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

Rastaja

Abortion

Recommended Posts

tommy vs. claude

My opinion:

 

 

 

I don't understand why anybody would be anti-women. ( I don't call it pro-life because some of the anti-women people are more than willing too kill the doctors who give abortions.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

Abortion is fine as long as it is a decision made between the father and the mother. And, this is the most important part, if people admit that abortion is the murder of a child. Why fight it? Why gloss over what you're doing? I'm all for it but I expect honesty. You want to be a murderer? I have no objections to killing an innocent baby but admit that you're doing it. Don't paint it in bright colours just to make it easier. Just tell the truth. And don't try to make it a feminist issue either. It's not. It's a simple matter of organised murder. Murder commited to either spare you or the baby unnecessary pain. You can't wash the blood off your hands? Can't stop the screaming in your ears? Your problem. You want to kill your own child? Accept responsibility. Be mature about it. There's nothing to be ashamed of. You just took advantage of a system that was designed to make life a little easier. Because, let's face it, having a baby is a big responsibility and if you cannot give that child the life it deserves then how can you look at yourself in the mirror? You know, it's a lot like an injured animal. You see a fox with two legs ripped off, bleeding, howling, suffering terribly. You put a bullet through its head, or you slit its throat. You don't let it suffer. Same with children. Abortion not only keeps the population down by murdering future generations before they are born, it also spares the child the pain of a meaningless life. Perhaps a life of poverty or abuse. And when you see that little baby give out a tiny scream as the life is drawn out you should make no mistake that the killing was done out of love. But admit that it is killing and let's move from there. And as well as that admit that the father has the same rights as the mother. His genetic material is in there too. he loves that child too. He has the right to decide, with the mother, what becomes of his legacy. Whether it is cut down or grows wild. Women do not have the right to rob men of their children and I sense a lot of spite and a lot of sexism in those who say otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayden Stasven

It's the involved party that should make the decision whether or not to keep their fetal child. We have too many damn people in the world, abortions can only help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iminicus

Is it your body?

Is it your psychological pain?

Is it you who has to decide to violate and possible destroy your chances of having another baby?

 

If you answer 'No' to one of those questions, you have no right telling a woman/girl/lady/female what to do when it comes to them and their unborn child. You are not the one who has to live with the choice as deeply and emotionally as they do. You are just a bystander, someone who is there to accept whatever they choose is right for themselves. You may disagree with their chose, but you have no right to tell her what she can and can't do to herself.

 

I am not Pro Choice. I am not Pro Life. I am not Anti Abortion. I am Pro Woman. I believe that the only person who can make this decision is the woman. No one else can. You can guide her. You can tell her that you want the child. You can do all sorts of things, but you cannot make the decision for her.

 

I do think that the only acceptable time is within the first trimester, unless there is medical reasons for a later date termination. I also think that Rape Victims that become pregnant should have the child aborted. Why would you want to have a living breathing reminder of a traumatic experience forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

 

You are just a bystander, someone who is there to accept whatever they choose is right for themselves.

True. But our values our our values and cannot be changed. Sexual equality is an ideal that cannot be compromised. Being "Pro-Women" is against that ideal. All peoples are equal and therefore have equal say in whether to murder the child. Women do not feel things more deeply then men. Men are not second class citizens. Women should not be forced to bear a child they do not see having a good life. You see the problems you people create for yourselves? You let your heart govern your genetic duty. All of a sudden these delusions of equality go out the window. By suggesting that a Father be robbed of his child you are labelling him a lesser person. A lesser being. A being worthy not of fatherhood or life. You rape him of his dignity, his rape him of his rights, you rape him of his emotions and his right to express those emotions. Hypocrites one and all. You would agree with abortion but not have the guts to accept that you are killing a baby. What is the problem with infantcide? Been happening for years. But to ease the conscience of the weak you have to try and prove that it is nothing more than a souless being. Accept and embrace bloodshed. Slaughtering our young is a natural purge that all animals engage in. We are no better. We are no better because we can not stick to our story. You see, we were all fed that lie: "Everyone is the same, you shouldn't treat other people differently".

But all too soon you see it for the crock that it is. You learn that if you are a woman you are not equal. You are better. And somehow you have the right to murder a mans child, destroy his genetic legacy and get away with it. Because you are a woman and have a right to do so. Heirarchy never went away. It just grew breasts and learnt how to fill out a sexual discrimination form. Oh, they are so sensitive! They are so deep! They are always right! No one is infallible and no one should be judged based on how quickly they can jerk you off.

Breeding centres are the only answer. Yes. Breeding centres where the next generation of worthy blood is fed into the world and the rest is terminated like the worthless rubbish it is. You people are animals and if you cannot rise above your base instincts then you should be bred as animals. In horrid conditions and on the most meagre of luxuries. Men and women used as the stupid objects they are. Machines designed to reproduce and nothing more.

Edited by Typhus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iminicus
*snip*

First, write in seperate paragraphs and not one long unbroken one. This makes it easier for someone to read and understand what you are trying to get across.

 

Values have nothing to do with it. It is entirely up to the woman in the end. As I said, you can talk to her, you can try and persuade her to keep the child, but in the end it is entirely up to her. You are not the one who has to go through the traumatic experience of violating your body. Get over your values. They have no play in it whatsoever.

 

Here is an idea. You go get pregnant and then you decide if you want to keep the child. Adoption isn't always the right choice and neither is keeping and raising the child. Abortion, also, isn't always the right choice. You cannot just expect people to think and value life the way you do.

 

Abortion isn't a requirement or a none option. It is one of three choices for a pregnant woman. She can choose to abort, adopt, or raise. What she chooses is and always will be up to her.

 

Typhus, you make it out as you are the only one who has a say, when in fact, you have no say over the final choice. I think you need to realize that. Also, it isn't my values or your values that come into play, but her values. So, why you brought values into it; is beside me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

 

Typhus, you make it out as you are the only one who has a say, when in fact, you have no say over the final choice. I think you need to realize that. Also, it isn't my values or your values that come into play, but her values. So, why you brought values into it; is beside me.

No, that's not what he said, i actually agree with him

 

See it like this:

 

You go to Boston to celebrate with some friends St. Patrick's Day, turns out that at a bar you meet a beautiful red haired irish chick, you get together and you have sex with her, two months later when you meet her again, you discover that she's pregnant, now you could feel like sh*t, you could run away OR be happy because you're having a baby, the problem is that she differs and wants to abort it, regardless of your commitment to both her and the baby in the form of financial and emotional support.

 

So you go to solve it decently and properly, with the law, problem is, is that the law in Massachussets gives fully authority on the baby's birth to the woman, as a consequence the red haired irish girl aborts the baby you wanted, and at that moment, you just realize not only that you got stomped on but that your opinion in a "democratic" society has been completely ignored.

 

SEX is an action made by TWO people, FERTILIZATION is an action made by TWO people, so regardless if you are pro-life or pro-choice:

 

ABORTION is an decision made by TWO people.

 

Or at least it should be bored.gif

Edited by Ph3L1z14n0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmy.

The world is growing exponentially, and, in the next 40 years alone, we will gain a projected 2.5 billion people, according to the US Census Bureau, and world population will reach well over 9 billion. Realize that it took from the beginning of human existence up to about 1950 for the world to reach 2.5 billion, and we will be duplicating that that in 40 years. I think the world will have to address voluntary limits on population, or soon enough, even possibly in our lifetime, war and genocide will be inevitable as resources shrink. Therefore, any form of voluntary population control is absolutely fine by me. I have a very minimal ethical objection to it, but it's severely undermined by what I just described.

 

There is also the argument that I would rather see a child brought up by a parent that is willing and ready to support it than have one coming from a broken household.

Edited by jimmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canofceleri

Abortion is beautiful. Why anyone would want to make illegal one of life's most precious institutions is beyond me. I think everyone should try it at least once. Especially saline abortions.

 

If abortion was made illegal it would still happen, only it would be more dangerous as women would become involved with criminals and have "shady back alley abortions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Straznicy

I'm pretty appalled by some modern abortion's stance that killing a child should be available without considering any other factors whatsoever. The fact we've reached such a devalued view on life should be worrying for all of us. I'm relatively satisfied with the current abortion laws the UK has, which in nutshell say a woman can have an abortion if:

 

-If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped.

-It's carried out to save the woman's life.

-Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman.

-Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren).

-Rape (It'd be foolish to disagree I think, even though it is rare.)

-The mother is underage, encompassed by "physical or mental health of mother." (Again, I see this as an acceptable reason, but only in extreme circumstances.)

 

Without question I agree to the abortion of a child if it would threaten the mother's life or physical health, any case, any day. However, I vehemently oppose an abortion being carried out if the woman is emotionally unprepared to raise a child or cannot support them because they already have "too many" children. Why not put these children up for adoption to avoid needlessly murdering an unborn child - because that's what it bottles down to folks, murdering a fellow human, none of this "it's still just a foetus" bullsh*t makes any difference. You may say that child would be unhappy waiting to get adopted, and sure, some places do have serious issues with people not adopting enough. But at least they're alive, and free to express themselves and think, liberties the unborn child does not have. Too many extreme pro-abortionists seem to forget the unborn child does not enjoy these same basic human rights.

 

Woman's rights? f*ck off. It's not just women involved the process of life - men make up 50% of it. In Scotland at least, a would-be father can do nothing to intervene should a would-be mother decide she wants an abortion. How can anyone think this is just? Have men suddenly lost power over the lives of their children, and their well-being? Even if the father offers to raise the child himself, and be held totally responsible for its well-being, a woman can still say no and have the abortion carried out. It's both parents child, both parents should have the power to stop their abortion (unless of course it was a case of rape.)

 

The child has rights too, it's a human. Everyone has the right to live, and in my opinion freely-available abortion conflicts with this. For every biological mother who was irresponsible enough to get pregnant without wanting a baby, there will be an adoptive mother who would raise a child. Everyone has to be allowed the chance to live.

 

As I said, I think my nation's present laws are satiable, but I'd like to see drastic change to allow the involvement of the father in the decision process surrounding abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vercetti21

I agree that the decision should be the woman's, but that is not the prime debate to me. It is about whether abortion is right or wrong. That being said, I'm going to move away from the pack and separate my opinion from everyone else's.

 

I am pro-life. And yes, although we hear it way too much, abortion is murder. Here's why:

 

If a born baby were killed, it would be considered murder, but if it is still inside the womb, people seem to think it is okay. Even when the baby is only a week-old fetus that is still half a sperm cell, most people do not consider it to be human, therefore if it were killed it would not be murder. However, if a pregnant woman is killed, the suspect is convicted of a double murder. This means that the law considers the baby to be just as much of a victim as the mother - the unborn baby is a human being. But, the law contradicts itself in saying that it is okay to kill the fetus, as long as it is an abortionist doing so.

 

I just don't see the logic in that. I understand circumstances that involve a pregnancy which could jeopardize the mother and the child's life, and in that instance I think it would be fine. But it scares me to see that the opportunity is out there for potential parents to destroy their very own creation, when they could easily just give it up for adoption. Yeah, the girl will have to go through with the pregnancy, but since when have there not been consequences to our actions? You can't - and shouldn't - work your way around your own mistake by killing an innocent being.

 

If you decided you were responsible enough to have unprotected sex, you've already decided that you're responsible enough to have a child. Period.

Edited by Vercetti21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.

I wouldn't consider myself as strictly pro-life, yet I would consider myself as someone who believes in fair responsibilty.

 

If two people have unprotected sex by accident, do you know what it is? Bad luck. It's bad luck because the father did not think about putting a condom on, nor did he think about the consequences of, well, I don't think I need to explain it in explicit detail.

 

In the end, no to abortion. It doesn't matter if it is a 15-year-old girl who wants an abortion, she shouldn't need to because it was partially her fault that she was in that mess in the first place. (That is, unless she was raped, which is an exception).

 

I think abortion should be illegal unless it is to kill a fetus which was partially made by a rapist. So if a woman is raped, yet impregnated, she should be allowed to have abortion, if she wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
I agree that the decision should be the woman's, but that is not the prime debate to me. It is about whether abortion is right or wrong. That being said, I'm going to move away from the pack and separate my opinion from everyone else's.

 

I am pro-life. And yes, although we hear it way too much, abortion is murder. Here's why:

 

If a born baby were killed, it would be considered murder, but if it is still inside the womb, people seem to think it is okay. Even when the baby is only a week-old fetus that is still half a sperm cell, most people do not consider it to be human, therefore if it were killed it would not be murder. However, if a pregnant woman is killed, the suspect is convicted of a double murder. This means that the law considers the baby to be just as much of a victim as the mother - the unborn baby is a human being. But, the law contradicts itself in saying that it is okay to kill the fetus, as long as it is an abortionist doing so.

 

I just don't see the logic in that. I understand circumstances that involve a pregnancy which could jeopardize the mother and the child's life, and in that instance I think it would be fine. But it scares me to see that the opportunity is out there for potential parents to destroy their very own creation, when they could easily just give it up for adoption. Yeah, the girl will have to go through with the pregnancy, but since when have there not been consequences to our actions? You can't - and shouldn't - work your way around your own mistake by killing an innocent being.

 

If you decided you were responsible enough to have unprotected sex, you've already decided that you're responsible enough to have a child. Period.

I think it is important to the discussion to know what they believe about the woman's choice to keep the baby.

 

It's interesting what you said about the law indeed, i had never thought about it that way wow.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
I think it is important to the discussion to know what they believe about the woman's choice to keep the baby.

 

Well, of course it's important. After all, it is the woman's baby, and of course she should have a say in whether she wants to keep it or not. Yet there's the key word; wants. That is what she wants, yet it is not necessary for her to actually kill the baby, which is why, in my view, abortion is pointless, unless it is to prevent the mother from dieing or if a woman was raped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Girish
I think it is important to the discussion to know what they believe about the woman's choice to keep the baby.

 

Well, of course it's important. After all, it is the woman's baby, and of course she should have a say in whether she wants to keep it or not. Yet there's the key word; wants. That is what she wants, yet it is not necessary for her to actually kill the baby, which is why, in my view, abortion is pointless, unless it is to prevent the mother from dieing or if a woman was raped.

In cases of rapes, the woman wouldn't want the baby anyway, right? Why not just have the baby? If she doesn't want to raise the baby, there are many child care centres ready to accept the child and find foster parents for it. That should work if the baby is so much of a concern factor.

 

From my personal point of view, abortion within the first 3 months of pregnancy should not be considered unethical. It's perfectly fine considering the circumstances under which the pregnancy occured. Consider the following cases:

1. A 14 year old girl gets pregnant.

2. A poor couple, which is not ready or capable to start a family yet, has an unwarranted pregnancy in their house.

3. Pregnancy as a result of sexual molestation.

4. Pregnancy due to ignorance and carelessness on the part of the couple involved.

 

In all of the above cases, it's better to drop the child rather than have it and make it suffer. Within the first 3 months of pregnancy, when the child is just in the developing stages, it'd be fair and acceptable for everyone concerned to let the child go. Later on, it might become impossible to abort and the child would just remain a burden on others. That would be apalling, hence the need for abortion.

 

So what part of abortion is unethical? I would say the following:

1. Abortion coz the child is a girl.

This is a major problem of under-developed/developing countried like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. The population of these countries is sky-rocketing. People are least bothered about this fact; neither are they bothered about the declining female:male sex ratio. This is most certainly unethical; not to mention the fact that this condition poses a major threat to the development of the country.

 

2. Abortion as a result of divorce.

In most of these cases, the couple decide to part ways in midst of a pregnancy, resulting in the woman no longer wanting to have the man's child. I feel, in these cases, the child should not suffer and there's an equal chance of the couple regretting their decision of abortion later on. So I would say, as the child is the product of love between two individuals, it's not fair they abort it just because they no longer are together. Regret would occur if the couple decides to get back together.

 

3. Abortion due to change of minds of it's parents.

This is plain stupidity. Now you want to have a kid, now you don't. Then again you decide to have a kid, now again you don't. This isn't some kind of a f*cking game. The couple need to get a grip on themselves lest it's too late even to regret. this is certainly unacceptable.

 

Amongst all these things, the woman should certainly have her say since she's going to be the one who has to go through the ordeal for 9 whole months. I had also read in a survey somewhere that the state of mind of the mother affects the child in a lot of ways. So, most importantly, if the mother is not ready, it may have adverse effects on the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
Well, of course it's important. After all, it is the woman's baby, and of course she should have a say in whether she wants to keep it or not. Yet there's the key word; wants. That is what she wants, yet it is not necessary for her to actually kill the baby, which is why, in my view, abortion is pointless, unless it is to prevent the mother from dieing or if a woman was raped.

No, it is the woman and the man's baby, regardless of the relation between the two, every baby has a biological father and a biological mother, that's why i seriously disagree with Massachussets law to grant the responsability of the baby only to the mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
Well, of course it's important. After all, it is the woman's baby, and of course she should have a say in whether she wants to keep it or not. Yet there's the key word; wants. That is what she wants, yet it is not necessary for her to actually kill the baby, which is why, in my view, abortion is pointless, unless it is to prevent the mother from dieing or if a woman was raped.

No, it is the woman and the man's baby, regardless of the relation between the two, every baby has a biological father and a biological mother, that's why i seriously disagree with Massachussets law to grant the responsability of the baby only to the mother.

I didn't say that it is only the mother's baby, I said simply that it is not just the father's baby, and that the mother also has a 'stake' in the child aswell. I was trying to say that it is her baby aswell, and she should have every right to make a decision/opinion about whether to abort or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
Well, of course it's important. After all, it is the woman's baby, and of course she should have a say in whether she wants to keep it or not. Yet there's the key word; wants. That is what she wants, yet it is not necessary for her to actually kill the baby, which is why, in my view, abortion is pointless, unless it is to prevent the mother from dieing or if a woman was raped.

No, it is the woman and the man's baby, regardless of the relation between the two, every baby has a biological father and a biological mother, that's why i seriously disagree with Massachussets law to grant the responsability of the baby only to the mother.

I didn't say that it is only the mother's baby, I said simply that it is not just the father's baby, and that the mother also has a 'stake' in the child aswell. I was trying to say that it is her baby aswell, and she should have every right to make a decision/opinion about whether to abort or not.

Yeah i know, i was just trying to get that "out of my chest" tounge.gif

 

I think that the real problem with abortion is not the action of aborting the baby, i am against abortion, but not because of the "lack of respect for life" or because "it's murder", it certainly isn't like that, the real problem is the consequence that abortion can trigger, we never think of the consequences of our actions as a society, just imagine if abortion was legalized, THEN what? just think about it, it's not gonna happily ever after what comes next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

You guys seem to be missing the point. We live in a society where those who are alive are granted certain rights. If you are "pro-forfeiting my rights given to me by my government as a human being", then by all means stop me here and I can't judge you.

 

Since most of you aren't anarchists (and if you are, your opinion is hardly asked for), I'm going to presume that you value rights of the living. So what does it mean to be alive, you might ask? Well, this has been a hot button issue for some time. Any logic 101 class in university will show you that a good way to solve questions of affirmation is to look for solid inverses. That's what I'll do here.

 

There's a hazy definition of what it means to come into life, but to come out of life (IE death) is pretty strictly defined by the American Medical Association. It's when you cease to have brain activity. So the converse should be true, then, that you are first alive when you begin to have brain activity. This is generally 6-8 weeks into a pregnancy.

 

My position, then, is that of course it is fine to abort a nonliving thing, as it's fine to perform an appendectimy. My position also is of course it is murder to kill a living person, which I have already strictly defined in accordance with Logic®.

 

Anyone who says "it's up to the woman", etc, is a moron. Is it up to a mother if she wants to kill her 3 year old? She'll bear the same emotional pain, and if he fights back she'll bear the same physical pain. Is it still her prerogative? No.

 

Anyone who says "legal abortions are much safer and cleaner than if they were illegal in back alleys" is a moron. The government does not legalize illegal things because they are safer under supervision. If there were a government agency dedicated to performing murders for its civilians, sure, people wouldn't have to deal with criminals, and payment would be much cleaner, BUT KILLING PEOPLE IS ILLEGAL.

 

As those are the only arguments I see being made with any fervor, I'll only address them. Someone please try to show me the error of my ways with Logic®.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vercetti21

 

In all of the above cases, it's better to drop the child rather than have it and make it suffer.

I read all of your post up until this point, and all of the above listed cases could have easily been substituted by adoption.

 

Who are we to decide if the baby should live or die? Even if the child has a suck-ass life, they deserve the chance of life. Spartans killed any deformed babies from their time of birth. We kill babies if they are simply an inconvenience in our life, even if we are the ones responsible for bringing them into the world. If we decide to "drop" the child, we are moving backwards in society, or "devolving" morally.

 

 

There's a hazy definition of what it means to come into life, but to come out of life (IE death) is pretty strictly defined by the American Medical Association. It's when you cease to have brain activity. So the converse should be true, then, that you are first alive when you begin to have brain activity. This is generally 6-8 weeks into a pregnancy.

 

My position, then, is that of course it is fine to abort a nonliving thing, as it's fine to perform an appendectimy. My position also is of course it is murder to kill a living person, which I have already strictly defined in accordance with Logic®.

You shouldn't be so technical about what is considered to be alive and what isn't. To say that a certain stage of pregnancy makes abortion more acceptable than another stage of pregnancy is absurd. You're statement that an abortion is similar to an appendectomy is also invalid, as an appendix has no function, is not important, and does not have the potential of becoming a human being. As you've asked for a logical argument to your opinions, I will quote my previous post in response, as it does not get much more logical than that.

 

 

However, if a pregnant woman is killed, the suspect is convicted of a double murder. This means that the law considers the baby to be just as much of a victim as the mother - the unborn baby is a human being. But, the law contradicts itself in saying that it is okay to kill the fetus, as long as it is an abortionist doing so.

The law has already decided that an unborn baby is "alive", while at the same time, the law has enforced that the killing of something alive, is murder.

Edited by Vercetti21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
Who are we to decide if the baby should live or die? Even if the child has a suck-ass life, they deserve the chance of life. Spartans killed any deformed babies from their time of birth. We kill babies if they are simply an inconvenience in our life, even if we are the ones responsible for bringing them into the world. If we decide to "drop" the child, we are moving backwards in society, or "devolving" morally.

 

 

That's not the point as to whether we should decide whether it has the right to live or not. If it is going to compromise the living standards of the family, then what's the point? I think a child would rather not exist than exist in a world which is, quite frankly, bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero
Who are we to decide if the baby should live or die? Even if the child has a suck-ass life, they deserve the chance of life. Spartans killed any deformed babies from their time of birth. We kill babies if they are simply an inconvenience in our life, even if we are the ones responsible for bringing them into the world. If we decide to "drop" the child, we are moving backwards in society, or "devolving" morally.

 

 

That's not the point as to whether we should decide whether it has the right to live or not. If it is going to compromise the living standards of the family, then what's the point? I think a child would rather not exist than exist in a world which is, quite frankly, bad.

So we should stop procreating? Think before you post.

 

 

@Vercetti,

 

You should be technical about when life begins and and ends so we can draw boundaries about what murder is. And fine, forget the appendix, let's say someone wants to cut their arm off. That's legal. It has a function, it's important, it's part of the body. No, not satisfied? It can't become a human you say? Well you better arrest every kid on this forum because I know they beat off six times a day at least, and every one of those legions of sperm has the potential to become a human. The "potential" argument is logically fallacious.

 

The only thing that makes sense is consistent, technically rigid laws, like the ones I've proposed in this post:

 

 

You guys seem to be missing the point. We live in a society where those who are alive are granted certain rights. If you are "pro-forfeiting my rights given to me by my government as a human being", then by all means stop me here and I can't judge you.

 

Since most of you aren't anarchists (and if you are, your opinion is hardly asked for), I'm going to presume that you value rights of the living. So what does it mean to be alive, you might ask? Well, this has been a hot button issue for some time. Any logic 101 class in university will show you that a good way to solve questions of affirmation is to look for solid inverses. That's what I'll do here.

 

There's a hazy definition of what it means to come into life, but to come out of life (IE death) is pretty strictly defined by the American Medical Association. It's when you cease to have brain activity. So the converse should be true, then, that you are first alive when you begin to have brain activity. This is generally 6-8 weeks into a pregnancy.

 

My position, then, is that of course it is fine to abort a nonliving thing, as it's fine to perform an appendectimy. My position also is of course it is murder to kill a living person, which I have already strictly defined in accordance with Logic®.

 

Anyone who says "it's up to the woman", etc, is a moron. Is it up to a mother if she wants to kill her 3 year old? She'll bear the same emotional pain, and if he fights back she'll bear the same physical pain. Is it still her prerogative? No.

 

Anyone who says "legal abortions are much safer and cleaner than if they were illegal in back alleys" is a moron. The government does not legalize illegal things because they are safer under supervision. If there were a government agency dedicated to performing murders for its civilians, sure, people wouldn't have to deal with criminals, and payment would be much cleaner, BUT KILLING PEOPLE IS ILLEGAL.

 

As those are the only arguments I see being made with any fervor, I'll only address them. Someone please try to show me the error of my ways with Logic®.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
So we should stop procreating? Think before you post.

 

 

 

No, I never said we should stop procreating. I simply said that if the birth of the baby is going to lower the living standards of the family as a unit, then why let a baby enter into it at that moment?

 

 

You should be technical about when life begins and and ends so we can draw boundaries about what murder is.  And fine, forget the appendix, let's say someone wants to cut their arm off.  That's legal.  It has a function, it's important, it's part of the body.  No, not satisfied?  It can't become a human you say?  Well you better arrest every kid on this forum because I know they beat off six times a day at least, and every one of those legions of sperm has the potential to become a human.  The "potential" argument is logically fallacious.

 

Good point, although you do realise that not everyone on these Forums actually jacks off six times a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Girish

Procreating just for the heck of it or for fun isn't ethical; atleast not for the child. A lot of thought and consideration goes into whether or not a couple should start a family.

 

Take my example. Do you think I should impregnate a girl just because I can? No, I won't be fathering a child until I'm financially secure and in a position to meet the demands of my child. In India, people are of the opinion that having more kids will contribute to the overall income of the family. But does that guarantee a rise in the standard of living? No. This is beacuse most of the families having more than 3-4 kids aren't in a position to educate their children and push them to the higher strata of the society.

Moreover, the rich are in no mood to help the poor and the needy fearing that their position in the society will be hampered if they do so.

 

If it's a male child, there isn't any need for him to study because he's just going to continue his father's occupation (eg. farmer, goldsmith, worker, tailor, etc.) These occupations don't require educational skills, so why educate them?

 

If it's a female child, she's going to be married off and will be doing the household chores. Where the hell is there a need to study?

 

These are the general perceptions of people in the lower strata of the society. Family planning in such countries has fallen so hard in it's face that I need not even mention it.

 

The point that I make amongst all these is that one needs to understand that their reponsibility doesn't end at the birth of the child. The child's education and up-bringing and everything else contributes to the development of the society and subsequently the nation.

 

So, whether or not to give birth is a decision that not only affects the child, but everything else that's associated with it. It's a decision that has to be taken sensibly considering both the pre and post effects of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero
OT essay

That's all well and nice, but this isn't a topic about whether or not we should be nice to our babies. It's a topic about whether or not we should kill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Girish
OT essay

That's all well and nice, but this isn't a topic about whether or not we should be nice to our babies. It's a topic about whether or not we should kill them.

Uhh...that's my exact point.

 

 

So, whether or not to give birth is a decision that not only affects the child, but everything else that's associated with it. It's a decision that has to be taken sensibly considering both the pre and post effects of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

By that logic, we should kill all babies born with mental deficiencies that are extreme enough to be inconvenient for the parents. Or if someone's in a car accident and the family can't afford the medical bills, we should have the victim killed. Hell, if a kid is just a brat and won't listen and trashes the house every day, kill him. There are always a range of effects when dealing with human beings. Rarely are any of them grounds for murder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Girish
By that logic, we should kill all babies born with mental deficiencies that are extreme enough to be inconvenient for the parents. Or if someone's in a car accident and the family can't afford the medical bills, we should have the victim killed. Hell, if a kid is just a brat and won't listen and trashes the house every day, kill him. There are always a range of effects when dealing with human beings. Rarely are any of them grounds for murder.

Whatever you have stated are the post-effects. There's no point in giving birth and then admitting it was a mistake.

If you are mentally and physically prepared to be a parent, you have to be prepared for the after-effects too. That's what I meant. There's absolutely no point in making the child suffer his entire life for a 2 minute mistake that you made.

If you're not prepared, drop it in the embryo stage itself before it's too late to even regret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
By that logic, we should kill all babies born with mental deficiencies that are extreme enough to be inconvenient for the parents. Or if someone's in a car accident and the family can't afford the medical bills, we should have the victim killed. Hell, if a kid is just a brat and won't listen and trashes the house every day, kill him. There are always a range of effects when dealing with human beings. Rarely are any of them grounds for murder.

I think you're misunderstanding the point. What he's trying to say is that the child shouldn't suffer all his life because of a mistake, and that the acceptance of responsibility for the child is important for becoming a mentally strong parent. If the couple have an unexpected pregnancy, they should be able to accept responsibilty that they stuffed up, and that they have to pay the consequences for it.

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.