Abortion vs. Adoption

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

I think the moral of that argument goes like this: "They choose to have sex, they knew that contraceptions are not 100% foolproof. They should have th bear the brunt of their consyquences, because they made the choice in the first place,"

I agree with that line of reasoning, if someone got pregnant from having consentual sex then it should be thier responsability, as it was their choice. Abortion should NOT be used as birth control.

Why not? End result is the same, no?

That being said I find it hard to say that a child who was raped should keep the child, the emotional aspects of being raped are far more severe then most people realize, and having to deal with the product of that day after day would be a knid of tourture no person so go through. So I am a little bit iffy about that one.

But that's all about the mother's rights, isn't it? Why does she have rights only if she's been raped?

Abortion is a trickey subject, n one hand the right say "Abortion should be illegal," but that brings many problems into the open. Such as illegal Abortions causing in possibly the death of the mothers, and the rape exception, among other things. And on the other hand Allowing anyone at anytime to have an abortion cannot be tolerated as it could turn into just a birth control method, which it should not be. People should face the consequences of their actions, but even then there are some cases where if the child was born his life would be so miserable it might be better to let them go before they devolope a conciousness.

Why shouldn't it be birth control, though?

I mean, it's not pleasant for the mother, sure. But in terms of harm to everyone else, it's no different from birth control.

If one also opposes birth control then I suppose I can see it, but then I'd have to ask why they don't kill women for having periods. :/.

Why shouldn't it be birth control, though?

I mean, it's not pleasant for the mother, sure. But in terms of harm to everyone else, it's no different from birth control.

If one also opposes birth control then I suppose I can see it, but then I'd have to ask why they don't kill women for having periods. :/.

As I understand it, abortions are not nice. How much d'you like the sound of... effective getting a hoover and sucking out the embryo? The misdirected hormone patterns can seriously mess people up, and some women never get back into step again.

As I understand it, when you die your heart stops beating, and the electrical connections between your brain cells stop. As such, when you begin to have these -- it's the opposite of death.

I live 6 miles away from the abortion centre of the world -- and I completely disagree with people killing the baby 'because you can't prove it's alive and it doesn't make the decision -- I do', just to they can carry on with their careers unhindered.

I've met teenagers who've had six or more abortions. They just go to sleep and 'Ta-da!' the baby's gone.

It can't influence the decision, but I don't think we can deprive it of its chance at life. Have the baby and put it up for adoption. If nothing else, it'll be less monotonous than your office job.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

I don't live in america xD

So if i pay an assasin to kill you...I should be allowed to do that because I am a paying customer, and that is what I want?

No, because firstly that's an illegal business. (But that would extend to abortion if abortion were made illegal.)

Secondly, abortion is a medical treatment. I'm saying in America, medical treatment is a business. Therefore if a business is supplying abortions, there is no reason to deny them. At least, you've given no reason, you're simply saying "this should/shouldn't be the case" without answering why. I've asked you repeatedly now.

Thirdly, you'd be paying someone to commit an offence that actually has a reason for being illegal (murder being the taking of life, and I'm rather enjoying my life, whereas abortion is killing a clump of cells that are not self-aware). If murder were allowed, society would fall apart. Abortion does not cause society to fall apart, on the contrary, it probably helps society because certain individuals aren't forced to give up their lives to raise a child they didn't want to begin with.

I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. You are misunderstanding my statements, I do not think Abortion should be illegal, but I do not think it should be reccomended, or used a birth control. I think in some cases, as i have said before, abortion may be the only option to acheive health and saftey for the mother, and insure the child does not have to suffer.

You are disputing, however, that if someone uses contraception during sexual intercourse, and that contraception fails, that they should still have the child. I'm not misunderstanding anything, that is exactly what you are disputing. Otherwise, stop disputing it.

And once again, you've totally failed to give reasons why.

I am not trying to control a womens womb, only suggestion they should take responsability for what goes in their

Even if they take measures to prevent it? Like how you should take responsibility for being raped even if you did everything in your power to prevent it?

What was i origionally arguing? i hope I didn't misrepresent my views.

You were originally arguing that if you do something knowing there is a risk of a particular outcome, however small that risk may be, even if you take measures to prevent that outcome, you are responsible for that outcome.

But there is a difference between the two. I don't see how the two are applicable, as having babies is caused by having sex. Getting mugged isn't caused my walking outside, it is correlated(as usually you need be outside for it to be done) but it is not caused.

It may not be CAUSED, by your walking outside, but it leads from it. If you were not walking outside, you would not have been mugged. It isn't DIRECTLY caused by walking outside, just like pregnancy isn't DIRECTLY caused by having sex with contraception, one simply leads to the other. In fact if you carried a gun with you, you could protect yourself against being mugged, but even that might fail. Just like a condom protects against pregnancy. But even that might fail.

I onced used a rachet as a hammer, and it worked. But that was not it's intended purpose. Actually I am not sure what point I am making here xD

Exactly. If you buy a hammer, I have no right to tell you what to do with that hammer. You don't have to use it for the purpose people created it.

Likewise, you can't tell me what to do with my penis. If you use a ratchet as a hammer, I use a child-making device as an instrument of pleasure.

They take measures but understanding the rick(or so I would hope O-o). I am not saying sex is purely for reproduction, only that repoduction is inheritly caused by sex.

But again, that argument extends to pretty much all of my examples. If you take measures to prevent something, but understand there is still a risk of something bad happening, that does not make you responsible when that something bad does happen. If you get into a car, and wear your seatbelt, and make all the necessary checks, and then have an accident, you are not responsible. Getting in the car and making all the necessary checks may still lead to the accident, like sex with contraception may still lead to pregnancy.

I am not trying to dictate who should and should not have abortions, only trying to say that it shouldn't be used as Birth Control, and that it shouldn't be promoted as something anyone who has sex should use. You know?

You are trying to dictate who can and can have abortions. You don't think people who use contraception to avoid pregnancy should be allowed abortions, you do think people who got raped should be allowed abortions, and you think it should be done when the mother's health is in danger. You're anti-choice. You won't allow people to choose.

Perhapes if the world wasn't so obsessed by sex abortion would not happen as much. Ah to dream.

Fortunately, it is. Humans have given sex meanings far beyond simple biological processes, and it would be primitive if we attempted to keep it that way.

Cars where not designed to crash.

No, but getting in the car can lead to an accident. Like how having sex with contraception can lead to pregnancy. What part of this are you not getting? If you have sex with contraception the end purpose of that is not pregnancy. There is a difference between sex with contraception and sex without contraception.

Plus again, if you get in the car with the intention to crash it, that doesn't matter about what it was designed for. You once used a ratchet as a hammer, you say, but ratchets were not designed to be hammers! You shouldn't be using them as hammers!

Or rather, I shouldn't be telling you what you can and can't do with the ratchet, you shouldn't be telling me what you can and can't do with the car, and you shouldn't be telling me what I can and can't do with my penis, unless there are laws which actually have reasons for being in place. Which again, you've failed to give any in favour of not allowing mothers to have that choice.

My life isn't the best, far from it. However I love my life, and the fact I was able to keep it.

Good for you, others may not.

Originally Posted by awkin

As I understand it, abortions are not nice. How much d'you like the sound of... effective getting a hoover and sucking out the embryo? The misdirected hormone patterns can seriously mess people up, and some women never get back into step again.

As I understand it, when you die your heart stops beating, and the electrical connections between your brain cells stop. As such, when you begin to have these -- it's the opposite of death.

I live 6 miles away from the abortion centre of the world -- and I completely disagree with people killing the baby 'because you can't prove it's alive and it doesn't make the decision -- I do', just to they can carry on with their careers unhindered.

I've met teenagers who've had six or more abortions. They just go to sleep and 'Ta-da!' the baby's gone.

It can't influence the decision, but I don't think we can deprive it of its chance at life. Have the baby and put it up for adoption. If nothing else, it'll be less monotonous than your office job.

Actually we can prove that foetuses do not have sentience, thereby up until a certain point in the pregnancy they're simply clumps of cells that have the potential to develop into something more. Abortions after they develop into sentience are illegal in any country that allows them. The legal definition of death is braindeath, which is why in most cases you're allowed to turn off the life support if they're in a persistent vegetative state. Therefore, when a foetus has no activity in the brain, due to not yet having a brain worth talking about, it cannot be considered "alive" in the same sense that a human organism is "alive". Because every cell is "alive" in the technical sense. No one disputes that, and I don't know where you think that the argument "we can't prove they're alive" comes from.

The moment they gain sentience of some sort, even if it isn't of the same capacity as a fully-developed human's, is the moment we grant them protected status, and tell the mother "sorry, you waited too long".

Further, the baby has a "chance" at life. The mother is already living her life, which people want to force her to ruin because they think they can control her womb.

And who cares if it doesn't sound like a pleasant procedure? Defecation doesn't sound like one either, nor do a great many medically helpful treatments. Just because it sounds unpleasant isn't a grounds for anything.


EDIT: Sorry John, thought I'd editted it into the other post

Originally Posted by awkin

As I understand it, abortions are not nice. How much d'you like the sound of... effective getting a hoover and sucking out the embryo? The misdirected hormone patterns can seriously mess people up, and some women never get back into step again.

Indeed, as I said, not pleasant, but the decision to undergo that is on the mother's end, since it's her, and her alone, that will feel that.

As I understand it, when you die your heart stops beating, and the electrical connections between your brain cells stop. As such, when you begin to have these -- it's the opposite of death.

Indeed, hence why I'm fine with abortions up to around the third trimester, since before that the fetus doesn't have a working brain.

It can't influence the decision, but I don't think we can deprive it of its chance at life. Have the baby and put it up for adoption. If nothing else, it'll be less monotonous than your office job.

The problem here is this: How is having an abortion different from using a morning-after pill? Or using a condom?

The end result is worse for the mother, but again, that's their decision. To the fetus it makes no difference at all.

Originally Posted by awkin

I've met teenagers who've had six or more abortions. They just go to sleep and 'Ta-da!' the baby's gone.

They need information and brain cells - not outlawing.

Originally Posted by John

The problem here is this: How is having an abortion different from using a morning-after pill? Or using a condom?

I never thought of this before, but this is a good example. The morning after pill is basically an abortion in pill format - it stops the fertilized egg which has already started developing from attaching to the inner walls of the womb.

I honestly don't feel like quoting arbirator again, so I guess I'll talk to linkey. (dear, god, you seem to think that every part of the world has a stable MTA system)

Originally Posted by Linkey

Not everyone would be better off or being able to handle a kid at the age of 16 just because a condom breaks. Maybe you didn't want to study further - but I'd prefer, if possible and if both parts agree on it, an abortion so I can study forward in peace and make sure I give my kid the best upbringing possible, both for mine and the child's sake.

Well.....see that's exactly why I don't think you should be having sex then if you can't deal with the risk.

AND, we could take the example of rape. A fifteen year old gets raped, and pregnancy occurs. Why, oh why, should she be forced to take care of a kid that is due to rape? Why **** up her childhood even beyond that? Why does the child have to live with the fact that its father is a rapist?

You haven't been paying attention.

Moral of your arguing: "Don't have sex, because if you get pregnant when using contraception, you must **** your life over by taking care of your kid lol."

....but if you conceived it by having consensual sex, didn't YOU **** your life over?

LOL @ Devia:

Hey, that joke was an example. But you still caught on. That gives a LITTLE hope in ZU....ok not really, but yeah.

Abstinence only philosophies are about as ignorant as NCLB. Neither of them work, and person responsible for coming up with them needs to be shot.

Originally Posted by hypno_toad

Abstinence only philosophies are about as ignorant as NCLB. Neither of them work, and person responsible for coming up with them needs to be shot.

What.

Abstinence only sex ed. has been rather conclusively shown to not work at all, if that's what your "What." is about.

Abstinence only sex education - see if you can spot the oxymoron.

I'm not talking about the ****ty teaching, but I know a few people are practice it and do so successfully.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

Well.....see that's exactly why I don't think you should be having sex then if you can't deal with the risk.

The risk here is less than one in a million, closing in on a billion - and having sex and having babies are on two completely different levels.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

You haven't been paying attention.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

....but if you conceived it by having consensual sex, didn't YOU **** your life over?

Sex doesn't bite. Especially not with a condom.

Originally Posted by Linkey

The risk here is less than one in a million, closing in on a billion - and having sex and having babies are on two completely different levels.

I'm done.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

I'm done.

And now he's confirmed his status as either a Bible-thumper or a troll. Well done mate. Well done.

No, you just having been paying attention. In my very first post I said I'm neither anti-abortion nor for abortion.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

I'm done.

Just because a thing is required for the other to happen, doesn't mean they are connected. Just because you use the internet, doesn't automatically mean you browse 4chan.

And yet you've made some of the most obviously stupid arguments against abortion. "I'm not against abortion - I just think people shouldn't be allowed abortions unless they were raped." Which is exactly the same argument as most anti-choicers make. If you're not a troll, and you're not against abortion, you wouldn't have bothered arguing.

Not to mention quoting perfectly correct statements in an attempt to make them appear stupid, in the process only highlighting your own idiocy. The most obvious, and the clincher, being that last one. Get back under your bridge.

Originally Posted by Linkey

Just because a thing is required for the other to happen, doesn't mean they are connected. Just because you use the internet, doesn't automatically mean you browse 4chan.

Actually he was pretty right with that point. There are a thousand million things you can do on the internet other than look at 4chan. Sex is babies or pleasure, one or both being inevitable. Browsing a single website is not.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

And yet you've made some of the most obviously stupid arguments against abortion. "I'm not against abortion - I just think people shouldn't be allowed abortions unless they were raped." Which is exactly the same argument as most anti-choicers make. If you're not a troll, and you're not against abortion, you wouldn't have bothered arguing.

no, again, you just didn't pay attention.

I never said anything about being allowed to do it. I simply named what I consider to be good reasons.

Which is merely a personal preference.

Either way, I did say it should be an option and that I can understand both sides of an arguement.

EDIT: Infact, I'm challenging you to point out where I said that abortions shouldn't be a choice and that I wasn't simply stating what I consider to be good reasons.