject. Each person may be able to make their own descision.

On an innocent human's life which in most of the cases were adressing here as undesired is product of iresponsibly held sexual intercourse? I don't think irresponsible people get the right to choose over some one else's life.

Lilith wrote:

Personnally, I prefer to make the choice to keep my baby instead of being obligated to keep him/her. I don't think I would use abortion -including those bas cases-, but I still think everyone may do their own decision.

We always want rights, to be able to take decisions... the matter is are we responsible enough to take them?

Lilith wrote:

Quote :

Except for several women for which abortion is a routine procedure to get rid of pregnancy.

Yeah, there you got a point, but you know, I think that we can find a way to control it. We can take notes about how many times and when she used abortion.

In case abortion was allowed and I think Cyprian adressed well this point, it would of course be moderated. Something like "You can commit the mistake once, but not twice".

Riddler wrote:

In all situations, a woman can give birth to the baby and then give it to the orphanage. It would be better than killing it.

yeah it's so much fun for the child, right?
I forgot that's illigal for the same resons that putting your child in a basket and putting it in a crocadile infested river is.

mattabesta wrote:

yeah it's so much fun for the child, right?

Who says that? Are you trying to imply that the child will suffer because of not growing with his/her biological parents? Are to trying to imply life in an orphanage is a terrible experience? Both? If that's what you mean then, either way it's the parents' lack of responsability, parents are culprits, in many cases it's an unnecesary option (some persons count with the economical conditions to handle a child) and in other cases it's even a better option than trying to raise him/her (when prant's economical conditions aren't favourable). But killing him out of mere parental responsability? I don't think so. Contraception is not there just as a topic of conversation.

mattabesta wrote:

I forgot that's illigal for the same resons that putting your child in a basket and putting it in a crocadile infested river is.

I didn't know that giving children in adoption was illegal in (n)Iceland, it isn't illegal in any country I know of.

srry this is form, first post

all abortions should be stopped, try to let it out to adoption, there is not justification for killing

Adoption is not really much of an option, nowadays. There are FAR too many out there that enver get picked. Of course, there's a waiting list for infants, but anything over three years, they're almost never picked, and the entire system really is full. It's a delicate situation.

but dose it justify killing

defendant wrote:

antiabortion is antiwoman. plain and simple.

antiabortionists are just male chauvinists tryin to justefy ther denial of womens freedom by claiming they are saving pepuls life.

fetuses are NOT alive. they are parasites living off the mothers energy

Silly idealist dogma.

btw:

I was kidding about the alien.

I did that post at like 3 AM.

Liche wrote:

btw:

I was kidding about the alien.

I did that post at like 3 AM.

I know you were kidding, but just in case I gave a full answer.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

yeah it's so much fun for the child, right?

Who says that? Are you trying to imply that the child will suffer because of not growing with his/her biological parents? Are to trying to imply life in an orphanage is a terrible experience? Both? If that's what you mean then, either way it's the parents' lack of responsability, parents are culprits, in many cases it's an unnecesary option (some persons count with the economical conditions to handle a child) and in other cases it's even a better option than trying to raise him/her (when prant's economical conditions aren't favourable). But killing him out of mere parental responsability? I don't think so. Contraception is not there just as a topic of conversation.

mattabesta wrote:

I forgot that's illigal for the same resons that putting your child in a basket and putting it in a crocadile infested river is.

I didn't know that giving children in adoption was illegal in (n)Iceland, it isn't illegal in any country I know of.

unless you have a good reson not to then I don't think you can.

Organise your posts.

mattabesta wrote:

unless you have a good reson not to then I don't think you can.

What are you refering to?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Organise your posts.

mattabesta wrote:

unless you have a good reson not to then I don't think you can.

What are you refering to?

If you keep on being so witty I'll stop answering.

mhhmmm

Quote :

unless you have a good reson not to then I don't think you can.

Sorry but... I also don't know what you are refering to.

(note for Zealot: I agree with most of your precedent arguments As I said before, I just can't decide. There's good points to forbid abortion, but also good ones to permit it )

Lilith wrote:

(note for Zealot: I agree with most of your precedent arguments As I said before, I just can't decide. There's good points to forbid abortion, but also good ones to permit it )

I understand pro-abortionists' position but I can't accept it. I consider that life starts with conception making abortion just another kind of murder.

The context as well favours my point: An abortion that targets a pregnancy caused by rape is relatively morally defendable since the woman is not culprit, however, there is a life in question. Yet, these cases ammount to a minority of the practiced abortions of which the bulk are mere product of irresponsability.

I cannot foment irresponsability and much less allow murder to be practiced as a way to fend off the consequences of said lack of responsability.

(I'm glad you participate in our forums, you're a great contributor and exemplar opposition )

Yes, she is probably one of the few Capitalists that know what their talking about (on our forum).

(Thank you so much I also really apreciate to debate with you ^.^)

In reallity, the only real point of that subject is "where do you think that life begins?". Everybody have a diferent opinion about that, and that's why I think everybody must do their own choice (some are bad, of course.) There's some people who thinks that life begins only after birth, there's also people who think that contraception (like condom) is killing. I respect all of those point of view.

Lilith wrote:

(Thank you so much I also really apreciate to debate with you ^.^)

In reallity, the only real point of that subject is "where do you think that life begins?".

I know people tht argues that even if tehy agree that life begins with conception, they tink that abortion can be a jusfied murder. They say they "better avoid a life of suffering to the baby".

Lilith wrote:

Everybody have a diferent opinion about that, and that's why I think everybody must do their own choice (some are bad, of course.) There's some people who thinks that life begins only after birth, there's also people who think that contraception (like condom) is killing. I respect all of those point of view.

Actually the Human Rights Declaration of 1948 states that life begins just after birth. But tell me if that's not inhumane? I mean according to it, you're not practicing a murder if you practice an abortion on a baby that is just 2 days away from birth. I was born after 8 months of gestation 3 weeks before what the doctor had estimated. There's people taht has been born on the 6th month of gestation and there was a case here in Mexico in which a baby was born, with a plethora of complications with only 5 months of gestation but it survived and is now developing as a normal human being. That totally destroys the thesis that embryos are not human beings or are not alive and destroys Human Rights Declaration statement.

I agree that contraception can qualify as killing, yet, it does not qualify as killing a human being since human being is the product of cnception and is not even in developing stage prior to it.

Everyone can have his/her own views on wether life starts with conception or not, or wether abortion is murder or not, yet there's need to make an objective definition.

Objectively life starts with conception and no one can tell me otherwise. It is a human being in development and I won't respect someones decision to comit such a murder out of mere irresponsability.

Gezz i think abortion must be legal.
And with the humans playin god don't get started there with abortion if thousands ppl get killed for nothin(South-Ossetia).
But i think the woman may deciesd

With no brain having developed, a fetus at that early stage is the equivalent of a tumour, literally. With a brain one can think, one is, well, one. THey become someone. Without a brain, well, have you ever had the flu? Have you ever gotten better? Then you killed billions of creatures that had the same brain power as that mass of cells growing in the womb. Both are just as alive, and in face just as conscious. In fact, the virus might be smarter. Once the brain devolops, however, that's when something can be considered alove. Otherwise it's a vegetable. I hope if I'm lying braindead and there's zero chance of recovery, they pull the plug. Don't keep the empty, useless shell going.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

With no brain having developed, a fetus at that early stage is the equivalent of a tumour, literally.

Nope, they're prety different from a tumor. Ask an oncologist.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

With a brain one can think, one is, well, one. THey become someone. Without a brain, well, have you ever had the flu? Have you ever gotten better? Then you killed billions of creatures that had the same brain power as that mass of cells growing in the womb. Both are just as alive, and in face just as conscious. In fact, the virus might be smarter.

Yet flu is not a human being in development. For me life is not given by the presence of a nervous system. A fetus is human life, viruses and other kind of parasitary microbes are forms of life alien to our body which thrive on the destruction of our body cells to accomodate their own ARN within them. It's completely incorrect to compare flu with pregnancy, no matter the stage.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Once the brain devolops, however, that's when something can be considered alove. Otherwise it's a vegetable. I hope if I'm lying braindead and there's zero chance of recovery, they pull the plug. Don't keep the empty, useless shell going.

Two diferent things: If you have cerebral death its irreversible. But a fetus without a brain is actually developing a brain.

They don't make as much of a deal when you kill a grown man during war.

maybe because the baby is innocent, and not corrupt by life.

Liche wrote:

They don't make as much of a deal when you kill a grown man during war.

maybe because the baby is innocent, and not corrupt by life.

Hmm yea what about the thousands of inocent civialns that are killed in an war?