Murder, or prevention of horrid life? Abortion.

I'd been wondering what people's views on this site are about abortion. So, I made a thread for you to speak your views. Just be sure, as per SD rules, to give a good explanation why. This thread is also for debates, so feel free. Just keep it above the 4chan level, please. Gay mirrage and underage sex, as they are directly linked to this, are also open up for (minimal) discussion.

I myself am Pro-abortion. Orphanages are run by the state. Not only does this cause painful living conditions for the children who have been abandoned or given away, this also puts more of a cost in the Taxes, to fuel the ever-growing orphange rate. There simply aren't enough foster-families or gay folks to accomidate a growing number of parent-less children.

Now, if the parents are capable, by all means take care of their own child. But if you don't want it, nor do you have the ability to take care of it, don't make it suffer in the hands of the state. A fetus may be a living entity, but it lacks a conscience or a mind. Allow it to be delivered unto death and eternal peace before it knows anything other than it.

Originally Posted by Safer

I myself am Pro-abortion. Orphanages are run by the state. Not only does this cause painful living conditions for the children who have been abandoned or given away, this also puts more of a cost in the Taxes, to fuel the ever-growing orphange rate. There simply aren't enough foster-families or gay folks to accomidate a growing number of parent-less children.

I've seen this as a pro-death penalty excuse too, and it just seems inhumane. "They're making our taxes larger" is isn't a good reason to want someone dead.

True, but would you rather live in the dank and horrible conditions and hands of the state, or be allowed eternal solace before you know what suffering is?

This has been done to death, it's hopeless. Neither side can agree on when a fetus becomes a person, neither side can agree on anything, really. Let me save you some trouble now and tell you exactly what the arguments will be.

Pro-choice: (Note: Not pro abortion, I am sick and tired of having others trying to force me into their idea of what I should think like.)
A Fetus, up until around the 2nd trimester isn't a human, as such, it isn't murder.

Pro-life:
A fetus is a human, ergo it is murder.

Well I am pro choice. Late term abortion I am against, but the thing isn't really anything. We eat eggs, oh no that's chicken abortion. I got cut, you know how namy cells die when you get cut? The embryo is nothing more than a mass of cells until late in the pregnancy.

Originally Posted by Linkofspades

Well I am pro choice. Late term abortion I am against, but the thing isn't really anything. We eat eggs, oh no that's chicken abortion. I got cut, you know how namy cells die when you get cut? The embryo is nothing more than a mass of cells until late in the pregnancy.

For the most part the eggs we eat are unfertilized, that egg never would've hatched.

This issue has kinda already been discussed before, but here's my three cents:

Abortion(in my eyes) is depriving the baby of life. Even if it is not human yet, as the argument always seems to go, it will be human eventually, and should therefore be given at least some consideration since it is a defenseless being that is going to be a human being. If it is immediately human from conception, which happens to be my belief, it is the same thing as before, only when you kill it, it suddenly become murder in my eyes. That's just my opinion of course.

Pro-choice: (Note: Not pro abortion, I am sick and tired of having others trying to force me into their idea of what I should think like.)
A Fetus, up until around the 2nd trimester isn't a human, as such, it isn't murder.

This is what I agree with. It's not murder. And come on, accidents happen sometime and it's definitely more humane to have an abortion than to bring a baby into a life where it can't be cared for. Not to mention it could also be the wrong time for the parents to have a baby - they may be studying, have menial jobs, still live at home... to bring a human being into a life where there is just not the proper care is not fair to anybody involved in the situation.

Keep in mind that there are some people in this world that would give an arm and a leg to be taken into the U.S foster care program. Is it okay to kill them, since their living conditions are so bad?

Now I really don't like to argue about this, becuase it always boils down to what GDwarf said, but I think your reason for supporting abortion is quite fallible, IMO.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fish

Keep in mind that there are some people in this world that would give an arm and a leg to be taken into the U.S foster care program. Is it okay to kill them, since their living conditions are so bad?

Now I really don't like to argue about this, becuase it always boils down to what GDwarf said, but I think your reason for supporting abortion is quite fallible, IMO.

But it's not practical for the parents to even go through caring for the baby before it's born - it would still cost a fortune in medical bills, and the mother at least would have to rearrange her life during this time. Not to mention how it must feel to have to give up a baby at the end of this, even after you know you can't care for it.

It's not killing them in any way. Yes, I'd be against abortion after the whatever-it-is has actually formed into a human life, but in the early stages it hasn't actually become anything. You have to look at this from the eyes of the parents as well as what the life would be for the child. It's not so easy to just say, "well, abortion is murder, so have the baby and then give it away".

Also, on an unrelated note before this argument comes into play from someone: not all children come about from having unprotected sex. Sometimes, things can go wrong even when you are being responsible.

But it's not practical for the parents to even go through caring for the baby before it's born - it would still cost a fortune in medical bills, and the mother at least would have to rearrange her life during this time. Not to mention how it must feel to have to give up a baby at the end of this, even after you know you can't care for it.

Such is the selfishness of abortion. Have the pleasure, shirk the consequences.

It's not killing them in any way. Yes, I'd be against abortion after the whatever-it-is has actually formed into a human life, but in the early stages it hasn't actually become anything. You have to look at this from the eyes of the parents as well as what the life would be for the child. It's not so easy to just say, "well, abortion is murder, so have the baby and then give it away".

As non-omnipotent humans, we cannot judge when life begins and when it doesn't, as GDwarf said. I dislike abortion not only becuase I believe a fetus is alive, but becuase I disdain the selfish nature of the evil.

Also, on an unrelated note before this argument comes into play from someone: not all children come about from having unprotected sex. Sometimes, things can go wrong even when you are being responsible.

Birth control and condoms are cheating the system. Cheaters don't always prosper.

Now please don't think I'm being "superior-like." If I came to a situation where I could have sex, I'm not sure how I'd react. But if I went ahead and did it, I would face the consequences instead of being selfish.

Such is the selfishness of abortion. Have the pleasure, shirk the consequences.

I don't see the selfishness of it... how is it selfish to not want to bring a child into a world where it won't be cared for? The selfishness comes from going through with it and then realising there's no way you can look after this helpless human being that's depending on you. The selfishness comes from then moving the responsibility to somebody else in your family. The selfishness comes from then having it happen again - but wait, we're anti-abortion, let's have another child we can't care for.

Birth control and condoms are cheating the system. Cheaters don't always prosper.

What I get from this is an "anti-sex" attitude. People are going to have sex no matter what, contraception is there for the ones who wish to be responsible and know in advance that they don't need a child in their life right now.

I don't see the selfishness of it... how is it selfish to not want to bring a child into a world where it won't be cared for?

So you're not going to care for a baby if you give birth to it? Perhaps some people just can't take care of a baby, and in such a case they should ensure it is well taken care of. But most of the time its probably just an inconvenience.

What I get from this is an "anti-sex" attitude. People are going to have sex no matter what

Yes, they are. The point is, they should be ready to have a baby instead of "playing with fire" and attempting the pleasures of sex while trying to avoid its complications. And if a baby is born, then it's their fualt, not the baby's. Why should the baby have to die?

Now, I'm not really "anti-sex." I think that two people should be ready to have a baby before they risk it. That is why marriage has worked so wonderfully for years as a time to have sex. Now, believe me, I know how it feels to be tempted by sex and forget the consequences. Two teenagers full of hormones can hardly control themselves, but the baby shouldn't have to die for that.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fish

Such is the selfishness of abortion. Have the pleasure, shirk the consequences.

I think abortion debates are a waste of time, but I do have to comment on this one thing (of course, this will probably end up dragging me into the debate). We must distinguish between selfishness and self-interest. Stealing is selfish, playing Zelda is self-interest. Now if we look at a fetus as a baby, as I'm sure you do, then abortion is definitely selfish. But pro-choicers out there, myself included, don't see it this way. It's self-interest to me, because I don't think it has significant negative consequences for other people - I see a fetus as a functionless work in progress. However, I do understand that you see it entirely differently, and I can respect that. Under your interpretation, it would be selfish to abort the fetus.

Birth control and condoms are cheating the system. Cheaters don't always prosper.

There are three things that struck me with this comment. First, what is this "system," and how do we know of it? If it's God's system, count me out. If it's our biological system, count me out too. Is there some strict social system we must abide by?

Second, I'm confused by your use of "cheating." Cheating, to me, is the unfair or illegal attempt to gain an advantage, and I think this is the generally accepted definition. If we go by this meaning, can you explain how it is unfair or against the "rules", and also what advantage would be gained? Or would you like to give another definition to clarify it?

Lastly, we have to consider the alternatives. Would unprotected teen sex be considered "cheating" too? I'm all for teaching that abstinence is the only true contraceptive, but I think that people are going to have sex no matter what. With no condoms, don't you think we'd have a situation similar to that of the sexual revolution in the late 60's, where unwanted teen pregnancies rose dangerously high (and now we have the risk of diseases too). If a 16 year old is going to have sex no matter what, would you rather he use a condom or not?

While you may see sex as purely reproductive, I see it as a way to connect. I would not have sex outside a loving relationship, and when I do have sex, I use protection. The chances of catching any diseases or impregnating a girl are almost non-existent under these circumstances. Considering my position and view of sex, do you still think it's wrong from my perspective? Once again, though, I understand that you view sex as sacred, and I respect that you probably support abstinance.

So you're not going to care for a baby if you give birth to it? Perhaps some people just can't take care of a baby, and in such a case they should ensure it is well taken care of. But most of the time its probably just an inconvenience.

Some people really can't take care of a baby. *coughBritneySpearscough* Sometimes people lead busy lives, they don't have the time or the money. And they can't just put their life on hold for nine months while they wait for it to be born. Shoving the responsibility onto someone else is not fair to them, either.

Now, I'm not really "anti-sex." I think that two people should be ready to have a baby before they risk it. That is why marriage has worked so wonderfully for years as a time to have sex. Now, believe me, I know how it feels to be tempted by sex and forget the consequences. Two teenagers full of hormones can hardly control themselves, but the baby shouldn't have to die for that.

But the fact is, it does happen. Many teenagers - and even adults if they're studying or in a demanding job - just cannot take care of a baby. Abortion is not there as an emergency contraceptive (and I disagree with those who use it as such) - it's there so that people have the choice. Some are against it and will have the baby no matter what, but there are others who, as much as they may or may not want to have a child, know there is no possible way they can look after it and give it the life it should have, and so abort what has not yet developed into a human.