Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

ablestar

Abortions

Recommended Posts

saltinespike
So you're basically saying that the mother's right not to have to go through pregnancy outweighs the futus's right to live? This is what I disagree with. To me, abortion (except for a few exceptions like rape pregnancies) is essentially killing one person to make another person's life less difficult. This doesn't seem fair to the one being killed, especially when its the mother of the fetus who is primarily responsible for the whole situation.

This debate seems to be going nowhere. I'm not going to sway you, you are not going to sway me, so I am finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

 

If that's your standpoint, why is it ok in the case of rape? How do you reconcile that with your position that the child has a right to live?

The reason I think abortion in the case of rape is more justified is because the pregnancy is not the mother’s fault. It’s also for the sake of compromise, since the idea not letting raped pregnant women get abortions would piss off pro-choice people to no end.

 

Anyway, rape abortions are a miniscule part of abortions in total and almost all pregnant rape victims who get abortions get them shortly after conception while the “baby” is still a primitive embryo which could hardly be considered alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

You're avoiding the problem - I'm asking why a baby that is the product of rape is ok to kill while a baby that is the product of a sexual mistake is not. I'm not calling the mother's intentions into account.

 

A "compromise" in this case undermines the entire argument that abortion is murder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

In actuality, aborting a fetus produced by rape would be murder. I just don't think it would be politically possible to ban rape abortions, because I think almost all people (from those I know) would see this as a violation of the victims's rights. I don't bother to argue with this because anyone I do argue with about it (especially women) get all emotional about it. So I've just come to habitually let that part of the issue go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

So your convictions only go so far?

 

Furthermore, I think it's politically impossible to ban abortions regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucflash

In my eyes, if it resembles a human, has a heart, a breain, and electrical charge running thru it, its human. I am against abortion in all situations.

 

I dont think you can say "only if its extremely ill" can it be aborted, because that is bordering on Nazi style elimination of the "non perfect".

 

There is no reason in this day and age why women are getting pregnant when they dont want to... But if they were taught to value life of themselves and others more, then there would be no question in their minds. Any baby born can be adopted...

 

Add to that the face America is facing a BIRTH RATE CRISIS! We are not at the point of Russia, which will loose 30% of their population over the next 35 years, but we are getting there.

 

To put it more clear, every couple needs to have 2 children to maintain the current population. They need 3 to consider the offset of women not having children to maintain population. Anything less means a decline in population, which has major impact on many areas of day to day life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperCJ

Honestly I have no problems with abortion, especially if it's from a rape or there is problems.

I think it's too late once you hit the third trimester, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

In my eyes, if it resembles a human, has a heart, a breain, and electrical charge running thru it, its human. I am against abortion in all situations.

 

I dont think you can say "only if its extremely ill" can it be aborted, because that is bordering on Nazi style elimination of the "non perfect".

 

There is no reason in this day and age why women are getting pregnant when they dont want to... But if they were taught to value life of themselves and others more, then there would be no question in their minds. Any baby born can be adopted...

 

Add to that the face America is facing a BIRTH RATE CRISIS! We are not at the point of Russia, which will loose 30% of their population over the next 35 years, but we are getting there.

 

To put it more clear, every couple needs to have 2 children to maintain the current population. They need 3 to consider the offset of women not having children to maintain population. Anything less means a decline in population, which has major impact on many areas of day to day life.

No reason that women get pregnant without wanting to? There are a number of reasons why women are getting pregnant without wanting to.

 

--Rape

--Prostitution

--Poor sexual education

 

That's not even touching on other factors, like the fail-rates of birth control methods, which could be considered negligible, but I bet if you you were on birth control and wore a condom, and still got pregnant, you wouldn't be saying, "In this day in age, a woman can't become pregnant without wanting to".

 

Birth control can only be as effective as it used, and all three of those factors seriously reduce the likelihood that the woman will be using a form of birth control. You could say that, "The woman shouldn't be involved in that line of work, " or, "The woman shouldn't be around that sort of company," or, "The woman shoudl've taken steps to educate her self", and all of those statements are relatively true, but they don't change the fact that women do become pregnant unwantingly and unwillingly, and just because they are in those situations doesn't mean she should be responsible to bare the child.

 

To me it comes down to two things:

 

--Women should not be forced to bare a child if they don't wish to

--People's lives should be protected in the matter

 

This is where it gets interesting however, because you enter the realm of when is the fetus/infant truly alive.

 

Personally, and I think my viewpoints may be slightly radical, I don't feel that the rights of an unimaginative, unthinking, Dependant, creature ( i.e. the infant or fetus ) are more important, or more deserved than that of the mother. Now there are plenty of people who will say, "Tough, the mother shouldn't have been so irresponsible," whilst completely ignoring the fact that baring a child can actually put the life of the mother at risk, but I don't think it's right to say that the mother was being irresponsible, it is her choice whether or not to bring that baby to life.

 

This is where I come to the really pivotol point; I don't think that a baby's life is worth more than that of a person mature enough to give birth. Now, that may sound sick and twisted, "What is this guy grading lives?" you may be thinking, but why should the life of a fully matured, fully independent person by hindered unwillingly by person that is so undeveloped even six months after being born, that nearly 24 hours of a woman's day is devoted to nursing it?

 

If anyone in here can claim that they remembered any point of their life within six months after birth, then I will revise my opinions, but I simply don't think that the potential life of a child should overshadow the life of someone whom is already fully mature and independent. I'm not saying that the lives of infants shouldn't be protected, but I am saying that the mother should not have to be forced to bare the burden of pregnancy, let alone raising that child.

 

So our population is going down, that is because of abortions? Perhaps that's because people in today's society aren't having babies because they feel that they don't want to bring a child into what they view as an unfavorable world. Or perhaps they've tried to become pregnant, but they continue to have miscarriages or can't even conceive because of latent side-effects untreated by their health care and possibly even a byproduct of pollution of some sort. My point, is that I think the decrease in population has a lot more to do with our society in general than it has to do with abortion. Even if late-term abortions were fully legalized, paid for by government officials, and not chastised or frowned upon, there would still be a wealth of people who wish to bring a child into the world, and a wealth of people who don't.

 

The only issue abortion really effects, is the lives of women who do not want to bare a child, and the "life" of the fetus, and the only question to come of this in my mind, is which should we protect? Granted there aren't a lot of cases where baring a child will be so dangerous to a woman's health she has to abort, and in most of these cases there occurs a natural miscarriage, baring a child is an extreme burden on the life of a woman, and unless the government is fully capable and able to support the woman through baring that child, then she should not be forced to go through that pregnancy.

 

To comment further, in parts of Japan, the government is paying parents to have children, as a way to increase population in some more rural areas of the country. I'm sure that if the U.S. government had a population crisis, there would be a long line of people willing to help out. This idea can be corroborated by the existence of sperm banks and foster care, where willing participates donate their genetic material or their time to help raise children.

 

Now, to further comment, where does immigration and mortality (Here's a question, how many women a year die during child birth?) come into those calculations of population growth? Honestly, there are so many variables when you question this, that the effect abortion will have on the population is probably very little compared to the effect pregnancy has on the lives of women.

 

I could even go so far as to question whether our economy can even support our current population, but that's another debate entirely

 

The point is, that becoming pregnant, and raising a child, is such and extreme burden on a woman's life that it's an unfair position to put her in if she does not wish to be in that situation. If a person gets in a car accident, breaks his leg, and is unable to work for several months to a year, the government doesn't say, "Well, too bad, you shouldn't have been driving so fast." In the same right, the government does help some women out during pregnancy I'm sure, however what about women who are not even employed, who don't even have homes, and the only thing they can afford is an abortion?

 

I think that laws against late-term abortions are acceptable; after all, if the woman was able to bare the child up to that point, she should be able to go through child birth without much burden. However, I think that the law should be ( and probably already is ) written in such a way that if a woman can show that baring the child any longer will endanger her own wel-fare, that she should be able to abort it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

Arguably there are enough people on this planet already, if the child is unwanted then abortion can act as at least a stabiliser to the human population.

 

But I am not even going to discuss the moral conutations, they are many and simply opinionated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucflash

Our population going down is in fact partly due to abortions, because 25% of all pregnancies end in abortion. The number is massive. And that massive number shows that abortion is used much more widely than for just rape, retardation, or the 1% birthcontro failure rate.

 

25% OF ALL PREGNANCIES IN USA END IN ABORTION!

MYANS ONLY SACRIFICED 20% !

 

 

As for there being enough people on the planet...

WHO has enough people? China? Indna? or USA?

 

Are you hoping YOUR team shrinks to make more room on the field for thhe other team to get extra players? Fact is we need to rise in population not only to match military & economic strength of the rest of the world, but also to ensure producing enough brains for the future.

 

THERE IS NO HOPE FOR A COUNTRY WITH A DECLINING & AGING POPULATION.

Edited by Nucflash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

Alright, let's lay a few things out.

 

First of all, in the United States, human beings are considered dead when electrical activity in their brain has ceased. That is the exact moment in which a human turns into a not-human (IE corpse). It's only logical to apply this definition to the beginning of life. It has been discovered that fetus's brain activity starts in its most basic form at 40-46 days, or about 6 weeks. It is at this point that it seems logical to me to recognize whatever is in the womb as a human being. Before that, an abortion is like putting a seed in a pot of soil and then ripping it out a day or two later after watering it. It's an undesireable event, but you didn't exactly kill the tree. After that time period, it's just as bad as going to California and chopping down a redwood.

 

Anyone who says that a fetus cannot support itself and therefore isn't alive is a complete jackass and I'll use some simple words to tell you simple people why. A two year old cannot support itself. Most mammals in the world can't support themselves for a significant period after birth. Would you cut a two year old's throat because it can't pour itself a bowl of cereal? Doubt it. There goes that argument.

 

Let's talk about rape victims. And let's be clear who we're referring to when we say that. Usually "victim" refers to the person who has been wronged, so we'll say it's the woman in this case. All clear so far? Good. Woman is raped. Horrible situation. She gets pregnant - even worse. You people suggest that the solution to fix this poor woman's problems is to take her to the clinic and kill the fetus rather than send her to therapy, get her helped out, and give the kid up for adoption? Sure she doesn't want that child. Sure she probably wishes she didn't have to carry it. And sure it's a lot easier to say "tough sh*t, bad hand" when you're not in that situation, but guess what: that child didn't rape anyone. You can't go around killing innocent bystanders because of incidents that were related to them. Kill the rapist, not the kid.

 

And if you think that an abortion will help her forget about the rape or something or feel better, you're out of your ever loving minds. I'm not exactly up to date on the numbers regarding severe depression in mothers who have abortions, but the numbers are staggering. It comes down to people don't feel good when they have abortions. Putting a traumatized woman through that much more instead of trying to help her in the long run and help her deal with the situation properly is not actually helping.

 

Now for those who think abortions should be used for convenience, IE I'm 18 and I'm pregnant and I want to go to college and I was lying to myself for five months about my pregnancy, but now I'm a fat cow and something's kicking me in the stomach and I just want to look good for the beach this year, f*ck off. Yeah you made a mistake, now deal with it. Plenty of people do. And plenty of people would kill FOR your child so that they might be able to adopt it. All this "oh but the child will never be loved or wanted in that home, so kill it" bullsh*t is just that. Bullsh*t. Give it up for adoption, and sacrifice the nine months, you selfish jerkoff. If I drove my car into a house, it'd be real convenient if I could just go and shoot the owner so that he doesn't make me pay for it, but that's not really fair is it. Ask yourself that question. If you drove your car into a house, and you knew that you'd get away with it if you killed the owner, and you knew it'd never come back to haunt you...would you?

 

Doubt it.

 

And for the record, these aren't any religious beliefs. I laugh at people on their way to church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft

Just to play Devil's Advocate here... at what point should it become illegal for a pregnant woman to appear in pornography?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucflash
Just to play Devil's Advocate here... at what point should it become illegal for a pregnant woman to appear in pornography?

Funny. However the baby comes in no contact with the second, third, fourth or more parties... Abortions come in full contact BTW.

 

How about this.

 

If abortions shouldnt be illegal, why cant a woman have a abortion, keep the remains in a jar sitting aroud the house? Better yet, why cant she sell the remains to a asian resteraunt, its not human right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft
Just to play Devil's Advocate here... at what point should it become illegal for a pregnant woman to appear in pornography?

Funny. However the baby comes in no contact with the second, third, fourth or more parties... Abortions come in full contact BTW.

Very true, though if the fetus is considered human, then the child is still technically in the room which is illegal for a 'born' child.

 

Not to mention the distress caused if, when grown up, said child/adult views such photos. It would be bad enough seeing your mother in porn, but being able to see your unborn bump in her belly as she is violently penetrated in every possible way would scar me for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

This is kind of a ridiculous argument and not really related to that of abortion, but the fetus doesn't appear in the film, so it's really no question of human or not. Whatever it is, it isn't in the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft

 

This is kind of a ridiculous argument and not really related to that of abortion, but the fetus doesn't appear in the film, so it's really no question of human or not.  Whatever it is, it isn't in the movie.

No, I agree with the fact it is a ridiculous argument. That was its intention.

 

Some of the arguments I have heard - both for, and against abortion - have seemed just as absurd to me. It is an ongoing debate which will always have support on either side. I don't think its the type of debate which has a right or wrong answer, and to allow or deny all women the right to an abortion is absurd, due to different variables in each woman's case.

 

I just wanted to throw something stupid out there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blue blaze

I say a big NO.Cause I find it disgusting.Some people do it cause it would be a girl.That so disgusting EWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

How about this.

 

If abortions shouldnt be illegal, why cant a woman have a abortion, keep the remains in a jar sitting aroud the house? Better yet, why cant she sell the remains to a asian resteraunt, its not human right?

In Asia, some people do sell new-born babies to restaurants, as it is a delicacy in some countries. I don't encourage this and I think that the potential life is worth more than being eating. However, my argument was that the mother's life should take priority over whatever potential life she may bare.

 

To answer your question, there are laws on cannibalism in the United States, so clearly a woman could not do that even if she did have an abortion; further more there's not much of a market, and of course you're completely ignoring the moral value and the fact that eating babies isn't a very common ritual in America. I'm quite sure there's probably a law against displaying biowaste material around your home ( notice that we bury or cremate our dead ), and once again, not quite a lot of women who are going to choose that form of decor.

 

I think Evis has taken a giant hurdle in interpreting my comments as, "A two year old can have its throat slit because it can't support itself" or perhaps that's not in response to me at all, but I felt I should re-emphasize this part just in case

 

 

I think that laws against late-term abortions are acceptable; after all, if the woman was able to bare the child up to that point, she should be able to go through child birth without much burden. However, I think that the law should be ( and probably already is ) written in such a way that if a woman can show that baring the child any longer will endanger her own well-fare, that she should be able to abort it.

 

What should be added, is that after a child is birthed, then that mother really has no forced responsibility to care for the child, and can always give it away to adoption; there are even laws where a female mother can abandon it at a church up to 72 hours after birth. There's is absolutely no excuse, and no reason, for the life of an infant to be ended after it is already born.

 

 

 

 

I really can't agree that the life of the fetus at that point should have more rights than the host it needs to use to survive at that point. I'm sure that there are dozens of mothers out there who would disagree with me in a moments notice, because they have some sort of emotional kinship to their unborn child, or hopes and expectations. I just don't think that it would be right in any way to force a woman to bare a child if it causes her serious hardship.

 

The difficulty with that notion, is that it's not easy to determine how much more hardship any one woman goes through with such thing. I am simply of the view point that it should be more of a priority to protect the lives of potential mothers, than to put them in a system that would force them to bare that child. If a woman is in a financial situation where she can bare that child, I would hope that her moral fabric was comprised in such a way that she would do so regardless of whatever irresponsible notion of "just not wanting to do it", but I think it would be much more of a shame to see a woman forced to bare a child with such hardships that she could not even raise it afterward. Wouldn't it be better for her to be able to get a better job, and then have one or two children in the future, than for her to become pregnant at 15, be forced to have the kid, and be stuck working several jobs for the rest of her life, without even the notion of being able to afford another child?

 

I don't think the life of the fetus should have more rights than the mother, and I especially don't think it would be right to force mother's to bare unwanted children for "the greater good", but I would be really interested to see those statistics, Nucflash.

 

Googl'ing "Pregnancy statistics" I was quickly able to find this:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html

 

 

Pregnancy:

 

There are approximately 6 million pregnancies every year throughout the United States:

 

    * 4,058,000 live births

    * 1,995,840 pregnancy losses

 

Pregnancy Loss:

 

Every year in the United States there are approximately 2 million women who experience pregnancy loss:

 

    * 600,000 women experience pregnancy loss through miscarriage

    * 1,200,000 women experience pregnancy loss through termination

    * 64,000 women experience pregnancy loss through ectopic pregnancy

    * 6,000 women experience pregnancy loss through molar pregnancies

    * 26,000 women experience pregnancy loss through stillbirth

 

Pregnancy Complications:

 

Every year in the United States:

 

    * 875,000 woman experience one or more pregnancy complications

    * 458,952 babies are born to mothers without adequate prenatal care

    * 467,201 babies are born prematurely

    * 307,030 babies are born with Low Birth Weight

    * 154,051 children are born with Birth Defects

    * 27,864 infants die before their first birthday

 

The number there that stands out to me, is the 4 million live-births every year, and then this part:

 

 

Pregnancy & Social Concerns:

 

Every year in the United States:

 

    * 468,988 babies are born to teenage mothers each year

    * 11% of pregnant woman are diagnosed with Post Partum Depression

    * 820,000 woman smoke cigarettes while pregnant

    * 221,000 women use illicit drugs during pregnancy

    * 757,000 woman drink alcohol while pregnant

    * 240,000 pregnant women are subject to domestic violence

          o 40% of assaults begin during the first pregnancy

          o Pregnant women are twice the risk of battery

 

I still haven't seen anything to show that China or India is necessarily doing better than us, despite their high population rate. Consider the average life expectancy, the rate of STDs, etc. Are they going to have a huge population crippled with disease and high mortality rates? I honestly don't know, and it may be presumptuous to say India or China has a lower life expectancy than America, but I don't see the scope of annual statistics measuring it either.

 

Considering this, how can you really say that a 75% successful birth rate isn't optimal for our economy and to sustain our quality of life? Is having a huge population really an advantage? I suppose this is another debate entirely, but I think that Americas quality of life can compensate for its lower populace.

 

 

 

 

When it comes to pregnancy in pornography, Evis pretty much has it. As far as emotional scarring from seeing it later on... Isn't that the responsibility of the mother to not let her kids see the pornos she's made?

 

About the only real caution I could see when it comes to this, is not engaging in positions that could put stress on the child, and as most doctors recommend, nothing after the third term of pregnancy should be allowed as well.

 

Though, I think that the argument can tie into abortion in a way. Consider pornography actors and prostitutes. Being pregnant in such fields would probably put significant hardship on the mother, but the very nature of the work lends itself to such a thing happening again and again. My black and white argument of, "If it causes a woman hardship" really doesn't apply so well here. While I don't think that a woman should be forced to find different work because of a pregnancy, I don't think a woman's work should put her at risk of a pregnancy and perpetuate the cycle. Obviously this creates a double-standard.

 

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randomname01

I support abortions!

 

Ok, here, let me begin. First of all, abortions are usually done by women who are not in a position to raise a child, whether it is because of her, or the circumstances surrounding her, it can also be both. Also, few women might have medical problems in which they can be killed or be at risk for death if they have to give birth, and the baby might die as well. Also the woman might be poor, might have to work because thye need money, or other reasons that prevent her from raising a child.

 

If the child is born and raised by the mother, I believe in most cases it would be bad. If the mother has to work, is not able to take care of the child, or has problems, the child will also be dragged into the problems. A child being raised by an incompetent mother, being raised poor in a bad place, or being part of a stressed mtoher who is already stressed is not good. The child will grow up suffering and be looked down by society, the child will problay not get anywhere in life either, also the child will slow down the mother from getting anywhere too. Now, many people who suffer too much kill themselves and we can understand why. But when you see a child growing up like that, you would think it would be for the best if they never existed. Now remember, the mother may have a chance of getting somewhere in life, but now she has a child, she is slowed down from getting anywhere in life. Don't give me any of that adoption crap either. Because many children who are put into adoption become homeless when they are 18 and many do not get adopted. They will suffer, add to society's problems, waste government tax dollars, and take money out of our pockets (if you are nice enough to give them change). Those who do get adopted, have a higher chance of dying than regular children, but they are still the lucky ones. But later on in life, they will probaly think about their biological parents and have emotional issues.

 

If the mother has an abortion and moves on, she will most likely be able to make a better life for her self and one day have a better time and place to have a child. Now, the child can grow up happily and decently. Also, the child has a reason to live.

 

For those of you who say, "oh it's murder", "oh it's killing!", "oh, it's so evil", "how can you kill a child?". People, consider this:

 

I have to say I don't support late term abortions, but I will assume this from a early term abortion. Ok, you know when you cut yourself, your skin grows back? Yes, those are the many damaged human cells that grow back. Now, you don't really care about just being cut do you? An embryo is still a group of cells, though much more complex and diverse, just cells. The embryo can't think, can't feel, and has no emotions. The three things that give humans a reason to not want to be killed. Now you wouldn't want to kill somebody, because that person has emotions, thoughts, and feelings right? Those are 3 things embryos don't have.

 

Also, stem cells can be used to cure medical problems such as paralysis, damaged hearts, and other problems that would be other wise uncurable and very heartbreaking. These problems can cause extreme suffering for the person suffering from it.

 

Also abortions help control the population. Our world resources are already running out and being stretched thin.

 

So, what do you think?

Edited by Randomname01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

The biggest problem with abortions is that it ensures that people who unconditionally shun abortions and birth control for religious reasons, without listening to any reason, are going to outnumber sane people by an increasingly larger margin with every generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

Er, no I don't agree. I'd say the biggest problem with abortion is that it kills fetuses, not that it does or does not serve a particular political agenda.. dozingoff.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Er, no I don't agree. I'd say the biggest problem with abortion is that it kills fetuses, not that it does or does not serve a particular political agenda.. dozingoff.gif

You know, that's a moral dilemma, and one I'm kind of interested in having explained to me. I know most people view it as a live, human being, but to me its life is in such infancy that I don't think it should come before the mother.

 

I've had plenty of people call me a "Jackass", "heretic", or just those who've called me "stupid", but I'm unable to see the life of a child holding more significance over the mother's. To me it seems that everyone is extremely quick to defend the rights of life that is sometimes not even born yet, or so premature that it is hardly reminiscent of human. Now, I'm not even commenting on religious beliefs when I say this, but some people seem to have almost a blind faith about them when it comes to infants and children.

 

Why does it make sense to preserve the life of an unborn fetus over that of a mother's? I guess there's a somewhat valid argument in the fact that many women who have abortions become depressed and may encounter the same problems had they had just gave birth ( or more, if they had given birth and put the child up for adoption).

 

What I'm about to say is going to sound extremely cold...

 

To me, women seem to be treated almost as worthless shells that are simply there to give birth. The main importance seems to be placed on the child, as if it were a precious, scarce commodity. Almost no concern seems to come into mind when speaking of the mother, it's all about preserving that one child. Why does the one child have more significance than the mother who can birth more after that pregnancy? ( Especially if you want to put it in terms of a population debate, for Nucflash)

 

I guess it just comes down to the common belief that all human life is sacred and of equal value, but I just have a very tough time associate a newborn--not to mention an unborn fetus-- with a human life.

 

There are all sorts of studies that will tell you that, "Yes, there are thoughts as early as six months," and things like that. And of course when you play with a baby, it smiles, it laughs, it's clearly alive, and clearly human. Yet even at that point, its brain is so undeveloped that it can't control its bladder or bowels, it cannot feed itself, and really it is lower than even your common animal. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be cared for, because of course it will flourish into a fully grown human life someday, I just can't find myself in agreement that an unborn fetus, alive but without even the amount of indication of a newborn, should take precedence over that of a woman mature enough to have conceived in the first place.

 

You mention a two year old, yet the amount of development of a two year old is far more deserving to be called "human" than that of an unborn fetus or newborn. So what the brain has electrical stimulation after 6 weeks, so do the brains of creatures we would not think twice of killing. I don't think it's logical to use the indication of electrical activity in the body/brain unless you want to state that a human's brain activity is about the same as a plant or small animal at best. So why is it worth preserving at that point if its brain activity is about the equivalent of something most people would grow into mass quantities and harvest to eat? The answer is obvious, because its human, and I think most humans have an inherent inclination to put the life of other humans on the highest pedestal, I certainly do, but I have a tough time understanding how the life of a fetus could be equal to that of the mother, when it is in fact dependent of the mother and in so biologically contrasting to human life, that electrical brain activity has to be used to indicate it is alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

Well, erm, plants don't have brains. And this discussion isn't about whether or not we should kill fetuses that are threats to their mothers. If you're saying that actual children's lives are less valuable than that of an adult in some attempt to make a deep philosophical assertion, you're failing. I could easily retort with "No, children and infant lives are much more valuable on the grounds that they are mostly innocent and harmless, whereas all crime, murder, and evil have been the works of people beyond the infant stage. The solution? Kill all grown ups."

 

You have to be much more specific when you attribute "worth" or "value" to different age groups.

 

In short, no, mothers' lives are not more valuable than infants, and infants lives are not more valuable than mothers. Not in the eyes of the law, and not in the eyes of any sane person.

 

If you find no problem with murder, though, I think there is a topic from a few years ago on this forum that discussed why exactly murder is a bad thing, and the implications of social justice, "morality", ethics, and the differences between each. Check that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

Isn't this really called "pro-life vs. pro-choice". Who in their sane mind would be AGAINST giving the mother the option to raise a child or not, be the reason that she's not prepared, or anything? "Pro-life" is a Bible thumper thing.

Edited by nlitement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Well, erm, plants don't have brains.

Neither do fetuses until a certain stage. If it's all about the brain power, then we should feel perfectly justified in aborting a pregnancy before the brain development of a fetus at very least exceeds that of other primates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Well, erm, plants don't have brains. And this discussion isn't about whether or not we should kill fetuses that are threats to their mothers. If you're saying that actual children's lives are less valuable than that of an adult in some attempt to make a deep philosophical assertion, you're failing. I could easily retort with "No, children and infant lives are much more valuable on the grounds that they are mostly innocent and harmless, whereas all crime, murder, and evil have been the works of people beyond the infant stage. The solution? Kill all grown ups."

 

You have to be much more specific when you attribute "worth" or "value" to different age groups.

 

In short, no, mothers' lives are not more valuable than infants, and infants lives are not more valuable than mothers. Not in the eyes of the law, and not in the eyes of any sane person.

 

If you find no problem with murder, though, I think there is a topic from a few years ago on this forum that discussed why exactly murder is a bad thing, and the implications of social justice, "morality", ethics, and the differences between each. Check that out.

Yeah, I know I'm throwing around "worth" and "value" too much, I tried to point that out...

 

When it really gets down to it, I'm saying that I think the mother's life should have precedence over that of an unborn child. The comments of how newborns were barely developed were mostly a way to try to put the state an unborn child must be into a different perspective--one that's not concerned with its brain activity, but with the actual practical impacts of its life.

 

I don't agree with murder, but I suppose this is where I reveal myself as insane, because I don't think that killing a fetus is a far stretch from killing a small animal, yet most people have no qualms with this either. I suppose the real question I'm asking, is why do we still consider it human, and hold its life to a higher precedent than its mother? I've tried my best to explain why I don't, but now I'm just running around in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Why is everyone looking at isolated stages of life and making decisions based on that? Like, "well a baby doesn't have a brain at X time, so it's not really human so whatever just kill it".

 

Except, that it WILL have a brain if you don't kill it.

 

Look at it this way. Say we have a 1 day old baby. It's pretty useless right now. It can't even control its own limbs. So why don't we just cut off one of its arms? It's not using it for anything, and hell, it's not even aware of it, so what's wrong with cutting off its arm? Hell, let's be humane and use anaesthetic so it can't even feel anything.

 

At 1 day old, having an arm and not having an arm are indistinguishable to the baby.

 

Up until a certain point, having a brain is indistinguishable to not having a brain when it comes to being a human.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that the potential exists for the embryo to become a human.

 

Cutting off a baby's arm is wrong because of what you are doing to the baby's POTENTIAL.

 

Abortion is killing the POTENTIAL for a human to even have a life.

 

This does not apply to semen, or unfertilised eggs. Left to their own devices, these things do not become people. But fertilised eggs do. Once an egg is fertilised, terminating it is precisely the same as killing a human. It doesn't matter if you kill it at the moment of conception, or 3 months in, or the day it is born, or when it is 6 years old. You are killing a child that would otherwise, without your intervention, have a life of its own.

 

Trying to justify that preventing someone from living is "Ok" just because they don't meet some arbitrary criteria for what you determine is living at a specific instance frozen in time is just f*cking stupid. The fact will always remain that being a human is a process. It begins at conception and ends when you die. At no 2 points during that process are you the same. You are not the same person you were 2 years ago. You are not the exact same person that you were 2 seconds ago. You are a constantly changing fluctuation of chemical reactions. Which instances of your existence are you being "alive"? Which ones are you not alive? At which instance did you become alive? You are an unbroken chain of chemical reactions stretching back to the beginning of the universe when matter first formed.

 

___

 

That said, I think abortion is fine. But that's because I think killing people is fine. Killing people is an evolved behaviour selected for by women who like to have babies with violent men. Killing is part of being human. It's part of life and evolution. Abortion IS murder, but murder is ok too.

 

But if you don't agree that killing people is fine, then to support abortion is just plain myopic hypocrisy.

 

And you're an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero
Well, erm, plants don't have brains.

Neither do fetuses until a certain stage. If it's all about the brain power, then we should feel perfectly justified in aborting a pregnancy before the brain development of a fetus at very least exceeds that of other primates.

Except for the reasons that Mortukai just so eloquently stated.

 

Here's a pretty basic analogy. Let's say you're the mayor of a city. Let's say that deterioration of abandon property is a pretty big issue in your city. So, you start knocking down buildings that are abandoned and deteriorated. All is well. Let's say in center city, your people have just signed a new deal to build a beautiful building. It'll be the tallest, most grand building in the city, but it'll take a few years to make it. 18 months into it, you, the mayor, knock it the f*ck down with a wrecking ball because at that point it was only a pile of steel and glass that nobody was living in - same as the deteriorating places. Why the f*ck wouldn't you knock down a useless piece of metal and glass that just absorbed all the resources of the city?

 

Because it was gonna f*cking be built into something that was worth it before you came and ruined it because you couldn't see the potential.

 

 

 

And Mort, I'm going to have to disagree with your "murder is an evolved behavior" philosophy. Extensive studies have shown that the vast majority of people who commit murder go through some serious trauma afterwards in the form of guilt and regret. These are mechanisms that evolved into our behavior to discourage such acts.

 

You said yourself a few posts up that our only goal here is to procreate and multiply. It's only logical that the exact opposite of that - murder - is discouraged...evolutionarily. Is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im Rick James B**ch!

 

That said, I think abortion is fine. But that's because I think killing people is fine. Killing people is an evolved behaviour selected for by women who like to have babies with violent men. Killing is part of being human. It's part of life and evolution. Abortion IS murder, but murder is ok too.

Thank you! Finally someone with a mature perception of morality.

 

 

You said yourself a few posts up that our only goal here is to procreate and multiply. It's only logical that the exact opposite of that - murder - is discouraged...evolutionarily. Is it not?

I believe that our goal of procreation is personal, therefore murder does not directly contradict this. That said, murder can still effect this personal goal. For example, murdering does not reflect the ethical standards of society, therefore you cannot use ethics as a sexual ornament.

 

 

And Mort, I'm going to have to disagree with your "murder is an evolved behavior" philosophy. Extensive studies have shown that the vast majority of people who commit murder go through some serious trauma afterwards in the form of guilt and regret. These are mechanisms that evolved into our behavior to discourage such acts.

 

The fact you stated carries connotations of unlawful killing rather than general killing. Such scenarios of unlawful killing should be regretted because they f*ck up the life of the killer. Notice how people who kill a stranger in "do or die" scenarios do not really regret it. I have. Murder which effects one's self negatively is usually regretted, and so it should. Murders which don't are rarely regretted. I think their is enough historical evidence to prove this.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

Why is everyone looking at isolated stages of life and making decisions based on that? Like, "well a baby doesn't have a brain at X time, so it's not really human so whatever just kill it".

 

Except, that it WILL have a brain if you don't kill it.

 

Look at it this way. Say we have a 1 day old baby. It's pretty useless right now. It can't even control its own limbs. So why don't we just cut off one of its arms? It's not using it for anything, and hell, it's not even aware of it, so what's wrong with cutting off its arm? Hell, let's be humane and use anaesthetic so it can't even feel anything.

 

At 1 day old, having an arm and not having an arm are indistinguishable to the baby.

 

Up until a certain point, having a brain is indistinguishable to not having a brain when it comes to being a human.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that the potential exists for the embryo to become a human.

 

Cutting off a baby's arm is wrong because of what you are doing to the baby's POTENTIAL.

 

Abortion is killing the POTENTIAL for a human to even have a life.

 

This does not apply to semen, or unfertilised eggs. Left to their own devices, these things do not become people. But fertilised eggs do. Once an egg is fertilised, terminating it is precisely the same as killing a human. It doesn't matter if you kill it at the moment of conception, or 3 months in, or the day it is born, or when it is 6 years old. You are killing a child that would otherwise, without your intervention, have a life of its own.

 

Trying to justify that preventing someone from living is "Ok" just because they don't meet some arbitrary criteria for what you determine is living at a specific instance frozen in time is just f*cking stupid. The fact will always remain that being a human is a process. It begins at conception and ends when you die. At no 2 points during that process are you the same. You are not the same person you were 2 years ago. You are not the exact same person that you were 2 seconds ago. You are a constantly changing fluctuation of chemical reactions. Which instances of your existence are you being "alive"? Which ones are you not alive? At which instance did you become alive? You are an unbroken chain of chemical reactions stretching back to the beginning of the universe when matter first formed.

 

___

 

That said, I think abortion is fine. But that's because I think killing people is fine. Killing people is an evolved behaviour selected for by women who like to have babies with violent men. Killing is part of being human. It's part of life and evolution. Abortion IS murder, but murder is ok too.

 

But if you don't agree that killing people is fine, then to support abortion is just plain myopic hypocrisy.

 

And you're an idiot.

I must have been really flailing for two rather intelligent people to completely miss my god damn point...

 

The baby has no brain, it sh*ts itself, whatever. That doesn't mean it deserves to die. My point here is that I think it's up to the woman baring that child to decide, because I view her life as really the ultimate determination of whether that baby dies while she's still pregnant. In case either of you missed it, I said in the first post I felt that the current abortion laws were apt because it gives the mother rights and the unborn infant some rights to protect that potential as well.

 

My comments of the "worth" or "value" of a baby's life were to try to put into perspective my view, which I think is quite the solar opposite of most. I don't believe that a baby's life is very special at all, yet I continually watch as people treat it as if it were the most important thing in the world, with the concept of, "It's a potential life," or, "It's so pure and innocent." I would rather have a human life capable of an original thought, of doing a good deed, than one that can merely spit up on itself and look cute. These were not comments of the baby deserving to live, rather trying to view the notion of abortion without so much emotional linking to, "Oh, but it's a baby, it's so cute," or, "Oh, it's a baby, it has the potential to live". It's mind boggling to me that the thought of the baby's life is first priority over the mother's.

 

My questions on this page are geared toward discovering why people hold the life of an infant to a higher precedence than an already established, not to argue that the child is not really a human, or that it is less deserving than life; I was simply trying to present reasons why someone ( like myself ) would be of that viewpoint. Of course it is ultimately human, and will grow into one, I just simply want to know why the baby's "potential life" is so put on such a higher priority. So far all I've heard was, debate about the definition of life, or the potential of the life, or some analogy with steel buildings ( not to mention some personal insults, but if you're not above that, I won't complain ).

 

When I say I'm against killing, thats because the analogy being presented as that of killing another person, or to phrase it better, murdering another human being, and I'm more commenting on the fact that I think there should be laws against just going out and murdering people--again, could've said that better, but when all of my other points were being misinterpreted and misconstrued, I guess I just didn't feel I should put much effort.

 

And before you comment, I realize a woman aborting her fetus could be synonymous with "going out and murdering people", but I'd like to state that I do have double standards. If anyone were to kill a rapist or a murderer, I would have no qualms about it. This of course implies some people are more worthy of life than others, and that's where the double standard is. It's a result of this, that I don't find it wrong at all that a mother kill an unborn fetus to preserve her own life ( including aspects outside of vital significance, like her career, etc. ), but I would find it wrong for a mother to kill a child if it is already born.

 

 

Now, you want to talk about "potential" life. Well, I hate to be so speculative about quality of life, but I have a hard time agreeing that the life of someone born to a totally unfit mother will quite enjoy that life. If instead that mother has time to get her sh*t straight, and later she can birth two healthy children, that can be raised with a much better quality of life... Now, why are we protecting each little instance of potential life so much, when instead we should be concerned with the mother; after all, if there is no mother, there is no potential life in the first place.

 

That's about as straight forward as I can get, yet I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to be misinterpreted again. That's fine, as long as one of you can justify outside of, "It's a potential life," or, "It's human," why the mother's future and "potential life" should take a backseat to the unborn fetus.

 

Here's a better question, that I think can take away from speculation and misinterpretation...

 

If you were somehow able to get pregnant, and you did, and your government told you, "No, you have to bare the child, because it's "potential life" is more deserving of our protecting than the one you've established", would you agree with that? Thankfully there's not a lot of governments saying that, but if any of them did, would any of you really accept that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.