teen abortion?

[Marky]

I know this thread has probrably been done but I was wondering what you ppl thought about teen abortion??? I think if they want an abortion let them have one. Its better than bringing a child into a life with low chances of being successful. And i personaly think it better than going too adoption because you put that child into that states that tells them their parents didnt want them. (and before you say well they will get adopted not all children get adopted most adoption ages end when puberty starts too kick in.) so just let me know your thoughts.

[Jess]

as I'm pro-choice I am not against teen abortion. in fact I believe abortion would be the best for them, if they have the baby they'll ruin their lives (most of the time). What about school?

Regarding the choice "why would they get pregnant in the first place?" --- What if the girl was raped?

[restricted NA]

I'm personally not against it because what happens if a teen girl is raped i think it would be psychologically traumatic for a young girl to have their rapist's baby. I think its a girls right and choice to do what they want to there body, its sad that a child may never be born into the world but many children that aren't wanted go into adoption and sometimes where that child goes is bad, children feel abandoned by their biological parent .
Those are my thoughts.

[Marky]

thx u guys i agree with you 100% right now haha. and lets see what other have to say. and that last option was just to lighten up my mood :d

[RoseyCadaver]

I'm not for it nor against it,I don't believe you should be able to get an abortion past 1 month of pregnancy,I think abortion is just bad all around,minus rape :/,but they could give the baby for adoption.I think if schools promoted safe sex and condom use in the first place though,we wouldn't have this problem,would we?It sickens me how some parents don't think their kids should learn this.I'm talking about 12 to 18,not third or fourth graders xD!

[Marky]

true. at my old middle school their was a 13 year old who gave birth a few weeks ago

[RoseyCadaver]

true. at my old middle school their was a 13 year old who gave birth a few weeks ago

Oh my goodness that is just horrible!

That is why we need more sex ed!I hate to say this, but I sometimes think religion might be retarding our society as a whole :[(I like big words xD).

[DerBear]

to me abortion is a good thing because why have a world where their is underge mums living on benifits and the kids treated unfairly

also religion should not be taken into account when dealing with abortion

[scuba steve]

as I'm pro-choice I am not against teen abortion. in fact I believe abortion would be the best for them, if they have the baby they'll ruin their lives (most of the time). What about school?

Regarding the choice "why would they get pregnant in the first place?" --- What if the girl was raped?

This ^

[MadManWithaBox]

I'm not against teen abortion. In my old school, there was girls getting pregnant every week.

[Love.Hate]

Personally i think its the persons choice so im not for or agaisnt it.

[RoseyCadaver]

Well I will agree people should have the option,I just don't like it,no need to take away your rights.I still think they should be mroe proactive :(.I also see how it's better for it not to have to suffer a horrible life too.

[RoseyCadaver]

also religion should not be taken into account when dealing with abortion

I second that.People are too worried about getting to a possible made up land of happiness,besides it isn't your "sin" for not stoping it,it's the other persons xD!

[Bimmerhead]

Im for it depending on the circumstances. I believe abortion is ok when teens have an accident. But IMO it must be done before your like 3 months in so really early in the pregnancy. But in no means do I think it should be used as a form of birth control IE more then one time! Use a condom people! lol

[Triceratops]

I support teenage abortion for the simple fact that it stops irresponsible girls becoming mothers when they're not ready to have a child.

[georgiamay]

Can I just point out the question on the poll, "are you for or against teen abortions?"

I'm pro-choice. I'm not pro-abortion. If a teenager wants to have an abortion, she has the right to make that decision. I'm not for her getting an abortion, but she has the right to chose, the fact that she's a teenager doesn't change that.

[TuRdz]

Abortion is no different from murder in my eyes.
You make a baby, it's your responsibility, right? That's what everyone in my life has told me - parents, teachers, coaches, strangers and people on the TV. So I don't understand how teenagers can do such a thing when they have all these influences. It's like they're oblivious to what everyone has to say.

Though on the other hand, rape or a split condom, is an unfortunate occurrence. If someone had sex with you without consent, I suppose an abortion would be acceptable. You wouldn't want to have a baby of the person who ruined your life.

[georgiamay]

Abortion is no different from murder in my eyes.
You make a baby, it's your responsibility, right? That's what everyone in my life has told me - parents, teachers, coaches, strangers and people on the TV. So I don't understand how teenagers can do such a thing when they have all these influences. It's like they're oblivious to what everyone has to say.

Though on the other hand, rape or a split condom, is an unfortunate occurrence. If someone had sex with you without consent, I suppose an abortion would be acceptable. You wouldn't want to have a baby of the person who ruined your life.

So you're saying that murder is acceptable in some circumstances, but not others?

[Death]

Since a baby's heart starts beating around six weeks, I would consider the baby both alive and the killing of it little different to killing it once born. Why does the baby being in the womb make killing it any less bad? Where do you draw the line between killing a human and killing an 'object'?

as I'm pro-choice I am not against teen abortion.

How far does "pro-choice" go? Should radical Islamists who believe they are doing the world a favour by blowing cities up be given a choice?

as I'm pro-choice I am not against teen abortion. in fact I believe abortion would be the best for them

It doesn't look like you're doing the best for the baby.

if they have the baby they'll ruin their lives (most of the time). What about school?

If the girl is stupid enough to go get herself pregnant than she should live with the consequences. Coming to think of it, couldn't she give the baby away to an orphanage?

Now if the girl's life was at risk or if she'd been raped, then I'd see justification. But that rapist had better spend the rest of their life cooped up in a shithole without parole.

Oh, and what's up with the yes-no answers to a non yes-no question in the poll?

[georgiamay]

Now if the girl's life was at risk or if she'd been raped, then I'd see justification. But that rapist had better spend the rest of their life cooped up in a shithole without parole.

I know I say this a lot, but I'm going to say it again.
You've basically just said that killing a baby that's still in the womb (under 24 weeks old) is wrong, except if the girl was raped? Two wrongs don't make a right, you can't justify one "bad" act on the basis of another.

[Death]

I know I say this a lot, but I'm going to say it again.
You've basically just said that killing a baby that's still in the womb (under 24 weeks old) is wrong, except if the girl was raped? Two wrongs don't make a right, you can't justify one "bad" act on the basis of another.

So you are all for forcing that poor girl into being pregnant and having a child even if it may fuck up her school life over something she couldn't control? Yes, I know that killing babies is wrong, but so is forcing the girl to go through all of that against her will. Now had she have gotten pregnant out of stupidty, then she should be prohibited from murdering her baby since it would then be her fault.

[User Deleted]

I don't see why they would get pregnant in the first place but it is their choice to have an abortion or not

[Death]

I don't see why they would get pregnant in the first place but it is their choice to have an abortion or not

So you belive that murdering babies is acceptable then?

Besides, this teaches female teens that they can be irresponsible with sex and get away with it.

[Jess]

Can I just point out the question on the poll, "are you for or against teen abortions?"

I'm pro-choice. I'm not pro-abortion. If a teenager wants to have an abortion, she has the right to make that decision. I'm not for her getting an abortion, but she has the right to chose, the fact that she's a teenager doesn't change that.

This. I'm not pro-abortion either. It's entirely the girl's choice

edit: people are probably going to try to tell her abortion's wrong, she should have the baby and give it up for adoption, but if she sets her mind firm on the abortion, she's going to have it anyways

[Death]

This. I'm not pro-abortion either. It's entirely the girl's choice

So you see nothing wrong with girls deliberately having sex without even trying to use contraception because they know that they can just murder their child? You don't think that irresponsibility should be in any way prohibited or at least restricted in some way?

Also, how is murdering a baby any less immoral than murdering you?

[Jess]

I don't think the fetus is a human until the late stages of pregnancy. In the early stages, I believe it's not human. so it wouldn't be murder.

my opinion, okay?

[Death]

I don't think the fetus is a human until the late stages of pregnancy. In the early stages, I believe it's not human. so it wouldn't be murder.

Firstly, how do you define 'human'? The fetus has the capability of becoming a baby, and you're destroying it. Also, if the girls didn't want a child, why do they have unprotected sex? Should we really teach them that the consequences of their actions don't matter? Don't you think the girls could be a little more responsible?

my opinion, okay?

Of course that's okay. I respect your opinion. I do not agree with it, but I respect it all the same. Remember that this is a debate thread.

[georgiamay]

So you are all for forcing that poor girl into being pregnant and having a child even if it may fuck up her school life over something she couldn't control? Yes, I know that killing babies is wrong, but so is forcing the girl to go through all of that against her will. Now had she have gotten pregnant out of stupidty, then she should be prohibited from murdering her baby since it would then be her fault.

No, I'm not. I'm pro-choice.
I was saying that you can't say that one person has the right to chose whether to kill the fetus and another person does not.
And when you say prohibited, do you mean making it illegal?

[Death]

No, I'm not. I'm pro-choice.

How far does 'pro-choice' extend? Where do you draw the line between what should be a choice and what shouldn't? Where do you draw the line between justified killing and plain murder?

I was saying that you can't say that one person has the right to chose whether to kill the fetus and another person does not.

So you think that a girl whose life is at risk from her child which she was forced into having because she was raped, whilst she is trying to do her GCSEs without fucking up, should have the same right to abortion than a girl who has left school with her own job with maternity pay and chose to have sex and chose to do so without any protection?

And when you say prohibited, do you mean making it illegal?

Yes.

[Jess]

If abortion is made illegal, girls and women will still have abortions, those that want to anyways, and they will have it in very unsafe ways. better to keep it legal.

[Death]

If abortion is made illegal, girls and women will still have abortions, those that want to anyways, and they will have it in very unsafe ways. better to keep it legal.

Yeah, and you know what? Keeping rape illegal is pointless since that will also still happen. So how about we legalise rape too? I know, how about we legalise everything simply on the basis of it happening anyway?

[georgiamay]

How far does 'pro-choice' extend? Where do you draw the line between what should be a choice and what shouldn't? Where do you draw the line between justified killing and plain murder?

Pro-choice extends to the woman has a right to chose whethere or not to keep the fetus, no matter what her circumstances are.



So you think that a girl whose life is at risk from her child which she was forced into having because she was raped, whilst she is trying to do her GCSEs without fucking up, should have the same right to abortion than a girl who has left school with her own job with maternity pay and chose to have sex and chose to do so without any protection?

Yes, yes I do. No one has the right to say to one person, "you have the right to chose whether or not to have an abortion," but say the complete opposite to someone else. I might not think that the girl should have an abortion, but that doesn't change the fact that I think she has the right to chose.


Yes.

There's no way that'd work. Everyone would say they were raped to get an abortion. There's no way it'd be enforced.

[Death]

Pro-choice extends to the woman has a right to chose whethere or not to keep the fetus, no matter what her circumstances are.

But how can you define what's a baby and what isn't? How can you define what's human and what isn't? Is six weeks okay? Fifteen okay? Days before birth? During birth? Just after? Where do you draw the line? And how is murdering what could become a baby any different to murdering you or anyone else with the capability of being intelligent?


Yes, yes I do.

Holy fucking shit. Am I reading this?

No one has the right to say to one person, "you have the right to chose whether or not to have an abortion,"

And I suppose no-one has the right to refuse a father of a child who has split up from the mother to look after said child instead of the mother when the father is a known alcoholic and committed violent crimes either. Don't be ridiculous. There's a reason why some people are eligible for things whilst others are not.

but say the complete opposite to someone else. I might not think that the girl should have an abortion, but that doesn't change the fact that I think she has the right to chose.

So you seriously wouldn't give a shit if loads of girls starting having sex whenever they could without doing something as fucking simply as buying a condom simply because they know that they can just go get their baby murdered? You honestly want to allow teens to be completely reckless and irresponsible because they know that they can just kill the consequences? I'm starting to wonder if you're actually being serious or not.

There's no way that'd work. Everyone would say they were raped to get an abortion. There's no way it'd be enforced.

Funny, I swear they've proven and disproven rape cases in court before.

[Korashk]

Since a baby's heart starts beating around six weeks, I would consider the baby both alive and the killing of it little different to killing it once born. Why does the baby being in the womb make killing it any less bad? Where do you draw the line between killing a human and killing an 'object'?
I don't, because any rational argument in favor of abortion doesn't rely on the status of the fetus. Get to this later.

How far does "pro-choice" go? Should radical Islamists who believe they are doing the world a favour by blowing cities up be given a choice?
What is this? I don't even...

It doesn't look like you're doing the best for the baby.
Abortion has nothing to do with the baby.

If the girl is stupid enough to go get herself pregnant than she should live with the consequences.
Blah, blah, blah contraception fails.

Coming to think of it, couldn't she give the baby away to an orphanage?
Could.

Now if the girl's life was at risk or if she'd been raped, then I'd see justification.
Someone else already mentioned this. according to your argument a fetus is a human and killing it is bad. The circumstances of said pregnancy shouldn't matter.

On to the rational argument for abortion. It boils down to bodily autonomy. A fetus is using the prospective mother's body for its own devices. This usage puts the mother's health and life in jeopardy on a constant basis. Therefore, the mother has the right to remove this threat to her health.

To make an analogy, if you get into a car accident with another person, and the other person's kidneys are damaged to the point where he needs a kidney transplant to survive. You are a match for him and without your kidney he'll die. Should you be forced to donate your kidney to him, risking your life in the process? The answer is obviously no.

[Korashk]

I guess there's another argument that does involve the status of the fetus. Babies aren't people, and we kill things that aren't people all the time. Why should babies be any different?

[georgiamay]

But how can you define what's a baby and what isn't? How can you define what's human and what isn't? Is six weeks okay? Fifteen okay? Days before birth? During birth? Just after? Where do you draw the line? And how is murdering what could become a baby any different to murdering you or anyone else with the capability of being intelligent?

I personally think until the fetus can feel pain. There's evidence that suggests that fetus' can't feel pain until around 24 weeks. And I'm standing by my opinion, and saying that whether or not I agree with having an abortion or not doesn't change the fact that it isn't my decision, it's the mothers.

Source. (http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain)
Source. (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/25/does-the-fetus-feel-pain-uk-report-says-no.html#)

Holy fucking shit. Am I reading this?

Yes you are. Both would have the same rights, the fact that one of them has had a traumatising experience doesn't change that.

And I suppose no-one has the right to refuse a father of a child who has split up from the mother to look after said child instead of the mother when the father is a known alcoholic and committed violent crimes either. Don't be ridiculous. There's a reason why some people are eligible for things whilst others are not.

I'm a little confused, how is that relavent? That's a completely irrelavent analogy.

So you seriously wouldn't give a shit if loads of girls starting having sex whenever they could without doing something as fucking simply as buying a condom simply because they know that they can just go get their baby murdered? You honestly want to allow teens to be completely reckless and irresponsible because they know that they can just kill the consequences? I'm starting to wonder if you're actually being serious or not.

Firstly, condoms don't always work. And I honestly don't think any girl would have an abortion every other month. I can see that a girl might have a particularly stupid night and have sex without protection, but abortions aren't exactly a plesant experience, so I'm pretty sure no one would have one every other month. And yes, I am being very serious.



Funny, I swear they've proven and disproven rape cases in court before.

Over half of the women that have been raped don't report it. You think those women that were too ashamed to come forward shouldn't be allowed an abortion because it never went to court?

[Weeping]

I think that abortion is totally up to the one who's pregnant, and it doesn't matter how old you are!
"It's her own fault that she skipped contraception", yeah you know that any contraception can fail, right? Plus, there's rape and such shit.
"Give the kid away to orphanage/for adoption", don't you think that the pregnancy, giving birth AND giving away your baby would be very tiresome? Probably especially for a teen. Also, the child can often end up wondering why their biological parents "didn't want them" or something like that.
"Live with your consequences", everyone makes mistakes and stuff once in a while. Do you think that you should let it go over the baby? I think that abortion would be better than having a baby that you can't take care of?

AAAAND SO ON......................



Yeah, and you know what? Keeping rape illegal is pointless since that will also still happen. So how about we legalise rape too? I know, how about we legalise everything simply on the basis of it happening anyway?

Lol, can't understand how you're thinking there.

Funny, I swear they've proven and disproven rape cases in court before.

So you think that you'd have to go to court and "win" to have an abortion?

[NomSan]

If I got a kid with someone in my early teens I would have kept the baby.

[Jess]

Yeah, and you know what? Keeping rape illegal is pointless since that will also still happen. So how about we legalise rape too? I know, how about we legalise everything simply on the basis of it happening anyway?

abortion isn't a crime...rape is...

[Korashk]

abortion isn't a crime...rape is...
http://forum.nationstates.net/images/smilies/sm_facepalm.gif
He's saying the argument that abortion should be legal because people would still do it even if it was legal is stupid by using an analogy. He also happens to be right. It's one of the stupidest arguments that pro-choice people use.

Also, abortion only isn't a crime because its legal. Rape is only a crime because it's illegal. I don't know what this post means within the context of the discussion.

[Death]

I don't, because any rational argument in favor of abortion doesn't rely on the status of the fetus. Get to this later.

But murder is wrong, so they'd have to be a line somewhere.

What is this? I don't even...

I hate "pro-choice" being used as an excuse to excuse abortion. You can't just say everyone should have a choice with everything (including abortion) since that could theoretically stretch to anything.

Abortion has nothing to do with the baby.

That's a selfish way of looking at it.

Blah, blah, blah contraception fails.

That's a different matter and you are obviously ignoring everything I said prior to that. People should avoid unprotected sex if they don't want children. Simple.

Could.

Then why not? Better solution than killing what had the capability of becoming a human, right?

Someone else already mentioned this. according to your argument a fetus is a human and killing it is bad. The circumstances of said pregnancy shouldn't matter.

A fetus can be a human (since it has human DNA). That's what matters.

On to the rational argument for abortion. It boils down to bodily autonomy. A fetus is using the prospective mother's body for its own devices. This usage puts the mother's health and life in jeopardy on a constant basis. Therefore, the mother has the right to remove this threat to her health.

Except that pregancy isn't usually lethal. But if a mother is particually ill, that could possibly be justification.

I personally think until the fetus can feel pain. There's evidence that suggests that fetus' can't feel pain until around 24 weeks. And I'm standing by my opinion, and saying that whether or not I agree with having an abortion or not doesn't change the fact that it isn't my decision, it's the mothers.

Read above; the fetus has human DNA and as such could have been human. That's different to killing you, how?

I'm a little confused, how is that relavent? That's a completely irrelavent analogy.

It's obvious you haven't read the context. Just because you do not understand, it does not make it irrevelant. I was told that one cannot refuse someone an abortion whilst allowing another person to have one. I've explained why some people should naturally be allowed things whilst others shouldn't. This analogy is not irrevelant, thankyou very much.

Firstly, condoms don't always work. And I honestly don't think any girl would have an abortion every other month. I can see that a girl might have a particularly stupid night and have sex without protection, but abortions aren't exactly a plesant experience, so I'm pretty sure no one would have one every other month. And yes, I am being very serious.

Let me ask you something: How do you think girls in countries without abortions cope? Because they really do.

Over half of the women that have been raped don't report it. You think those women that were too ashamed to come forward shouldn't be allowed an abortion because it never went to court?

They should not be ashamed. However horrible this may sound, if they are not smart enough to report what definetely needs to be reported, then they are in a way asking for the consequences. I'm not going to pretend that it's a simple matter, but girls really should know better than to let emotions cloud their judgement.

I think that abortion is totally up to the one who's pregnant, and it doesn't matter how old you are!
"It's her own fault that she skipped contraception", yeah you know that any contraception can fail, right?

No actually, I'm completely deaf.

Plus, there's rape and such shit.

Are you a troll? Because I remember saying that I accept abortion in cases of rape. Why you feel the need to say this I do not know.

I think that abortion would be better than having a baby that you can't take care of?

Who says you have to take care of them? But if you think that the murder of something with human DNA with the capability of growing into a human is acceptable, than go on believing it since it's obvious that nothing's going to sway you.

Lol, can't understand how you're thinking there.

Your lack of ability to understand simple concepts is not my problem. I'm starting to wonder if you are intelligent enough for debate. Jess said that abortion should legalised because it's going to happen anyway. I said, sarcastically, that you should legalise everything else that's wrong (i.e. rape) because that's also going to happen anyway. What part of that (i.e. playing Devil's Advocate) are you incapable of comprehending?

abortion isn't a crime...rape is...

Is that the best you can come up with? I'm not even going to dignify this with a response because you know this isn't an argument. I could have sworn that abortion is illegal in many countries.

[georgiamay]

Read above; the fetus has human DNA and as such could have been human. That's different to killing you, how?

You just said that it isn't human at the moment.
Definition of murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. If you're saying that it could have been human, and if it's not human at that moment, it can't be murder.


It's obvious you haven't read the context. Just because you do not understand, it does not make it irrevelant. I was told that one cannot refuse someone an abortion whilst allowing another person to have one. I've explained why some people should naturally be allowed things whilst others shouldn't. This analogy is not irrevelant, thankyou very much.

The analogy was irrelavent. You were talking about a father to a born child, that could potentially put the child at risk. Completely different situation.

Let me ask you something: How do you think girls in countries without abortions cope? Because they really do.

Backstreet abortions, which put the mother at risk, and the outcome is still the same; the fetus is terminated. And let's not forget about living in poverty and having their lives ruined.

They should not be ashamed. However horrible this may sound, if they are not smart enough to report what definetely needs to be reported, then they are in a way asking for the consequences. I'm not going to pretend that it's a simple matter, but girls really should know better than to let emotions cloud their judgement.

I had to read that twice to make sure I'd understood it. I know that they shouldn't be ashamed, but they still are. They've just been violated and humiliated, and a lot of them would rather not have to have examinations done as well as that. Saying that a girl should know better than to let their emotions get to them is ridiculous, because they're traumatised.

[Death]

You just said that it isn't human at the moment.
Definition of murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. If you're saying that it could have been human, and if it's not human at that moment, it can't be murder.

Strange, I could have sworn that people don't base moral desicions on a dictionary. Suffice to say that if something could have been human but you destroy it, then how is that different to just killing them when they are? Both have the same effect. You also haven't explained why something with human DNA cannot be classed as human.

The analogy was irrelavent. You were talking about a father to a born child, that could potentially put the child at risk. Completely different situation.

No, it wasn't irrevelant. What you're saying about the born child however is. I don't give a shit where the baby is, anything that might be detrimental to its well-being I am against. This holds true whether it's an abusive father or being crushed. Suffice to say that I find sufficient reason to allow some women abortions but not others (depending on the circumstances). Do you not think that rape victims have a better reason for abortions than those who had unprotected sex?

Backstreet abortions, which put the mother at risk, and the outcome is still the same; the fetus is terminated. And let's not forget about living in poverty and having their lives ruined.

They are doing something that they shouldn't, so they bring everything upon themselves. Come on, this is like saying that someone who breaks onto your property and injures themselves on your window glass whilst breaking in should be entitled to compensation. In both cases, the 'victim' is doing something they shouldn't and putting themselves in danger.

I had to read that twice to make sure I'd understood it.

Your point?

I know that they shouldn't be ashamed, but they still are. They've just been violated and humiliated, and a lot of them would rather not have to have examinations done as well as that.

I understand their position, but they still can and need to help not just themselves, but also help others by helping to bring a rapist to justice.

Saying that a girl should know better than to let their emotions get to them is ridiculous, because they're traumatised.

It's not redicilous, because I'm not talking about straight away. But once they've gotten over the initial shock, they really need to get help. If not, it may be too late for their abortion.

[Korashk]

But murder is wrong, so they'd have to be a line somewhere.
Don't know what you're getting at here.

I hate "pro-choice" being used as an excuse to excuse abortion. You can't just say everyone should have a choice with everything (including abortion) since that could theoretically stretch to anything.
Well...pro-choice is the position that abortion should be legal in all cases. It's not justification. It's a descriptor.

That's a selfish way of looking at it.
I don't see how. I would support the right to have an abortion even if at conception there was a fully grown, fully functioning person in the womb (ignoring the physical impossibility).

That's a different matter and you are obviously ignoring everything I said prior to that. People should avoid unprotected sex if they don't want children. Simple.
But again, contraception fails. Even if you have sex using protection 100% properly, 100% of the time, you can still get pregnant. Should they avoid unprotected sex? Sure. But ultimately I don't see why the circumstances of the conception should dictate whether one ought have an abortion.

Then why not? Better solution than killing what had the capability of becoming a human, right?
Maybe better for the child. But honestly orphanages don't need more kids and women shouldn't be forced to go through childbirth against their will.

A fetus can be a human (since it has human DNA). That's what matters.
That may be what matters to you, but not to me. anyways, that response was directed at your quip about how abortion is okay in rape but rarely otherwise.

Except that pregancy isn't usually lethal. But if a mother is particually ill, that could possibly be justification.
So what if pregnancy isn't usually lethal? It is detrimental to a woman's health. Basically, the fetus is harming the mother by existing and therefore she should have the right to eject it from her body whenever she wants.

You also ignored the rest of my post and the following one that contained content that is rather relevant to the discussion.

[embers]

But how can you define what's a baby and what isn't? How can you define what's human and what isn't? Is six weeks okay? Fifteen okay? Days before birth? During birth? Just after? Where do you draw the line?

Why do you, then, try and define what a human is and what it isn't? Why are you telling people they can't draw the line here or there, when you're doing exactly the same thing and drawing your own line?

In this thread you state that abortion is the murder of a baby, then you counter people's 'it's a fetus' argument by asking them why they have the right to define what's human and what isn't. To me, that seems pretty stupid.

So you seriously wouldn't give a shit if loads of girls starting having sex whenever they could without doing something as fucking simply as buying a condom simply because they know that they can just go get their baby murdered? You honestly want to allow teens to be completely reckless and irresponsible because they know that they can just kill the consequences? I'm starting to wonder if you're actually being serious or not.

You're saying abortion should be illegal because of the people that misuse it. Dude, to be like you and use a completely out there and hardly relevant analogy, that's like saying we should criminalise Islam because of radical and conservative Muslims.

People make mistakes. People get drunk, take drugs etc during parties. You're speaking under the assumption that if teens were left to their own devices, they'd get pregnant every weekend party and then just have an abortion. Just because condoms / birth control are more convenient (cheaper, easier to get), doesn't mean abortions should be illegal.

Also, again, you're speaking under the assumption that your definition of a baby is the correct one.

Moving on...

But murder is wrong, so they'd have to be a line somewhere.

Everyone in this thread is drawing their own lines, including you. Why is your line more credible than any other?

A fetus can be a human (since it has human DNA). That's what matters.

...

Read above; the fetus has human DNA and as such could have been human. That's different to killing you, how?

Monkeys share a shit ton of DNA with humans. I doubt you'd have a second thought at terminating a monkey fetus.

Let me ask you something: How do you think girls in countries without abortions cope? Because they really do.

Girls cope in countries without basic living conditions or good healthcare. Girls cope with living in countries where they are oppressed in the name of religion. Girls cope in countries where they can be flogged for not wearing a certain item of clothing. That doesn't mean those laws should apply to everyone.

Who says you have to take care of them? But if you think that the murder of something with human DNA with the capability of growing into a human is acceptable, than go on believing it since it's obvious that nothing's going to sway you.

Yo, do you eat eggs? They have the capability of growing into chickens, whom we share 60% of our DNA with (http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/we-share-60-of-our-dna/).



Not the best arguments, but I don't see why your definition of what is a human being is better than what is official (hence the reason why abortion before a certain stage in time is legal in the first place).

[georgiamay]

Strange, I could have sworn that people don't base moral desicions on a dictionary. Suffice to say that if something could have been human but you destroy it, then how is that different to just killing them when they are? Both have the same effect. You also haven't explained why something with human DNA cannot be classed as human.

The DNA thing is subjective. Yes it has human DNA, but in my opinion, that doesn't matter. Whether or not the fact that it has human DNA is significant is a matter of opinion. I'll agree that it does have human DNA, but I don't see how it matters personally, a life is a life, and that's all that matters.

How could it be different to killing it when it is a person? Because it isn't a person yet.

No, it wasn't irrevelant. What you're saying about the born child however is. I don't give a shit where the baby is, anything that might be detrimental to its well-being I am against. This holds true whether it's an abusive father or being crushed. Suffice to say that I find sufficient reason to allow some women abortions but not others (depending on the circumstances). Do you not think that rape victims have a better reason for abortions than those who had unprotected sex?

Yes, it was irrelevant. The fact that the child is already born is very significant in these kinds of situations, so just that factor alone changes the entire context of the analogy.
Yes, I do think that rape victims have a better reason for an abortion, but that's not my decision to make. Whether I agree with the fact that the girl is having an abortion is not relevant, it's her decision. And contraception doesn't always work, what if she's really careful but the condom splits?



They are doing something that they shouldn't, so they bring everything upon themselves. Come on, this is like saying that someone who breaks onto your property and injures themselves on your window glass whilst breaking in should be entitled to compensation. In both cases, the 'victim' is doing something they shouldn't and putting themselves in danger.

No, that's not like saying that in the slightest little bit. In some countries where abortion is illegal,contraception isn't available, so it's not like they can help it.

I understand their position, but they still can and need to help not just themselves, but also help others by helping to bring a rapist to justice.

Yes, they should do that. But a lot of them don't, and I don't blame them.

It's not redicilous, because I'm not talking about straight away. But once they've gotten over the initial shock, they really need to get help. If not, it may be too late for their abortion.

By the time they do report it a lot of evidence will already have gone after showers etc. It would be very hard to convict with that. And you're really saying that unless a woman reports a rape, they shouldn't be allowed an abortion?

[Death]

Don't know what you're getting at here.

Where do you draw the line between killing a fetus and killing a baby? They both have human DNA.

I don't see how. I would support the right to have an abortion even if at conception there was a fully grown, fully functioning person in the womb (ignoring the physical impossibility).

So you agree with murdering babies simply because they're in the womb and not outside?


But again, contraception fails. Even if you have sex using protection 100% properly, 100% of the time, you can still get pregnant.

Funny, I don't remember arguing otherwise.

Should they avoid unprotected sex? Sure. But ultimately I don't see why the circumstances of the conception should dictate whether one ought have an abortion.

If they used contraception, then I might consider abortion as more acceptable than if they didn't. But one thing that gets me is why people have penetrative sex when they know that their contraception is not completely protective and they don't want a child.

Maybe better for the child. But honestly orphanages don't need more kids and women shouldn't be forced to go through childbirth against their will.

Neither should a would-be baby with human DNA be forced to go through the process of abortion against its 'will' (being metaphorical here). But as I said, it would depend on the circumstances of the abortion. I do think that abortion can be justified, just not for general purposes.

That may be what matters to you, but not to me.

So you don't think that humans in general have a right to life? Interesting.

anyways, that response was directed at your quip about how abortion is okay in rape but rarely otherwise.

Except I justified abortion in more cases than that.

So what if pregnancy isn't usually lethal? It is detrimental to a woman's health. Basically, the fetus is harming the mother by existing and therefore she should have the right to eject it from her body whenever she wants.

What? You are valuing a potential human's life more than a human's well-being which wouldn't be too drastically affected on average anyway?

Why do you, then, try and define what a human is and what it isn't?

Are you telling me that killing humans isn't wrong?

Why are you telling people they can't draw the line here or there, when you're doing exactly the same thing and drawing your own line?

Except I'm not.

In this thread you state that abortion is the murder of a baby, then you counter people's 'it's a fetus' argument by asking them why they have the right to define what's human and what isn't. To me, that seems pretty stupid.

Are you a troll? You sound like one. Who else would deny that a fetus has the capability of becoming a human and then call someone stupid for not liking the idea of crushing it?

You're saying abortion should be illegal because of the people that misuse it.

No, I'm saying it should be restricted. But then you would have known that had you have bothered to read my posts.

Dude, to be like you and use a completely out there and hardly relevant analogy, that's like saying we should criminalise Islam because of radical and conservative Muslims.

Again, you couldn't be more wrong.

Also, again, you're speaking under the assumption that your definition of a baby is the correct one.

So's everyone else. So yours is a moot point.

Monkeys share a shit ton of DNA with humans. I doubt you'd have a second thought at terminating a monkey fetus.

Wrong again. :yawn:

Yo, do you eat eggs? They have the capability of growing into chickens, whom we share 60% of our DNA with (http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/we-share-60-of-our-dna/).

Irrelevant. Any and all eggs I eat will already have had the capability of becoming a chicken removed. As such, I am not a vegan or a vegetarian. I didn't kill the animal; I'm just eating it. But as I said, this is irrevelant.

Not the best arguments, but I don't see why your definition of what is a human being is better than what is official (hence the reason why abortion before a certain stage in time is legal in the first place).

Funny, I was thinking the same, yet I thought better than to say it.

The DNA thing is subjective. Yes it has human DNA, but in my opinion, that doesn't matter.

Yes, I know you have a disregard for human life.


Whether or not the fact that it has human DNA is significant is a matter of opinion. I'll agree that it does have human DNA, but I don't see how it matters personally, a life is a life, and that's all that matters.

Are you cool with serial killers? If human life wasn't significant, why would it be illegal?

How could it be different to killing it when it is a person? Because it isn't a person yet.

But it has the capability to become a person and you're stopping it. Why should the time of killing it make any difference? Yours isn't even an argument.


Yes, it was irrelevant. The fact that the child is already born is very significant in these kinds of situations, so just that factor alone changes the entire context of the analogy.

Way to go to ignore my points. Why you couldn't have just addressed them with direct counter-arguments is beyond me.

Yes, I do think that rape victims have a better reason for an abortion, but that's not my decision to make.

So, you can still have an opinions, and I agree with this one.

[Korashk]

Where do you draw the line between killing a fetus and killing a baby? They both have human DNA.
I don't draw a line. I think it's perfectly fine to kill anything that isn't a person. Babies aren't people until they're about two.

EDIT: So I guess my line would be personhood.

So you agree with murdering babies simply because they're in the womb and not outside?
I don't call it murder, I call it a right to bodily autonomy EDIT: or more accurately, the right to defend yourself from an unwanted aggressor. Rarely does an abortion do an active killing. It's usually a passive killing akin to removing life support.

If they used contraception, then I might consider abortion as more acceptable than if they didn't. But one thing that gets me is why people have penetrative sex when they know that their contraception is not completely protective and they don't want a child.
Because sex feels really good.

Neither should a would-be baby with human DNA be forced to go through the process of abortion against its 'will' (being metaphorical here).
Why do you keep bringing up DNA? Who cares what DNA it has, species is an arbitrary and meaningless characteristic.

I'll draw another comparison similar to the one you ignore with your responses to answer your 'against the baby's will' notion:

My will to keep my kidney inside of my body trumps your will to not die of kidney failure. The mother's with to no longer support the life of the child at the expense of her health trumps any sort of will that the child has to live.

So you don't think that humans in general have a right to life? Interesting.
Nope, I don't even think that people in general have a right to life. Mainly because the phrase 'right to...' implies positive rights, which to me is an indefensible position. You do not have a right to get anything, only a right to be free of something. Namely initiation of force.

What? You are valuing a potential human's life more than a human's well-being which wouldn't be too drastically affected on average anyway?
Again with the 'human'. It's not about the potential of the fetus. It's about the woman's right to decide to stop supporting the fetus.

Are you telling me that killing humans isn't wrong?
Not inherently. Killing a human is only wrong if they're also a person that hasn't initiated force against you.

[Death]

I don't draw a line. I think it's perfectly fine to kill anything that isn't a person. Babies aren't people until they're about two.

Hahaha, you're really funny! Oh no wait, you're being serious!? :eek:

Honestly, how the fuck is a baby not human?

I don't call it murder, I call it a right to bodily autonomy. Rarely does an abortion do an active killing. It's usually a passive killing akin to removing life support.

Pretty that as you will. You're still ending the life of something that could have been a perfectly good human.

Because sex feels really good.

And what part of that does? The orgasm. And do you need to have penetrative sex to achieve an orgasm? No.

Why do you keep bringing up DNA? Who cares what DNA it has, species is an arbitrary and meaningless characteristic.

Because a species' DNA are part of its classification. Humans are humans because of their DNA, and a fetus has human DNA. The fact that they are designed to grow the way a human does makes them, well, human.

My will to keep my kidney inside of my body trumps your will to not die of kidney failure. The mother's with to no longer support the life of the child at the expense of her health trumps any sort of will that the child has to live.

I'm going to do a you: What are you getting at here?

Nope, I don't even think that people in general have a right to life. Mainly because the phrase 'right to...' implies positive rights, which to me is an indefensible position. You do not have a right to get anything, only a right to be free of something. Namely initiation of force.

Then how is killing people wrong? Isn't it?

[Φρανκομβριτ]

we live in a filthy, disgusting world filled with hate, waste and pollution. Why ANYONE would want to bring a child in to that world is beyond me. I personally think that you should have to take a test to raise a child, and if you fail, choice of either abortion or adoption. Of course girls should be able to abort if they don't feel they can handle the responsibility.


Edit: If raising a baby cow to eat it as veal isn't wrong, please tell me how abortion is. Human life is no more precious than the innocent animals slaughtered for the food industry.

[Death]

we live in a filthy, disgusting world filled with hate, waste and pollution. Why ANYONE would want to bring a child in to that world is beyond me.

Maybe you've answered your own question.

Coming to think of it, are you suggesting that humanity would be better off not existing? That's what it sounds like to me.

[Korashk]

Honestly, how the fuck is a baby not human?
I didn't say that babies aren't human. I said that they aren't people.

Person =/= Human.

A person is an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others. [from wikipedia]

A human is an organism that is a member of the homo sapien species.

Pretty that as you will. You're still ending the life of something that could have been a perfectly good human.
I do not care. The world doesn't need more humans.

And what part of that does? The orgasm. And do you need to have penetrative sex to achieve an orgasm? No.
By this I'll just assume you've never has sex. It's not just the orgasm that feels good.

Because a species' DNA are part of its classification. Humans are humans because of their DNA, and a fetus has human DNA. The fact that they are designed to grow the way a human does makes them, well, human.
Not disagreeing. I just don't think that being human makes a thing worth considering in a moral sense.

I'm going to do a you: What are you getting at here?
I'm drawing a comparison on why abortion should be allowed, as it were. Just like I'm not obligated to donate my kidney to someone who needs it, neither is a woman obligated to sacrifice her health to support a fetus.

Then how is killing people wrong? Isn't it?
Killing people isn't always wrong either. If they try to kill me without provocation I am perfectly justified in killing them. So long as they don't, I have no moral justification for retaliation.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

Maybe you've answered your own question.

Coming to think of it, are you suggesting that humanity would be better off not existing? That's what it sounds like to me.

Not humanity, the world. You can't deny that.

[Death]

I didn't say that babies aren't human. I said that they aren't people.

Person =/= Human.

A person is an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others. [from wikipedia]

A human is an organism that is a member of the homo sapien species.

You do realise anyone can edit Wikipedia, right? And this argument about humans and people is pointless. People can become human, so killing them is wrong. As I've said countless times, the time at which you kill them is merely an excuse.

I do not care. The world doesn't need more humans.

Then why don't we just go on a motherfucking killing spree?

By this I'll just assume you've never has sex. It's not just the orgasm that feels good.

Don't presume to know me.

Not disagreeing. I just don't think that being human makes a thing worth considering in a moral sense.

But if that human can become a person, how is killing it beforehand any better than killing it when it is a person?

Coming to think of it, going by your logic, wouldn't killing a one year old be justifiable in the same way that an abortion would be?

I'm drawing a comparison on why abortion should be allowed, as it were. Just like I'm not obligated to donate my kidney to someone who needs it, neither is a woman obligated to sacrifice her health to support a fetus.

Except that one's kidney does not have the capacity to be alive independently and be a person whilst a fetus does. But as I've said countless times, there are circumstances when I accept abortions.

Killing people isn't always wrong either. If they try to kill me without provocation I am perfectly justified in killing them. So long as they don't, I have no moral justification for retaliation.[/QUOTE]

That is self-defense; a kill or be killed situation.

[Korashk]

You do realise anyone can edit Wikipedia, right?
http://thisismethodicalmadness.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/seriously.jpg

But if that human can become a person, how is killing it beforehand any better than killing it when it is a person?
I wouldn't call it better. I also wouldn't call it worse. Fact of the matter is: babies aren't people, fetuses aren't people. They are not rational beings and therefore are not entitled to rights.

Coming to think of it, going by your logic, wouldn't killing a one year old be justifiable in the same way that an abortion would be?
Yeah, in general.

Except that one's kidney does not have the capacity to be alive independently and be a person whilst a fetus does. But as I've said countless times, there are circumstances when I accept abortions.
Totally missed the point. The analogy isn't about the kidney, it could be any body part. It's about the other guy's life. Without your help, he's dead.

That is self-defense; a kill or be killed situation.
And? In self-defense you take the best way to eliminate the threat. In terms of pregnancy there is no way to remove the threat in a manner that allows it to live. Sucks.

[georgiamay]

Yes, I know you have a disregard for human life.

No, I don't. Of course I think murder is wrong, but I don't think abortion is murder.


Are you cool with serial killers? If human life wasn't significant, why would it be illegal?

I actually lol'd at this. I have never said that human life isn't significant, and this is also a completely irrelevant analogy, and don't say it isn't, because all it does is appeal to emotion. Having an abortion is completely different to going up to someone and killing them, of course I'm not cool with serial killers.


But it has the capability to become a person and you're stopping it. Why should the time of killing it make any difference? Yours isn't even an argument.

Having the capability to become a human, and being a human, are completely different things. This is an argument, don't say that it isn't even an argument, because even your overexaggerated analogies are still arguments, even if they are bad ones.

Way to go to ignore my points. Why you couldn't have just addressed them with direct counter-arguments is beyond me.

There's no point in countering an argument if the argument is full of flaws anyway. Okay, how about this for a counter-argument:
There's a difference between a child being abused by an alcohol father and a fetus being aborted; one can feel pain and probably doesn't even know that it's alive, the other is completely aware of what is going on, and will feel every single thing that happens to it.


So, you can still have an opinions, and I agree with this one.

I have an opinion, but my opinion isn't relevant, because my overall view is that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body; women aren't incubators.

[Death]

I wouldn't call it better. I also wouldn't call it worse. Fact of the matter is: babies aren't people, fetuses aren't people. They are not rational beings and therefore are not entitled to rights.

Fine. Ignore me even though I've said countless times that they have the capability of being people. Have fun murdering one year olds.

Yeah, in general.

Troll harder. Because seriously, you sound like Adolf fucking Hitler. If you had a one year old child and I murdered him/her, you really wouldn't care?

Totally missed the point. The analogy isn't about the kidney, it could be any body part. It's about the other guy's life. Without your help, he's dead.

Maybe because there wasn't one.

And? In self-defense you take the best way to eliminate the threat. In terms of pregnancy there is no way to remove the threat in a manner that allows it to live. Sucks.

Except that babies aren't trying to kill you.

No, I don't. Of course I think murder is wrong, but I don't think abortion is murder.

That's just an excuse to cover up your blatent disregard for life. You know damn well that killing something with the capacity to become a person is no different than killing a grown person. Why you keep trying to cover this up I don't know.

Having the capability to become a human, and being a human, are completely different things. This is an argument, don't say that it isn't even an argument, because even your overexaggerated analogies are still arguments, even if they are bad ones.

Again, they are not completely different. The only difference is the time at which you kill the human. Suffice to say, you're in denial.

I have an opinion, but my opinion isn't relevant, because my overall view is that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body; women aren't incubators.

Babies are (or can be) people too. Just because they're not yet grown, it doesn't mean they are not human. You'd see this if you didn't have a disregard for human life.

[Korashk]

Troll harder. Because seriously, you sound like Adolf fucking Hitler. If you had a one year old child and I murdered him/her, you really wouldn't care?
If it was my child I absolutely would care. You're assigning positions and attitudes to me that aren't legitimate. Stop being illogical.

Maybe because there wasn't one.
You not understanding the analogy doesn't make it any less valid.

Except that babies aren't trying to kill you.
Not actively, but them simply existing puts the life of the pregnant woman in danger. Similar to how if you have a tapeworm in your intestines, it's not actively trying to kill you, but it being there causes harm to your body.

[Spock]

its called condoms and birth control ppl ik they dont always work but if u dont use them then you will get pregnant

[Death]

If it was my child I absolutely would care. You're assigning positions and attitudes to me that aren't legitimate. Stop being illogical.

And stop holding the disgusting attitude you are now against those in society who quite literally cannot defend themselves. Have fun telling others of your acceptance of killing babies up ot the age of two. The fact that you're even suggesting this is moral is frightening.

You not understanding the analogy doesn't make it any less valid.

Then maybe you'd like to form better aguments.

Not actively, but them simply existing puts the life of the pregnant woman in danger.

A responsible girl can still avoid pregancy, however.

Similar to how if you have a tapeworm in your intestines, it's not actively trying to kill you, but it being there causes harm to your body.

Think of it this way, you have two human lives (even if one is only potential in the future). One eventuallity ensures the death of one. The other puts the other in relatively minor danger. I mean how many women who give birth for the first time actually end up dying? Precious few.

its called condoms and birth control ppl ik they dont always work but if u dont use them then you will get pregnant

Simply put, but this is a point. I do however think that sometimes abortions may be necessary, but not for general purpose.

[Marky]

First of all i knew the wird murder would be drawn into this.

Murder is more os a social factor that is set by society expecially in modern day societies, back tham it wasnt call murder it was a sacrifice for a greater cause or maybe a contribution to gods and such.

The greater cause from abortions is that the child is not put threw a situation they did not deserve as being in an orphanige. and a mother isnt put out of a career or out of school oppertunities because they had a baby that they could have avoided from the very start but they couldnt and they need a way to end it.

Abortions in my opinion are completely the choice of the woman, wether or not they do something about it is completeley up too them. Not murder but a step to making both the girls life better and the babies.

[ajp1993]

I'm definately pro-choice. Better a girl, teenage or not, have a choice in what they do with their body and that if an abortion is what they chose it's done safely and not by some back-street illegal operation.
Yes, it should never be a first choice option, and yes maybe it happens more often than it should but that doesnt mean it shouldnt happen. Better sex-ed and better access to contraception and make the whole issue of sex less taboo maybe would help?

[Skeptical Bear]

It always depends on the situation. Now, if she got pregnant by her boyfriend. Then an abortion shouldn't be processed. A life shouldn't be ended because of some careless mistake. If the girl got raped like mentioned before. Then she can get an abortion.

[Wicked_Syn]

I myself, am pro choice. I believe that if the baby has to grow up in a tough environment, live in a living hell, or have parents that don't care about them. It would be best for it to live on as another sperm in a mans scrotum.

Also, if the mother really isn't ready for a baby, or made a HUGE mistake, I will feel for them to have an abortion.

Life is deep and we're all just trying to survive and be happy. Why bring a life to this world if it's not going to get the love and affection it deserves or if you really aren't ready. We all make mistakes..

[Genghis Khan]

The only ethical question about this is, where do you draw the line between murder and preventing an unnecessary birth? Catholics and many other religious people argue that it is not only unnatural, but it is also murder. While I'm not religious at all, I do see some sense in what they say. When is it considered murder? Is it when the sperm meets the egg, or when the heart makes its first beat?

Personally, I think it should be left up to the teenage mother to decide, even though she arguably may not be in the right state to make that choice, it is still after all her child. Especially if she has been raped, the right to making that decision should be left up to her.

[Jess]

if it was murder would a teenage girl be locked up for it? face life in prison or the death penalty like another person who may have actually murdered a person(s)?

just asking these that's all. mostly to the pro-life people.

[Genghis Khan]

if it was murder would a teenage girl be locked up for it? face life in prison or the death penalty like another person who may have actually murdered a person(s)?

just asking these that's all. mostly to the pro-life people.

If you're referring back to what I said there, I was just giving the other point of view. I'm not really pro-life. This is just one of those questions where it 'depends on the situation'.

[aussiebunnie]

I am pro life as well. I think that the psychological affect on the teenager in the future is more disastrous than going ahead with the abortion.

I just cannot believe how people can say an unborn child has no right to life.

[Jess]

If you're referring back to what I said there, I was just giving the other point of view. I'm not really pro-life. This is just one of those questions where it 'depends on the situation'.

No no lol I'm just asking the pro-lifers if it is right to lock up a teenage girl who had an abortion if abortion is considered murder.

[Genghis Khan]

I am pro life as well. I think that the psychological affect on the teenager in the future is more disastrous than going ahead with the abortion.

So, you're pro-life but you believe it would be advantageous to go ahead with abortion due to the negative psychological effects it can have on the child?


I just cannot believe how people can say an unborn child has no right to life.

It usually depends on the situation. There is nothing written on stone that says an unborn child has no right to live, but in some cases one must question what the life of the child will be like if it is left up to a teen mother that cannot handle such pressure, also taking into account the painful life the mother must lead at such an early age. Do you think putting a child up for adoption after giving unwanted birth is right?

'due to the negative psychological effects it can have on the child' - I meant TEENAGER, my bad.

Edit(Thor): Don't double post, use the 'Edit' button next time

[Sogeking]

if it was murder would a teenage girl be locked up for it? face life in prison or the death penalty like another person who may have actually murdered a person(s)?

just asking these that's all. mostly to the pro-life people.

That is a weak argument. I can just counter that by saying "Can you explain to me why a person is charged with murder because he/she beats a pregnant woman and the beating results in the death of the unborn child?"

[Korashk]

I am pro life as well. I think that the psychological affect on the teenager in the future is more disastrous than going ahead with the abortion.
Studies show that going through with an abortion is less psychologically damaging for a teenager. But that might be what you're saying...?

[aussiebunnie]

Studies show that going through with an abortion is less psychologically damaging for a teenager. But that might be what you're saying...?

No I'm saying the opposite. If I had gone through with that I would have alot of regret. In some countries they have a law which means if you kill your own child and your a mother you can use that to mitigate the offence. That shows that there are psychological "issues" when dealing with the mother/child relationship. I think that sometimes when your 16 (where the decisions you make aren't as clear when you are say 24) that you would regret going ahead with the abortion later in life. It may not show up immediately, but later in life.

[Jess]

I'm sure not all people will regret it though

[aussiebunnie]

Fair enough Jess, guess i am just against it.

[Death]

No no lol I'm just asking the pro-lifers if it is right to lock up a teenage girl who had an abortion if abortion is considered murder.

No, I don't think it's right. But the doctors would be in trouble, and that's not a lie.

Fair enough Jess, guess i am just against it.

Just like that?

[aussiebunnie]

So, you're pro-life but you believe it would be advantageous to go ahead with abortion due to the negative psychological effects it can have on the child?
[/color]

I just wanted to clarify, that I am pro-life, and I was talking about the psychological effect on the abortionee (person going through with the abortion). I know of a few people close to my family who have had an abortion (in a nearby country) and they had to see psychiatrists for various problems. They weren't teenagers either. I just am against it wholly.

You make a good point on right to life. My question was from the news when I heard in New Zealand )one of the Courts of Appeals) saying an unborn baby has no right to life. I mean, if say someone "in a drunken rage" beats his pregnant wife up and she had a miscarriage, I doubt the guy could use "well the unborn baby had no right to life" as an excuse. I think that whole argument that an unborn baby does not have a right to life is completely flawed.

But there is something that I do accept. In cases where a female has been raped and becomes pregnant, then there is a grey area.

[Genghis Khan]

I know of a few people close to my family who have had an abortion (in a nearby country) and they had to see psychiatrists for various problems. They weren't teenagers either. I just am against it wholly.

Did they clarify that the problem was abortion related? How many people were there? Did they have any previous incidences where they had to visit a psychiatrist?

My question was from the news when I heard in New Zealand )one of the Courts of Appeals) saying an unborn baby has no right to life.

I wouldn't go as far as saying an unborn baby doesn't have a right to live, but considering the circumstances it will be brought up in, is it worth it?

But there is something that I do accept. In cases where a female has been raped and becomes pregnant, then there is a grey area.

Yup. You're on the line between pro-life and pro-choice there, personally I just think it depends on the situation, I'm not here to claim anything with absolute certainty only to have my far fetched argument debunked, but generally I'm more towards pro-choice.

[aussiebunnie]

Did they clarify that the problem was abortion related? How many people were there? Did they have any previous incidences where they had to visit a psychiatrist?



I wouldn't go as far as saying an unborn baby doesn't have a right to live, but considering the circumstances it will be brought up in, is it worth it?



Yup. You're on the line between pro-life and pro-choice there, personally I just think it depends on the situation, I'm not here to claim anything with absolute certainty only to have my far fetched argument debunked, but generally I'm more towards pro-choice.

For me if in a crazy world I had to decide, it would be that Abortion would be illegal, however there would be an exception in cases where it can be proven that a person was raped and an independent panel could grant the person to have an abortion. Apart from that exception, no abortion would be permissible.

[Sith Lord 13]

Studies show that going through with an abortion is less psychologically damaging for a teenager. But that might be what you're saying...?

Source? I've always heard the opposite, but I'm not gonna make that claim since I don't have any sources handy.

[Genghis Khan]

For me if in a crazy world I had to decide, it would be that Abortion would be illegal, however there would be an exception in cases where it can be proven that a person was raped and an independent panel could grant the person to have an abortion. Apart from that exception, no abortion would be permissible.

You didn't answer my first question though.

[aussiebunnie]

Well I can only partially answer the first question as we do not keep in touch with them. There were 2 of them. They did not have any psychiatric problems prior (atleast I do not think so - it is a poor assumption to say that someone looks normal as there might be something hidden from the surface). They were of different ages. One lived in New Zealand.

[Jess]

For me if in a crazy world I had to decide, it would be that Abortion would be illegal, however there would be an exception in cases where it can be proven that a person was raped and an independent panel could grant the person to have an abortion. Apart from that exception, no abortion would be permissible.

Then those women, in your world, that want an abortion but weren't raped would get an abortion in that unsafe, really unsafe way. if they really REALLY wanted an abortion

[Sith Lord 13]

Then those women, in your world, that want an abortion but weren't raped would get an abortion in that unsafe, really unsafe way. if they really REALLY wanted an abortion

So we should legalize all drugs, because otherwise people are gonna obtain them in unsafe ways?

[Death]

Then those women, in your world, that want an abortion but weren't raped would get an abortion in that unsafe, really unsafe way. if they really REALLY wanted an abortion

Adding to what Sith Lord 13 said, should we also legalise all murder, simply because it might avoid further murders against potential witnesses?

[Korashk]

So we should legalize all drugs, because otherwise people are gonna obtain them in unsafe ways?
That's only one of the myriad of reasons to legalize all drugs.

But yes, that argument is a piece of crap in most cases. I'll repeat my post from the last big abortion thread:
Just thought I'd address some of the common points being used against the anti-choice side:

"A fetus is not alive" Yes it is.

Comprised of cells: Check
Organizational patterns: Check
Energy Use: Check
Maintains homeostasis: Check
Growth: Check
Reproduction: Check, unless you don't consider things alive until they reach reproductive maturity.

Stop using this argument against them.
~~~

"Women will have them anyways" So what? Theft is illegal, but people still do it.

Stop using this argument against them.
~~~

"Better for society" This is basically eugenics, which I guess is an arguable point, but not a very solid one unless you really know your stuff.
~~~

"They can't feel it" So what? They can't feel it, so it's okay is another one of those non-sequiturs.

[Origami]

You are what you make of yourself, so drop the "child doesn't deserve it" shit. I came from nothing, I was an unplanned pregnancy. Born to once drug addicted parents. You control where you go in life. What you're born into won't effect that. If anything it should be more reason to strive.
I am pro-life, to hell with pro-choice. Don't want it, don't make it. Fuck these teenage harlots going around letting guys inside of them. If she's raped, and it's proven with someone finding time in jail for it, then abort. If it was because he didn't pull out quick enough then deal with it. You deserve the pain of squeezing an 8lb child out of you for sheer stupidity.
I don't care if you wait till you're married or not, but as a teenager you should be focused more on studies and excelling in life than you should be trying to find your soul-mate sex slave bullshit.

[Genghis Khan]

I came from nothing, I was an unplanned pregnancy.

Which probably also explains (with every ounce of respect I can muster) why you're hostile to pro-choice.

Born to once drug addicted parents. You control where you go in life. What you're born into won't effect that. If anything it should be more reason to strive.

You're not only pro-life but you have a Type A personality, you believe that fate has nothing to do with anything and only you can make something of yourself. To a certain degree, that's fine, no one's here to change your pampers for you on a permanent level, however it is also worth looking at the people who lead shit lives and consider it isn't their fault entirely. If you're the result of an unwanted pregnancy and you're raised by parents that are not prepared to take an interest in you, you'll obviously at some point and to some degree feel demotivated to do anything and feel your very existence is worthless. This can lead to resorting to crime, or some form of criminal activity. Not that I'm implying this is always the case, but just simply telling the teenager to 'deal with it' even if it was a mistake will mean the baby may have to 'deal with' a terrible upbringing and on a broader scale society will have to 'deal with' another criminal. This argument may be far fetched but it is a counter argument.

However I do agree that one should be pre cautious and not just hump around without give a fuck about where this can lead. Awareness is a must.

I am pro-life, to hell with pro-choice. Don't want it, don't make it. Fuck these teenage harlots going around letting guys inside of them.

Point taken, I will fuck a teenage harlot that lets guys inside of her.


I don't care if you wait till you're married or not, but as a teenager you should be focused more on studies and excelling in life than you should be trying to find your soul-mate sex slave bullshit.

Word.

[aussiebunnie]

Then those women, in your world, that want an abortion but weren't raped would get an abortion in that unsafe, really unsafe way. if they really REALLY wanted an abortion

Yes that is a problem. There will be ways to get it done. But many you can create rules to minimize this.

[Origami]

Which probably also explains (with every ounce of respect I can muster) why you're hostile to pro-choice.
Surprisingly, I don't believe it has anything to do with why I'm pro-life. Honestly, I truly believe that stupidity is what conceives a child in teenage years and nothing more. I don't take lightly to stupid people. Ignorance is another story, but if they're having sex, they are almost always full aware of its repercussions.

You're not only pro-life but you have a Type A personality, you believe that fate has nothing to do with anything and only you can make something of yourself. To a certain degree, that's fine, no one's here to change your pampers for you on a permanent level, however it is also worth looking at the people who lead shit lives and consider it isn't their fault entirely. If you're the result of an unwanted pregnancy and you're raised by parents that are not prepared to take an interest in you, you'll obviously at some point and to some degree feel demotivated to do anything and feel your very existence is worthless. This can lead to resorting to crime, or some form of criminal activity. Not that I'm implying this is always the case, but just simply telling the teenager to 'deal with it' even if it was a mistake will mean the baby may have to 'deal with' a terrible upbringing and on a broader scale society will have to 'deal with' another criminal. This argument may be far fetched but it is a counter argument.

However I do agree that one should be pre cautious and not just hump around without give a fuck about where this can lead. Awareness is a must.
But is it not safe to say that this could occur in any hormonal teenager? Not just a child who came from incapable parents?


Point taken, I will fuck a teenage harlot that lets guys inside of her.
Didn't mean "fuck" her as such, but yeah, okay. XD
Was more along the lines of "to hell with..."

[Genghis Khan]

But is it not safe to say that this could occur in any hormonal teenager? Not just a child who came from incapable parents?

Yes, but not always as likely.



Didn't mean "fuck" her as such, but yeah, okay. XD
Was more along the lines of "to hell with..."

.____. damn it.

[Marky]

No I'm saying the opposite. If I had gone through with that I would have alot of regret. In some countries they have a law which means if you kill your own child and your a mother you can use that to mitigate the offence. That shows that there are psychological "issues" when dealing with the mother/child relationship. I think that sometimes when your 16 (where the decisions you make aren't as clear when you are say 24) that you would regret going ahead with the abortion later in life. It may not show up immediately, but later in life.



but the later in life wont be the same because of the struggles the mom would have to go threw to get to an egh place for the baby than for the mom to have an abortion 8 years later regrt it saying the baby could have had all this well the girl wouldnt of been able to have all that if the baby was born anyways

[aussiebunnie]

Then the person should have used proper protection when having sex. Sex isn't a necessity in life. We shouldn't move the goal posts to ensure that people can have sex unprotected whenever they want. That is not fundamental like the right to free speech or a right to life. There are also plenty of places that will adopt the child, there are plenty of families who cannot have children for whatever reason.

[Marky]

but not all families adopt leaving many children/young adults/ babies un adopted. and we are not talking about moving the pole to include abortion as a nessesity of life if one makes a mistake but wether or not it is morally right or not and if its just the girls choice. should we alow girls to have abortions at ages so ypoung

[aussiebunnie]

but not all families adopt leaving many children/young adults/ babies un adopted. and we are not talking about moving the pole to include abortion as a nessesity of life if one makes a mistake but wether or not it is morally right or not and if its just the girls choice. should we alow girls to have abortions at ages so ypoung

So we should change the laws so that girls can go and have sex with anyone they like? Have a look at what the abortion law is really trying to protect. People who have sex without protection. You call that a mistake? I call that irresponsible.

[cmdexe]

I am pro-choice. I don't like abortion, but I don't disagree with its legalisation, especially for teens. Of course better education is preferable. Also note that no one chooses abortion light heartedly, it's traumatic and should be dealt with as such.

How I see it - a young fetus is a ball of cells that is capable of becoming a human in the right conditions, but it's not yet aware of anything nor can it feel pain. Fusion of gametes does not equal "human life". I agree that it does at some stage, but within the first few weeks, it's not. If someone has a good enough reason to get rid of it and go through the trauma of an abortion, then they should be allowed to do it in safe conditions. There is a legal limit on how many weeks gone the girl is before abortion becomes murder. The outcome - the fetus isn't aware of its being aborted (hence it's not "harming" the fetus) and the parent/s can have a baby or not when their lives are more stable.

The non-argument "Keeping rape illegal is pointless since that will also still happen." etc blah blah is obvious rubbish. Rape is illegal because one party doesn't consent and hence if it's illegal, the other party can be punished. Were it made legal, the conditions wouldn't improve at all for the victim. With legal abortion, the mother consents and the fetus is not mature enough to feel anything as it's not developed. Were it made illegal, the conditions would be drastically lower for the mother, resulting in possible serious injury or death. I'll leave you to work that one out..


I support legalisation of stuff that doesn't harm non-consenting parties, so that it can be made safe. IE abortion, drug legalisation, but not rape or murder. If a fetus is developed enough to feel pain and is aware of what's going on (to a certain degree) then yes it's murder, and even if the girl was raped, after a point it legally becomes murder and obviously that's wrong.

[aussiebunnie]

How I see it - a young fetus is a ball of cells that is capable of becoming a human in the right conditions, but it's not yet aware of anything nor can it feel pain. Fusion of gametes does not equal "human life". I agree that it does at some stage, but within the first few weeks, it's not. If someone has a good enough reason to get rid of it and go through the trauma of an abortion, then they should be allowed to do it in safe conditions. There is a legal limit on how many weeks gone the girl is before abortion becomes murder. The outcome - the fetus isn't aware of its being aborted (hence it's not "harming" the fetus) and the parent/s can have a baby or not when their lives are more stable.
.

So according to your theory, because the fetus does not equate to human life. If a person assaults a women causing miscarriage (the fetus dies as a result) then you would allow that person to be charged with assault only and not the more serious charge of manslaughter of the fetus - because it does not equate to human life?

[Spock]

i am against it because most teens do it because they messed up....THEN Y DID U HAVE SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE?!? YOU NO THE ONLY WAY NOT TO GET PREGNANT OR DEVELOP A STD IS NOT TO HAVE SEX BECAUSE CONDOMS AND BIRTH CONTROL ARENT 100% ACCURATE

[aussiebunnie]

i am against it because most teens do it because they messed up....THEN Y DID U HAVE SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE?!? YOU NO THE ONLY WAY NOT TO GET PREGNANT OR DEVELOP A STD IS NOT TO HAVE SEX BECAUSE CONDOMS AND BIRTH CONTROL ARENT 100% ACCURATE

I think you raised another good point and a "grey" area where birth control and protection fails.

[cmdexe]

So according to your theory, because the fetus does not equate to human life. If a person assaults a women causing miscarriage (the fetus dies as a result) then you would allow that person to be charged with assault only and not the more serious charge of manslaughter of the fetus - because it does not equate to human life?

Pretty much. Of course the further along the woman is, the more I'd be inclined to go with manslaughter, as well as causing emotional trauma etc. If anyone assaults a woman badly enough to cause a miscarriage then I would say they'd be in a lot of trouble anyway.

[Neverender]

Since a baby's heart starts beating around six weeks, I would consider the baby both alive and the killing of it little different to killing it once born. Why does the baby being in the womb make killing it any less bad? Where do you draw the line between killing a human and killing an 'object'?

When they're past 6 months, so far as the law is concerned. Or as far as I am concerned, at around the point at which they can not survive in an incubator outside of a womb. Or before it developes some form of consciousness, like kicking in its most basic form. Before that point, it bridges on parasitoidism.

How far does "pro-choice" go? Should radical Islamists who believe they are doing the world a favour by blowing cities up be given a choice?

Meh. Not argueing with the logic, not agreeing with it either.


It doesn't look like you're doing the best for the baby.

You'd be aamazed the lives some of these children will have to endure as they grow up.


If the girl is stupid enough to go get herself pregnant than she should live with the consequences. Coming to think of it, couldn't she give the baby away to an orphanage?

Now you're punishing the baby for her mothers mistakes.

Now if the girl's life was at risk or if she'd been raped, then I'd see justification. But that rapist had better spend the rest of their life cooped up in a shithole without parole.

Now we're talking dere budday.

Oh, and what's up with the yes-no answers to a non yes-no question in the poll?

Idiot OP.

[aussiebunnie]

Now you're punishing the baby for her mothers mistakes.
Idiot OP.

So killing the unborn baby is not punishing them?

[Death]

Now you're punishing the baby for her mothers mistakes.

LOL. Tell me you don't think that being alive in an oprhanage or with a loving-enough non-biological family is worse than graphic death.

Idiot OP.

Guessed as much.

[Perseus]

LOL. Tell me you don't think that being alive in an oprhanage or with a loving-enough non-biological family is worse than graphic death.




I'd rather not live than live in an orphanage. There's no guarantee you will be adopted.

[Neonbutterfly]

I think it's better for the girls to get an abortion, if they rufuse to give it up for adoption. I think adoption is a better choice, but, if that doesn't work out, abortion is better than trying to raise a child when you know you can't.

[Death]

So killing the unborn baby is not punishing them?

I thought you told me you're not going to post in any thread I posted in. This is quite literally what you said, for some unfathomable reason.

Oh, and I would call killing a baby as more than a mere "punishment".

[AJC410]

Why kill the baby what did it do wrong if you don't want to take care of it give it up let it get adopted. Then it would at lest live it's live.

[Marky]

you guys are talking about the baby as if " hey i dont want you too stay with me when you come out so i am going to send u to an orphanage" well have you thought about what would happen to the baby if they never get adopted or what they will think when they grow up and wonder why the hell their biological parents gave them up. they might think that they didnt want them u never know.