Abortion

If you look at abortion emotionally, and use emotional pictures or similies to argue your point, you are not qualified to question the law. The legal system must remain unemotional if it is to remain functional, and the judicial branch has a responsibility to avoid the emotional aspects of abortion, unless it's in terms of mental anguish or some kind of damage. But it is still not a debate tool.

Emotion about abortion is not evidence. It is inconvenient only in that it gets in the way of reasonable debate.

 

I agree that the law should try to be emotionless. But to try and remove it from the debate is pointless. I'd be troubled deeply if the debate didn't inspire strong emotions in people. Besides which, both positions are logical. It's not like the law gets to be purely reasonable, because it doesn't end up deciding anything on way or another; reason and logic do not point to one answer or another. It's na•ve to think that one arrives at a pro-choice or pro-life position through a non-emotional thought process. Ironically, it's the real zealots who believe that. They don't use shock tactis because they believe that emotion should drive the debate. They do it because they're convinced that their own belief is the logical one.

I'm told a lot that emotion shouldn't be a factor in debate, like there's some clear line between emotion and opinion. There isn't.

 

Sure it is. You'd be cool with shooting someone intruding in your home, why should your womb be any different?

 

I don't believe in it. I don't judge others that do.

 

I think this person feels that in self defense you have not choice. Your life or his, which anyone would try to protect themselves, if they can.

This person may feel that it is a baby, and the baby didn't have a choice in the matter. May see it as Killing just to be killing, or an easy way out because the person doesn't want the baby.

Yes, I agree that you should be careful not to get this way, and then you don't have to deal with something you are not ready for.

 

If an argument based on emotion is accompanied by a logical flow of reasoning that would support than argument, it is more acceptable. What I have a problem with is people like Peasey saying outright that abortion is murder of innocent children. That is not an argument. It's not evidence or a conclusion, it's just an emotional appeal, because you think of what small child is closest to you, and say "oh well, I certainly wouldn't want it to be ok to murder them," and you take that into account, without paying any mind to the fact that it's completely useless in an argument. If you can show me your reasoning behind a statement like that, I can either accept it or argue with it. Otherwise, all I can say is either "yes it is" or "no it isn't."

Granted, abortion is probably one of the most emotional issues out there, but if you can't show why you think one stance is better than the other, you can't make a good argument.

 

abortion can be spontan and there is no laws agaisnt it, who killed there? God?
and what about kids born with multiple handicaps and going to suffer alll their life and their mum to be sad all hers? Is that justificable?
Thats torture, slow motion killing, thats worse.
And waht about rape? you want to see the face of the guy that raped you and destroy your life and feed him and wash him?
you want? do but men should stay out of it, thats not the same story for them and will never be, they cant comprehend that.
Beside abortion happen before the baby is a baby, at a feutal stage where the feotus is exactly the same as the embryo of a frog..
Killing irakian in was , thats killing humans, electric chair thats killing people, but those against abort are pro electric chair and pro war, and pro waering weapons, so thats both paradoxal, dishonnest and hypocrite.
If there is a dad , and all is fine, no woman will want an abort. Abort only happen in crisis situations. and while the foetus dont knows it, the woman feel the pain long after and never forget. It isnt an easy decision to take, but it has always been a decision that women have had to deal with alone.
and oyu have very little time to think over it and decide. because there is no time for it. So some keep the baby, by fear, and regret it very long, and others have an abort and regret it all their life..
You cant jsut cut it with or against like that.
its a case by case issue who cannot be debated on a general level like that.
If it was men who had to carry the child, abort will be as usual as condom are..
I dont think its alright but i dont think either that we have the right to decide for others.
Let those concerned decide for themselves, it is none of the business of others, what women chose for hteir life.
It is them who are going to go through the 9 months and the birth and the entire life of care taking of the child, not me, not you.
So we have nothing to say in that matter.
I you are agaisnt dont do it, but dont impose your view on other, thats ho i see the question.
The balance is very fine, and always difficult in that type of ethical question.
Remmeber that there is million of babies in india, born every day and who are left ona cold metalic hospital table, to die of cold and uncare, just because she has just been born "BUT" she is a girl and not a boy, while the mother is left crying and forbidden to take her child!!!
its punishment to dont have give birth to a boy! and gils are absolutly worth nothing!
thats repression of the women, also little girls being kill by their father, cause they want a boy and not a girl, sold under 10 years old, to old men, forced in boxes ot get difformed to be used as a tourist attraction, all that we are not all free from, as the control of men on women sexuality and body, and under that the control of abortion, is a repression of women freedom. The same as pronography is, and misuse of women as a sex obkect, and circus attraction object in all media to sell movies, toothpaste, perfume, cars, chocolate, all! To make money for men she is protituted, yet the same men, say she is a hore and dishonnered and ammoral, if she chose to hve an abortion.
NO!
THis is playing a dobble game with the life of others on the line.
If i knew my baby was to be born with a serious handicap, i will not hesitate, as never i could handle to see my kid suffer day after day night after night, without respite and without hope of betterment ever, and it will have ben my fault, and my choice!
There is hard decisions one has to make, one does not want to have to make, one will prefer to be free to ahve to make, and abortion is one of them,.
It is a damn hard decision, because no matter what you chose, you lose!
No matter what you decide it could be wrong, and in both case cant be recall, in both case unappealable, definitiv, and you have only one chance.
It is to choose between 2 evl, where the one of them is accpeted by all and the other is condamned by all. so is it going to be her choice or the army of judgemental judges choice?
She will bend in most of the cases for the others eyes on her, and pretend it was the rigth thing to do after, but it is a lie.
What else could she said? that she doesnt love her child????!!!

 

May I ask you question.. have you ever had one, Lorna?

 

An adult intruding in my home has made a choise to break the law. I would never shoot an infant that crawled into my home, would you?

 

What about rape?
What about womens pregant after a rape?

shall they also keep the baby?
and what do you tell the child then, when he ask who his father was?
"Your dad was a rapist, sweetheart, he is the guy who bit your mum so bad that she is defigurate and so scared that she can never be with a man again"

and so the child will live all his life in shame..
until his death..
or must she lie to the kid and tell him daddy left.. and tell him i odnt remeber his name???

what about the kids in india who get assasinated, after birth ot as a foeutus but after birth
this is baby killing.
before the second month of pregnacy it isnt even a foetus, a baby is a baby only much later.
You cannot sidestep the mum.
then i think that each time a woman shall have an abortion, so should the responsible man for this be condemn to jail, so that there will be much lesser guys who will be careless because it will suddendly cost them too, than until now it is only the woman who is with it.
Why should it be ok for teenage boy to be careless due to their age and not to girls????
The war in irak has killed thousands of innocents, and still does, and was made on wrong assumption, to say it nice, all those men and women were babies once upon a time, and oyu dont care?
so why does bush dotn make pressure on india to stop the killing of new born baby girls, just because they are girls and unwanted?
Instead most american industries use the indian cheap working class to answer the phone calls of their clients.
USA support a country where the killing of newborn children is legal and perform by doctor in hospitals
no they dont kill the baby with a lnife, they let her die of cold and hunger, and it can take several days, even if for the most they die within hours of the birth of being taken away from their mother and not have receiv the first care of warmth and milk.
This is killing babies, for no reason at all but a scandalous discrimination of genders.
whom is entitle to abortion or not is a case by case decision and cannot be decided by one law for all cases.
Its a Salomon judgement for each case.
as for the idiotie that the child has no choice, he hasnt any choice either to leave even if he doesnt want! has he or she???!!
What about pregnat women who are seriously alcoholic?
good for the baby?
no
the baby will be marked by many alterioration of his helath from the start, respiratory illnesses, heart illnessses, adiction to alcohol from birth, lever desase from birth, pain, eyes problems, mental disfuntions, motoric disfunctions, deformations, and you think its ok for a child to be imposed that of the rest of his life?
It is alrigth?
FOR YOU TO DECIDE FOR THAT CHILD TO SUFFER ALL HIS LIFE, 50 TO 80 YEARS WITHOUT ASKING THE CHILDS OPINION, BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHATS BEST???? DO YOU!!!?
NO!
What about children from narcomans? is that alrigth too?
no
and women who are completely crazy and become pregnant
and will never be able in any of those cases to take care of the child
so why not abort before it go too far?
who will take careof thsoe sick handicaped children?
You?
then whom?
What about the case when during the pregnancy the doc realised that the woman risk to die if they dont interupt the pregnacy here and now?
so mummy must die?
and whom ask her???
In your logic you say musnt kill baby cause he isnt ask, but you dotn ask the baby if he wants to be either, and adn and nor do you want to hear the view of the mother!
so all you want to hear is your own voice.
and women can just shut up and do as being told, right!!??
Abortion is not a prevention tool, and we are not talking about cases where pregnacy wish to be avoided because it happeend accidentally because of carelessness, but about abortion incases where it is the best required.
You cant say "no to abort for respect for life and babies" and at the same time be pro war.
it deosnt go
or eat meat, it doesnt go either
if oyu respect life then you dont eat your neighbougs and the pigs, and cow, and chikens and sheeps.
You start with a lam and end earting angels.
I think that it is about time that the anti abort here, begin to answer about the situation were the father is a rapist, or narcoman or alcohilic or both parents are, and wehre the life of the child is endanger at short mellem and long term.
and about the cases where a young teenage was abused by an older guy, and all those cases where oyu cannot say, ba she should have take care, and stay home.
Life is not like that.
it crave courage to ask for an abortion.
many couples have to decide that because having the child could kill the mother. none of them are happy about that. but was it your daughter in that situation, whom will you chose?

WHO WILL YOU CHOSE? THE ONE YOU NEVER SAW OR THE ONE THAT YOU LOVED FOR SO LONG AND KNOW!??

THere is cases where abortion is stricly required, and cases where it is necessary, and cases where it cannot be accepted as a solution.
like to wait until the carreer is fine, or next promotion, or until school is over, or because one would like some years more between childrens, or bnecause one doesnt time for kids in her agenda. Those are cases where abortion is not a solution and shall be avoided.
But it isnt the main reason for abortion, nor the reason why it is discussed.
So i will now like to hear the anti abortion people speak about those cases where it isnt use instead of prevention and where the reason for abortion is not trivial, but damn serious, and is best for the child.

If you ask my meaning, a woman as a spontan abort each month of her life, and it is call menstruation.
Thats an abortion.
I never heard any, specially guys being sad about it.
They are more likely to joke about it, and harass girls with "you have PMS?" than considering that it is a potential child that goes its way..
But when they have spit on it, so suddendly it is holly ground.
i dont see why.
It is the same!

With abort like with euthanasia, unless you self have been through it or har haft a very close one going through it, its better to just shut up about it, cause you dont know it.
I found strange that so many people can be so opinionated about stuff they know absolutly nothing about, and to make it easier for them to defend it, just put it as it isnt at all "killing babies", where nobody is killing babies nor talking about killing babies but stoping a pregnacy at its very earliest stage.
brain aint there lung aint there, legs aint there, hands aint there, eyes aint there, there is practically nothing. It isnt a baby, but the first brush of a foetus. Not a baby.
In most cases of narcoman giving birth the child is born too early and dies after a few months, or within a year, under terrible suffering and addiction, and n´must be put undermorphin and strong medicin.
You want that? a slow torturefull and cruel death?
thats like in india then, let them just die of abandon, hunger and cold, on a metal table, and do lie if its alrigth and make it perfectly legal.
Just for the pleasure to dont jhave to make the very unbearable decision to alow abortions in specific cases..
because it is easier to be agaisnt abort than for..
Nobody and i mean absolutly nobody can answer the question if they are for or agaisnt abortion, unless they are or have been put in the situation craving to make that decision, and even there, that decision defer, from case to case, and a same person can be for and against.
It is not about being for or agaisnt but what is the most appropriate thing to do in one specific case at the time.
It also says in the bible "you will not kill" and i will like to see it for real.. like dropping wars, and dropping all the military budget in favor of the family and socialnetwork and free hospital care.
Give health and family care the budget of the military and i can promise you that nobody will need abort, and that things will be much mroe simple for all.
What do a young mother without a family network, and without a job who has a baby?
Live in the street with her baby?????
And thats most certainly the most fabulous childhood for that kid you suddendly do not see but were all so damn interestted in when he was no more than primary cells..
There is absolutly no possible answers to be given at the question: are you for or agaisnt abortion.
It is an open question, directed to each case, and only answerabel in each case by the first concerned and some help.
From what i have seen, anti abort are more interested by an ideology and a concept than by the life of the child, as htey do not care about its future as a human being, after birth.

 

The issue of abortion is monumental in importance. There are all sorts of religious, philosophical, and moral dilemmas knotted together there. I don't have the audacity to think I can solve that problem for anyone else, but I'll throw some thoughts out there for people to chew on and hopefully stimulate some debate.

My personal opinion is this: who is to decide when the thoughts and actions of two parents become an actual life? Hey, you can argue that wearing a condom or refusing to fuck a girl who wants you is preventing a life from being made. Why is it not murder and a crime against humanity to say no to sex when you still risk not creating that potentially genius child? Because someone says conception is when the soul inhabits a body?

I understand where you're coming from but take it further a little and see where that line of logic goes.

As far as my beliefs, a soul in the fertilized egg or early fetal stage has not even attached to the brain (a brain hasn't even been developed!) and experienced life enough to form an semblance identity. I think late term abortions should be considered the loss of a human life and we need to create a more efficient method of birth control so that abortions will occur as early on in the gestation process as possible.

But my question is how is killing a fertilized egg that hasn't a mind considered more murderous than passing out drunk before that sorority girl gets to fuck you?

Maybe Christians who preach abstinence should be condemned for preventing all those lives from being formed!!

 

Right!

 

no infant is crawling into the hopsital to get kill
abortion happen within the frist weeks, there is no brain and most the body isnt there thats first stage of an embryo, not an infant!
taking a life is taking a life, and if you follow your logic what about having supported the killing of innocent in irak then?
It doesnt go.
what about electric chair?
do you ask the embryo if he wants to live?
no
so why make such a fuss about not asking it if it wants to die?
and what about spontan abortion?
was anybody asked?
that kind of argumentation is a sophisme!
you are using verbal manipulation who isnt relevant but misleading to have right, to can avoid facing the core problem pointed out by the exemple.
By saying infant instead of feotus, you try to create an emotional indignation, by making a parallel who cannot be made and has no value, as it isnt the case of an born grown child who is discussed here, but the termination of pregnacy being a choice for the women to make or not.
There is no killing founding place.
The child is not born yet.
an infant is a child of 3 to 5 years old.
So your comment is outrageous and ammoral.
Nobody will ever say "yes i like killing kids and i think it should be legal"!!??
waht is this nonsens!?
You are trying to kill any possibility of true fruitfull genuate debate who could give some answers.
Try to be more open to things you didnt even had thought about instead.
It is hard, careless, difficult, to decide about abortion or not, but you cannot say the one or the other.
Soem cases craves it sine qua non.
Others have to be evaluated in function of the given situation
Some cannot be alowed to use abortion if it is instead of contraception.
In the first situation, it is a must to interupt the pregnacy if the life of the mother is endangered by it and /if the child is known to be dead before term, and that waiting for it to happen could seriously damage the motehr or even kill her.
There is also the cases where scanning of the child show such malformation physical and of the cranium that chances of survival after birth are small, and that it is known in advance that the child will be very severely handicaped, making an acceptable life impossible.
Termination of pregnacy must be passed.
Cases where the mother is drug addict or alcohol addict and where the foetus is touched. Medical experience shows that the children born from that will suffer and not survive or will survive in a state who is neither acceptable for a being to be subject to.
Terminattion of pregnacy recommanded.
added to it that the mother nor father will be able to take care of the child anyway.
Case sensitive:
Pregnacy as a consequence of rape: Mother choice first and foremost with counseling.
Pregnancy as a consequence of rape of children: 9 years old girl being pregnant of her father or oncle: Termination of pregnacy obligatoric.
!4 years old child pregnant of father or family member or friend of family: Termination of pregnacy obligatoric.
16 years old child pregnant from family memebr or friend: girls own choice with heavy counseling and support in doing so.
Cases where the termination of pregnacy is decided because one or both parents have changed their mind afterward, or carrer came in the midle, or economical ressources are no longer there, or pregnacny happened as an accident, or no prevention was used, or none of the involved had ever received home or at school any proper information about sex and prevention,
No abortion alowed.
Cases where one or both partner were using prevention, but it failed, the pregnacy interuption is the mother choice.
This include P-pills who failed. Most p-pills are 90 to 98% save, but that leave 2 to 10 % risk for a pregnacy to occur anyway, and here once cannot say they were careless, or it was their own fault.
To this must be added cases where the decision to have chldren is made as a choice within the couple, married or not, and after that the pregnacy occur , the man discretly take the door and never come abck, or change his mind and say he never said he wanted kids, and so on, the stories are numerous.
Here, it is the woman choice to can interupt or not her pregnacy, as the base on which she had taken the decision to have a child, are no longer there, due to causes outside her power.

So that should answer them all.
And for those who are no matter what against abort, would you let a child who is under 12 years old go through a pregnancy?
and give birth and be completely destroyed?
Didnt you said above it was immoral to kill an infant???

I dont give much to black and white, all i look at are the grey zone, and there is plenty of space to look at from there.
Its a balance act, between what must be respected and acknowledged and what must be decided upon.

If men want to decide upon womens pregnacies, then I think that men should begin to have babies. Then we will talk.

 

I like killing kids, I think it should be legal.

(I totally can't read any of your posts apart from that bit)

 

Well, okay, say you invite someone over for dinner one day and they refuse to leave your house for nine months. What then?

 

Yes it is. It's a perfectly legitimate argument to make that a child is a chil as soon as it physically exists, not just when it comes into the world. Explain to me (without using terms like "common sense") why it isn't.

To my mind, someone who's dead against abortion because they consider it murder generally makes a far more consistent argument than a lot of pro-choice people. Most of them can't explain why it's okay before a certain age and not after, why it's more okay if someone got raped, etc. People calling for moderation have a lot more explaining to do, and moderation is entrenched in emotion; there's just no two ways about that.

 

I find it strange that the strongest opposition against abortion, are those that support this administration in killing innocent victims in the middle east.

 

They're Christians. How is that at all strange?

 

So life only matters if it's a christian life?

 

Well maybe. But mainly, if dudes are trying to stop the Jews taking back their holy land, they're fair game. That's pretty much what George Bush and a lot of his friends believe.