I think it's a very salient point, particularly since the objection was that with abortion you are "killing a life form". If the issue is the suffering of the organism in question then we can look objectively at the kind of life form we are killing either in aborting an undeveloped foetus or in slaughtering a fully grown lamb for food; we can compare the kind of central nervous system they have and the degree of sentience and consequent capacity for suffering and attempt to judge, to some degree, whether there is a moral equivalence. On the purely objective issue of suffering and if "killing a life form" is wrong then I think we can safely say that killing a fully grown lamb in order to eat it is far more morally objectionable than aborting an undeveloped foetus which has no awareness, and no or very limited ability to suffer because it has a partially or wholly undeveloped nervous system.
I couldnt have said it better! (obviously, not being a clever un like lithium) It was the "killing a lifeform" thing that made me bring it up. Johns very own words implied that killing a form of life is wrong. I think both he and i recognise the difference between a plant and a rock and an animal, so that wasnt in question. But say a pig and an unborn human...Killing a fully grown pig is ok but not a human foetus? I think that brings up a reasonable amount of debate So i dont really see any issue confusion. Were talking about life and killing and our rights as humans to take away life, and at what stage life can rightfully be taken if at all. I think it fits As you know i personally dont have a fixed answer about abortion in my head at this time...my only point really was that an outright "killing is wrong" invariably brings up topics like non-human animal slaughter and raises those questions
Yep, abortion is justified. In all cases, not just the "rape or incest" get-out clause people tend to shove in there. I believe an active, productive member of society (the mother) has precedence over a drain on resources (the child). Plus, given that the mother is seeking abortion, it's obvious she doesn't WANT the child, so why bring a child into a household where your parent(s) don't want you? Whether that resentment is ever expressed or not, it'll still be there. And besides, there's too many people anyway. We need a bit more population stability, and abortion is a legitimate mean of birth control, if only as a last resort (i.e. condom splits and the Pill doesn't work/all other methods fail).
well I'm pro life in nearly every sense of the word, what do you think about my strict vegan friend who had an aboration, is that hypocritical (<-spelling) S
but having said the above if a person comes out with the statement 'aboration is murder' then yes they should be called to explain that view S
This is a little simplistic; an unborn baby one week before term is almost indistinguishable from a newborn baby one week old, so if we don't like the idea of killing unwanted newborns we should also think twice about aborting late term pregnancies. The fact is it's a continuum of development with no clear dividing line where a foetus becomes a "person" with "rights". Clearly it's nonsensical to talk about a bundle of cells as being a person with the same rights as a newborn baby, so we need to make a pragmatic judgement about where we impose our arbitrary distinction. In practice I think we get it about right - early abortions are allowable as a matter of choice since the rights of the potential person are subsumed within the rights of the mother. With viable late-term foetuses limitations are imposed so that they can only be aborted if posing a direct threat to the health of the mother. It's a grey area and will never be solved to the satisfaction of all, though. We certainly need to impose limitations on the extreme views at both ends - both the pro-lifers who say that a 1 minute old bundle of cells has the same rights as an adult person and also those who advocate abortions for any reason at any point.
What do people think of this? Mother doesn't want the baby, Father does, Should the mother have to carry the baby, or does his wishes not matter? I've thought about this a lot before, most people will say, it's the womans body so she should decide, but I wonder if that's always true.
I think it definitley should be the mothers choice. I know it can be seen as unfair to the man but like you said, the woman has to carry it around for 9 months. I've always kind of assumed that the law says it's the mother's choice?
The only example I would give for when aboration is justified is when the mothers life would be seriously in danger if she gave birth S
my views on this subject are actually clear but at the same time complicated. my standpoint on this comes from a religious belief. I also belief that people shouldn't dictate to people how they should live their life from ones own religious morals. in the past I had a friend that came to me for support when she was going to half and after she had an aboration and I supported her through it and didn't mention my beliefs, however if she had ever said 'do you think I did the right thing' I would have said 'only you can answer that' but if she had pressed me for my opnion I would have told her that I think aboration is wrong S
My views on this subject are pretty straight up. No one should have ANY control over a woman's body. Period. If I agreed to giving that choice up, more control would follow. Abortion is unfortunate, and I wish there was no need for it, but it happens to the woman, and it has to be her choice.
OF COURSE it should be allowed. No matter what the circumstances. It's a woman's choice not the country's.
I am against abortion - it goes againt my moral beliefs. i would never kill my own child. but saying that, it's each to their own, so it's also immoral to ban abortion. i may be against abortion, but many others are in support of it. it's a matter for the individual woman's own conscience.
I dont agree with abortion. The way abortions are carried out is wrong The fact that abortions are allowed until 24 weeks is fucking wrong On one floor a baby is being killed on the other doctors are fighting for its life. If people choose to have an abortion they need to make sure they know the facts of what happens, what happens to their baby etc. I have friends one of them has had 3 and the other one has had 2. They had them because the baby wasnt planned. Thats not fair to kill a baby because you chose to have unprotected sex is it
Hmmm i agree with what youre saying to a point. Because if i had sex and the protection i used didnt work i would want an abortion. I cant keep it and i cant adopt it as then everyone would know anyway so thats (well seems to me) the only way out, assuming the morning after pill didnt work. So for that (above) reason i would say for. I mean theres more people like me out there...
iiuvmusic - dont be one of them people then, look up abortions and get to know what really happens and make sure you are always protected, if your having sex now go on the pill and use a condom everytime. J.I yeah it is as well, thats a better way of putting it. I've seen a baby at 24 weeks (alive) its not a nice thing to see and they dont always die but it does happen. There was a show on channel 4 i think about it, it was gross!!
I ve seen a baby in a jar....poor thing. born dead. mother took too much drugs and alochol. it had no arms and no legs...and his heart was out of his body. and it had such a cute face. I wish they had covered his face... I am getting off topic here, has nothing to do with abortion....so I ll stop.
It doesnt always work though does it? And im nt having sex I think they should make a limit for how many abortions you have... Not too many but so they are still there for you.
Abortion is not baby killing. Abortion is abortion. I don't see why people can't have a sensible discussion about the topic without resorting to cheap emotive ploys and hearstring pulling language....
