what's wrong with using abortion as a form of birth control

Absolutely nothing is wrong about it.

What you guys want is some divine law pointing the direction to heaven or hell. You want some magical moment where a fetus turns into a real person. Don't stick yourself in a pro-choice/life box and feel like you have to vote with your party.

Life just IS...... if you want to label it and set up some crazy paradigm of yes/no then go ahead.

There is none, and don't let somebody else's views weigh on ur decision on what to do. You are the only one who has lived every second of your life, and so you are the one has to decide whats best for your life.

 

ooh, burn!! thank you, you are my hero!!

 

I don't think I'm holier than anyone.
I never said you HAVE to have a child....just that if you're the one that laid down to have the sex that created the child, you should have to see it before you kill it.
Your taxes do nothing for me. I'm a young, unwed mother that understands how much a child costs and that I have to hold a job. :cheers2: So, shove your taxes straight up your rear....I'm not using them.

 

That wasn't a burn. Just some young punk who thinks their measly $10 in taxes a month does something. They don't.

 

Of course there would be a dodge in here of the real question, so I will spell it out again.

The reason when we can consider a fetus a real person is so important is because once that stage is reached it has the rights of a person because it is a person. At that point the "You are the only one who has lived every second of your life, and so you are the one has to decide whats best for your life" doesn't cut it any more because you are dealing with someone else's life. You are deciding what is best for that person's life and for the most part (by a long shot) living is more in someone's interest than dying.

To go further, if you wish to say that the exact time cannot be determined, then wouldn't it be best to play it on the safe side so as to not kill someone and push the availability of abortions back to earlier in the pregnancy?

 

That logic really doesn't prove anything. "A fetus is a person because its a person. So it deserves rights!!". By what standards?

As soon as sperm meets egg does it gain inalienable rights then? What about as soon as it loses its gills, or when you can first identify a personality trait? Is masturbating and losing sperm also abortion? Your standard is completely arbitrary.

Like I said, all you guys are trying to do is make some benchmark so you can set up a paradigm of right and wrong, legal and illegal. Do I believe that there's a difference between killing a 4month old fetus and a teenager? Most certainly.

It's like trying to apply the morality of humans and relate it to a sea sponge. You cannot possibly understand the introspective reality of a fetus. You cannot possibly imagine the "meaning of life" for a fetus and so I could not imagine the concept of death within its existence.

This is the same logic that tells people that at X age your child is okay to be left home alone. That they're emotionally ready for sex at X age, or that they are a legal adult at X age. It just doesn't work.

Would I ever abort a baby? Definately not. I would much rather love the child with all my heart.

But would I limit someone's choice in life based on something which I do not intimately understand? Definately not. If they can honestly kill a fetus and live with it then that is their absolute right.

 

Still dodging and trying not to answer the important question:

I said no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
I said the point at which it becomes a person is important because when it is a person it has the rights of a person.
The statement still stands.

*yawn*

I believe you need to improve your reading comprehension.

What about six months? Seven months? Nine months?
Immediately after birth?

No, it is not. Handwaving argument.

Putting together phrases that mean nothing and trying to say that they imply something. Mix and match logic doesn't work.

No, it is not the same.

One argument (the one at taking care to not perform an abortion too late and thus kill a person...) is for taking extra care to not damage someone. Suggesting that infallibly at a certain age someone is able to care for themselves is suggesting less care to prevent injury to someone.
Terible logic at work.

Moot point. It deserves to meet Irrelephant the elephant.

Yes, you would.
Because it some point the fetus is a human being and you certainly willing for its life to be ended. Whether or not you persobally would is irrelevant because you find it perfectly acceptable to do.

 

Ima backtrack a bit before I get further into this.

First of all, whats the "important question" that I'm dodging? I thought the OP stated it.

Second, are you talking moral wrong or legal wrong? Because those are two totally different concepts.

And why 6 months -> birth? Cuz it's more developed and is starting to look more like a "human"? Do you think that there is some magical finishing line at 6 months when all of a sudden it is imbued with inalienable rights?

Third, the fetus WILL become a "human being" but it is NOT at the time. Just like how a sperm and an egg will eventually become a human being. But the fetus ISN'T, and in no way can be related conceptually to a fully rationale adult.

IF you could tell me whether you're talkin moral or legal then that would help a lot.

Legally you really can't do much about abortions. Enacting laws won't really solve the psychological/social reasons people may want to abort. Laws have to reflect the will of the people.

Morally, I'm all for pro-choice for the general public. But as a human, I believe you should love. And usually abortions are decided because of fear or resentment which is the opposite of love. Our social structure, finances in raising children, fear of bad parenting, and all the other thousand woes keep people from realizing the joy that comes with raising children.

It's a question that takes a lot of soul searchin.

 

The point at which it becomes a person is the question that needs to be answered.

Moral.
That is the only important question.
Legality does not define morality.
Laws are what society puts in place in order to bring about morality.
So, since we already know abortion is legal the question is should it be legal (in all cases) or is there a cut-off point where it should no longer be legal.

I said no such thing.

I asked you if it was developed enough for you to consider it human at six months during the pregnancy and at nine months of the pregnancy.
The point is that there has to be a cut-off point somewhere.
Immediately after birth?
If so, why is that different than immediately before and why are those differences the deciding factors?
If not, then you would be suggesting that it is ok to kill newborns if one so chose and that they don't have rights.

Such logic brings counters immediately to mind.
Neither can a baby two days after it is born be related conceptually to a fully rationale adult. So, we can kill them too, right?

Legal and moral was answered above.

About the rest:

Riiiiiight...

Enacting laws will not solve the psychological/social reasons why people want to commit mureder, so let's not bother making murder illegal.

Enacting laws will not solve the psychological/social reasons why people steal from others, so why bother making stealing illegal.

Will of the people? What does that mean? If laws are passed they would reflect the will of the people...
Discussions such as these cover topics and through discussions such as these people can learn and reach decisions. So, arguing that the will of the people is against it and thus it cannot be assailed is effectively an argument against being able to address and influence the will of the people. It is an argument against the existence of this very forum.

The logic being used here against making it illegal is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

Note: That does not mean that logical arguments cannot be made for abortion but that the one above is not a logical argument.

Hundreds of millions, even billions of people do it. Blaming social structure is an excuse that dodges whether or not it should be done.

 

What I'm saying is that there really is no clear cutoff point. And I'm not going to make any real assertion of "right" and "wrong" based on something I don't really understand.

There is no A and B, no deciding factor. When we talk about murder it is different because there is understanding. The murder is commited by and against two people on the same level of conscious so there is much greater empathetic understanding. When considering the death of a sperm, a zygote, a 3 month old , newborn, there is no understanding of how it perceives life. That's why i say it may be like killing a sea sponge. A zygote's paradigm of life may just be .... "happy happy happy!!!" when it's growing healthily and " bad bad bad!!!" when it's not. But then we have to consider whether intelligence is a deciding factor. Does having a mental model of life, death, and give it any more right to exist, or do we spare it because it has some primordial sense of subjective pain/pleasure right/wrong? If so its the latter, then we have to consider animals too. Is it the right of a baby to be breast-fed? To have clothes put on its back?

It's like vegetarians who don't wanna harm any life, yet they kill plants. Their mental model makes plants into a lesser species because it can't dynamically respond like animals, yet plants are just as alive as animals. They set a point where they can decide either A or B, yet it is infinitely more complex and in-depth.

So you see, it can all get to be one giant mess. And I'd rather not stir up negative emotions in myself about someone else's choice about something which I cannot possibly know.

In my worldview there is no right and wrong. Things just Are. That doesnt' mean that I don't act according to my personal rights and wrongs though. A woman who gets raped may not be able to love their baby. The baby may grow up in a terrible home, but could grow up to be an amazing or wrecked person. Someone who has super ambitious life goals may feel terrible about creating another orphan but also doesn't wanna sacrifice his life because he has such noble goals.

So things just ARE. The only question that needs to be answered is if what you're doing is truly creating the world which you wish to experience.

I'm not against making it illegal. It's just that I dont see the true understand to be there.

 

My point is that care should be taken to not cross te cut-off point wherever it may be.

So, according to you, it is not morally wrong to kill a newborn?
I would like an explicit answer on this, please.

No, we don't. Animals are not people regardless of what mix and match analogy you are trying to make.

But, why is the criteria who chose the important and deciding facor? I specifically asked for that.

This is more mumbo jumbo.
Sacrifice noble goals by having to raise a kid.
It is wrong or it isn't.
again, the bit about not wanting it to grow up in a terrible home is not cutting it. When given the choice between growing up in a terrible home and dying, most people do not have a problem choosing life.

Complete selfishness. Nothing else but selfishness.
Nothing about thed previously mentioned love.

Killing newborns is AOK.

 

I am sorry about the double post, but would like to ask a couple questions of the other posters...

Do you think it is OK to kill newborns?

Do you think that morality exists with respect to such a thing?

 

We don't know the cut-off point, so how could we know when we've crossed it?

About killing a newborn. Is it right to force someone to be an economic slave for 18 years? Is it right to force society to be taxed?

Like I said, you're trying to find a cut-off point where there is none. How are you going to say that killing a baby 3 days away from birth is any different than one that's felt the air?

You're missing the point about my "mix and match" analogies. The point is that you can't understand a zygote. You can look at it, and understand what it'll become, but you can't understand IT. And you can't understand a 3 month old fetus any more than a 6 month old. You can only understand the pattern that it grows to become something that you can understand. So are you making your morality judgement based on IT's existence at the moment of death, or what it will potentially become? If the former then how can you make any judgement based on it's welfare when you dont' understand it? If the latter, then you still must identify at what point it has rights? Does the sperm and egg have rights, or just the zygote? Or when it first kicks in the belly?

And dude, we're talkingi about killing an EMBRYO. Not an adult who can conscious choose life or death and already has a mental model of what life means. Applying the morality of humans to that of a zygote is like applying human morality to a sea sponge.

We're all selfish creatures, and that's not a bad thing. Some people's sense of self includes their family and friends while other's do not. The only thing that any of us can do is make sure we create the next moment we want to experience.

If you can sacrifice your life and raise a child then that is fine. If you can abort a fetus and be jolly then that's okay. If you can raise that you dont' want to and hate your life everyday then that's okay too.

My main arguement is that we simply don't understand. There's no need for guilt.

You always make it black or white. "Killing newborns is AOK!". I never said that. It all depends on the situation and the person. There are no moral roadsigns that'll point every human in the "right" direction. Right according to who?

 

Once the child is born, a big reason for abortion (not having to go through childbirth) is kind of irrelevent; the fucker is already born. HOWEVER, regardless of whether its a baby, a fetus, a zygote, a human, whatever, I believe so long as its in the woman's body, it is HER domain.

 

hahahaha honey i am 23 and make $32,000 a year and still go to school full time. i'm paying for my schooling on my own while single mothers like yourself get to go for free, on my tax dollars, because you chose to spread em. trust me, i'm paying for your little fuck trophy

 

$32,000....that's ALL?!?!?!?! Oh my, thank you SO much for your valuable tax dollars. Praise thee oh, holy one.
I'm paying for my own schooling, thank you very much. I can go for free it I want, but I don't want to. And, if you were an adult, you wouldn't call my child a name, so shove it.

 

Fuck trophy?

Cmon man that's pretty low.

 

Noe, I know where you're coming from lynnsy; but that was uncalled for and you don't know her situation at all. Why assume just because she's a young mother that she's on Welfare? Welfare is commonly taken advantage of, sure; I've had friends that were not aborted solely because they're mum wanted the extra welfare. My one friend told me about a drug dealer he knows that pays any willing mommy's he makes so that he can get custody and get the money. My girlfriend's mum had 6 children she doesn't have the funds to raise - but that's okay, cause there's always Welfare However, this is by no means any reason to just assume a young mother is on Welfare - fmost of the mothers I know that are on Welfare are older - they didn't live their lives the way they wanted, and they've given up and called for the check. Mostly all of the young mothers I know have at least one job, and get support from their families, and are trying to make it in life for themselves. I've met some teens online that treat kids as if they are a fashion accessory - so I know there are those types out there. But from personal experience, I'd estimate that this is nowhere near the majority of them.

 

for the record, i only made assumptions after she did with the "only paying $10 a month in taxes" pshhh i wish thats all i paid a month in taxes.
if you're going to attack me, telling me to have my baby maker jerked out because i feel differently about abortion than you do, then i'm going to retort.
and i still think its safe to assume that 99% of single mothers, including her, are on some sort of assistance program that I, as a tax payer, am paying for.
my position still stands. if you cant afford to raise your child on your own, abort it. i'm sick of paying for it