Abortion

[FIGJAM]

'Worst' or hardest to answer?

It was the worst because it was the most stupid.

It is most definitely notnecessary for you to eat cow meat or any other meat for that matter. We have plenty of other options nowadays for you to meet all of your dietary requirements without having to eat the processed carcasses of slaughtered animals.

It is certainly not 'necessarily' for us to farm and kill livestock and foul for consumption. But you do it anyway.

Here is what I am saying Figgy:

Those who are against abortion should either be against the killing of animals for food (since both are unnecessary) or they are simply hypocritical.

If human potential life is worth more than animal actual life, there has to be a valid argument that this is the case. Do you have one? I'm willing to be you don't.

It is certainly feasible to be a vegetarian, although the human machine is designed to eat meat. Whether it be vegetation or animals, life has to kill other life to survive, so any such argument that abortion shoud equate to the collection of food is preposterous!

Vegetarians I know need to compensate for a lack of iron and protein in their diet. It is clear that it is meat that they could most readily obtain this from meat. It is natural to eat meat. It is not, in my opinion, natural for someone to externally interfere with a live human foetus with a view to terminating its life course.

 

[Vaders_1st]

I have no idea of the figures, but I would expect that abortions inside wedlock would be in the minority.

Boyfriend/fiances etc. The father to be....

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Those who are against abortion should either be against the killing of animals for food (since both are unnecessary) or they are simply hypocritical.

I personally value a human life more than I value an animal life (mind you, I'm pro-choice so it wasn't really directed at me).

And whilst eating animals isn't mandatory, it is certainly the most efficient way to obtain a well rounded diet, and efficiency is more important than what is necessary. If man always did the bare minimum, we wouldn't have evolved to where we are now.

 

[Miss BD]

Against. Satan rejoices everytime an abortion happens.

We may have to force women to have babies but I think it's a risk worth taking.

Ah yes, because women are just vessels and their rights should be completely overlooked.

Go back and read what Papa G had to say. He made a lot of sense.

 

[BomberGal]

Here is my view, guaranteed to please no one. Not even me.

Abortion is killing.

All definitions of life post conception are arbitrary human or legal decisions, they are not when a life began.

Life begins at conception.

That is when this seperate biological material, sperm and egg, started to exist as a life, in however primative form in the early stages.

But, some times killing is necessary. The terms killer and murder are not the same thing, murder is a legal term, and it means legal sanction against has been agreed upon.

Killing a criminal in self-defense, in war (under certain circumstances) is not murder, but it sure as hell is killing.

Abortion is killing.

But history shows women can not be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy, to carry a life in their body if they are determined not to, and to force them is to my mind a greater injustice than the killing of the life in very early stages in most circumstances.

Abortion, as currently practiced, is justifiable killing.

But do not kid yourself ladies, give the gravity of your decision the honor of truth, you are killing.

You may have to kill, but killing is what you are doing.

Well, to say it's always killing is one thing, and I see your point.

But at the same time, then perhaps what needs to change is the way you perceive killing. Working in a lab I regularly kill organisms, but this doesn't make it a 'bad' thing.

 

[SolidTiger]

Almost all of you are seem to think that women treat an abortion like going to the hair dresser. I would suggest that for most women who go through with the procedure, it is one of the most painful (emotionally) experiences they ever have. I would also suggest that most do not treat the decision anywhere near as lightly as many of you seem to think and would almost always have a very good reason for having an abortion. It's a decision that most of the posters here who I presume are predominantly male, will luckily never have to make. I am a father myself and know the value and joy children bring to your life, so I am not coming from the point of view of some snot nosed 17 year old spouting his narrow sense of morality on here.

My sister in law has been trying for children and has had 3 misscarriages when the baby has been in the 7-13 week bracket each time. Her body has basically told her that the feotus wasn't quite right and thus "rejected" it. Now this is an involuntary action that happens all the time and nobody bats an eyelid. I see abortion as just the voluntary form of this because it is the woman's brain not body saying, for what ever reason, that she is not ready to have a baby.

For me, it is a woman's right to chose. It is never an easy decision to make, something that most will live for the rest of their lives, but it's a decision that they alone have the right to make.

I wish the posters sister luck in having a child, but having a miscarriage is different than having an abortion. It will be more distressing for a woman to have a miscarrige because she is ready to have a child and has her heart set on having a child.

With a miscarriage the woman has made a choice to have a child but can't. With an abortion the woman is obviously not ready to have children and doesn't want a child and she can fulfill her decision.

 

[fairdinkum]

It is certainly feasible to be a vegetarian

Well that was an awfully quick backflip! One minute it is 'you must distinguish between unnecessary cessation of life...' and now it is 'certainly feasible' to live without eating meat?

although the human machine is designed to eat meat. Whether it be vegetation or animals, life has to kill other life to survive, so any such argument that abortion shoud equate to the collection of food is preposterous!

This fails on several levels:

1) The 'human machine' is also designed to die from cancer, and to stop those with an inability to procreate from procreating - among many other things. And yet, I doubt that you are against treating cancer patients or allowing infertile couples access to IVF. The 'human machine' was designed to survive just fine without showers, and yet we all accept that it is beneficial to shower every day or so. The 'human machine' argument is a weak one at best.

2) In any event, if the 'human machine' can survive without eating meat, then the chances are that it is 'designed' (for want of better word) to do so. Unless you think that all vegetarians are fluking it by remaining alive?

3) On the one hand you suggest that human life is more important than animal life (you are yet to explain why, BTW) and yet now you are suggesting that animal life is of equal importance to plant life.

Vegetarians I know need to compensate for a lack of iron and protein in their diet. It is clear that it is meat that they could most readily obtain this from meat.

Again, eating meat is not necessary and you have already ceded this point. Abortions are (in general) unnecessary, and so is eating meat. Both involve the ending of life - one in its most primitive form (a handful of cells), the other in the most developed form - full grown animals.

It is natural to eat meat. It is not, in my opinion, natural for someone to externally interfere with a live human foetus with a view to terminating its life course.

It is also not 'natural' to interfere with cancer spreading throughout the body. Your 'natural' and 'human machine' arguments are very weak.

 

[fairdinkum]

I personally value a human life more than I value an animal life (mind you, I'm pro-choice so it wasn't really directed at me).

Why do you value a human life more than an animal life? I'm not saying you are wrong to do so, but I think that the reason why you do is very relevant to this debate. If, as I have suggested earlier, it is 'personhood' that makes human life more valuable, then this is of great significance to any rational abortion debate. See my earlier post (#84 of this thread) for more explanation.

And whilst eating animals isn't mandatory, it is certainly the most efficient way to obtain a well rounded diet, and efficiency is more important than what is necessary. If man always did the bare minimum, we wouldn't have evolved to where we are now.

Whilst your evolution claim may have some merit, it doesn't validate the wanton killing of animals that goes on today to meet our meat demand.

 

[FIGJAM]

You could argue that you can live on a saline solution with nutrients pumped into you to avoid killing plants too. It's not relevant to the argument.

Your argument is also slightly peculiar. If I flip it around and ask that if you value a human life form as the same as a moose, then why can't I go out and shoot humans for fun? It's a stoopid argument fairdinkum.

The issue resides as to the seemingly arbitrary position that various people and governments suggest is human life. When is your subjective opinion? Three months? Six months? Pre-birth? First crawl? Or do you seriously rate human life as the equal of the autonomous sheep that is reared for food?

 

[fairdinkum]

You could argue that you can live on a saline solution with nutrients pumped into you to avoid killing plants too. It's not relevant to the argument.

Why would we want to avoid killing plants? Do they feel pain? Do they miss their mothers and fathers? Unless you can prove to me that they do, your counter argument is completely pointless.

Your argument is also slightly peculiar. If I flip it around and ask that if you value a human life form as the same as a moose, then why can't I go out and shoot humans for fun? It's a stoopid argument fairdinkum.

For somebody who asks others to 'open their minds', you are very good at keeping yours closed to others' arguments.

Read back and find me where I said that human life was equal to animal life. Can you? No, you can't. What I have said is that there is a reason why most of us value human life more than animal life, and it has to do with a thing called 'personhood' - a state animals (and plants for that matter) are unable to reach.

This is of significance to this debate because it sheds light on why so many people are so abhorred at the idea of killing a millimeter-big feotus but don't shirk at the idea of killing millions of fully-grown cows. The cow cannot write love poems and never will. The cow cannot save money to go to college and never will. Etc Etc. The foetus probably will be able to do all of this and more. It is this potential person that anti-abortion sentiment is trying to look out for.

The problem is that, just like foetus, the ovum and sperm are potential persons too. If the reason why somebody is against abortion is because of the loss of this potential person, then why shouldn't that person also be against contraception - which also eliminates the prospect of a potential person?

The issue resides as to the seemingly arbitrary position that various people and governments suggest is human life. When is your subjective opinion? Three months? Six months? Pre-birth? First crawl? Or do you seriously rate human life as the equal of the autonomous sheep that is reared for food?

This is what I am trying to get at - but you have so far proven to be too closed-minded (or perhaps even immature?) to try to understand this.

 

[Richo83]

I do find people opposing abortions but supporting the meat industry slightly in some ways hypocritical, because they are saying that killing is wrong, they need to be fair and consistent in that principle.

It's not saying that a cow = a fetus, but that principles need to be applied. IMO you can't compare the equality of a cow and a fetus, they are incomparable.

Unless these people actually think that a cow is lesser than a fetus and can be killed, whereas a baby isn't. But then again they are falling into the argument of many abortionists who draw the line and argue that certain objects can be killed and some can't, such the argument that a seven week old fetuses have a lesser importance and can be killed if the mother wants to.

My position is that it's worthless comparing equality what is equal, it's principle that is important, the killing of animals which induces pain within them is cruel, to say that that's okay yet a 26 week old fetus is not okay yet meat, the issue here isn't equality but principle, both could be called unnecessary, both could be called cruel, yet the stance changes.

My position on this topic is that once a baby becomes able to live and function as an organism outside the woman, it is a child. Which means that once a child has a heart, brain, lungs, nervous system etc. by around 26 weeks, it is a child. Which is why we should be performing abortions when it isn't a child, when it is not the killing of a child as early as possible. While I would allow abortions in this period (26-36 weeks) for when the mother is at risk (for even if there is a child there, the health of the mother is the utmost of importance and should take precedence just for practical reasons, the mother has the child she doesn't want, you have an unstable suicidal mother, great ) I would institute a strong education programe telling mothers to try and have the abortion completed as early as possible to remove risks of a killing of a child happening, get checked for pregnancy early etc.

The US performs 87% of all abortions within the first 13 weeks, it aint a child then, it aint murder.

I think meat is a slightly different issue because humans perform abortions for different reasons they kill cows. I find the anti-meat groups silly because it is within human nature to consume what we are designed to eat and to eat objects of which nutrients (protein, iron) is sourced. Sure it may be cruel but it happens in the animal world, every day a lion is eating a zebra. Does it mean that zebras are lesser than a lion? No, it means the the structure of the animal world results in a few being killed, and the survival and continuance of animal species requires meat, for me I am no exception. You can't equalize in this because it's impossible.

 

[FIGJAM]

I do find people opposing abortions but supporting the meat industry slightly in some ways hypocritical, because they are saying that killing is wrong, they need to be fair and consistent in that principle.

Siddartha Gautama spoke against harming sentient life in any way.

Yet he died from eating contaminated pork.

Paradoxes are fun!

 

[Vaders_1st]

Am I allowed to post images of the results of abortion mods? Or is it too gruesome an will result in a card?

 

[Qsaint]

Siddartha Gautama spoke against harming sentient life in any way.

Yet he died from eating contaminated pork.

Paradoxes are fun!

Magik Mushies wasn't it

 

[skilts]

Am I allowed to post images of the results of abortion mods? Or is it too gruesome an will result in a card?

Self portraits are allowed.

 

[mr_cellotape]

Am I allowed to post images of the results of abortion mods? Or is it too gruesome an will result in a card?

Of what relevance would it be to the discussion?

 

[Vaders_1st]

Of what relevance would it be to the discussion?

I think people need to see the grim honest realities of abortion before they make swift decisions.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I think people need to see the grim honest realities of abortion before they make swift decisions.

Should we post picture of open heart surgeries in a discussion about health insurance?

 

[Vaders_1st]

Sure why not.

Do doctors take pictures of every abortion they do? Or video? If they don't I think they should, and every woman and couple that decides to have an abortion should see it. To see what happens when they choose that path.

If you can't look at it after you make that decision then you know you shouldn't have made that decision at all.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Well that was an awfully quick backflip! One minute it is 'you must distinguish between unnecessary cessation of life...' and now it is 'certainly feasible' to live without eating meat?



This fails on several levels:

1) The 'human machine' is also designed to die from cancer, and to stop those with an inability to procreate from procreating - among many other things. And yet, I doubt that you are against treating cancer patients or allowing infertile couples access to IVF. The 'human machine' was designed to survive just fine without showers, and yet we all accept that it is beneficial to shower every day or so. The 'human machine' argument is a weak one at best.

2) In any event, if the 'human machine' can survive without eating meat, then the chances are that it is 'designed' (for want of better word) to do so. Unless you think that all vegetarians are fluking it by remaining alive?

3) On the one hand you suggest that human life is more important than animal life (you are yet to explain why, BTW) and yet now you are suggesting that animal life is of equal importance to plant life.



Again, eating meat is not necessary and you have already ceded this point. Abortions are (in general) unnecessary, and so is eating meat. Both involve the ending of life - one in its most primitive form (a handful of cells), the other in the most developed form - full grown animals.



It is also not 'natural' to interfere with cancer spreading throughout the body. Your 'natural' and 'human machine' arguments are very weak.

Since when did what is 'necessary' ever become the defining element of an argument?

If you follow economics at all, you'd probably agree that what is desired, rather than what is necessary, determines human behaviour/morals.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Sure why not.

Do doctors take pictures of every abortion they do? Or video? If they don't I think they should, and every woman and couple that decides to have an abortion should see it. To see what happens when they choose that path.

If you can't look at it after you make that decision then you know you shouldn't have made that decision at all.

Shock value does nothing for an intelligent argument.

If someone was to break your knee caps, and you required knee surgery in order to walk again - should you have to look at pictures of knee surgery prior to getting it?

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Sure why not.

Do doctors take pictures of every abortion they do? Or video? If they don't I think they should, and every woman and couple that decides to have an abortion should see it. To see what happens when they choose that path.

If you can't look at it after you make that decision then you know you shouldn't have made that decision at all.

Agreed. Unless knees count as seperate beings then I'd say you are spot on with that statement.

 

[Magnum]

Sure why not.

Do doctors take pictures of every abortion they do? Or video? If they don't I think they should, and every woman and couple that decides to have an abortion should see it. To see what happens when they choose that path.

If you can't look at it after you make that decision then you know you shouldn't have made that decision at all.

Yeah and every time you order a burger or go to the butcher they should have videos of animals being slaughtered and gutted. Winning idea

 

[Vaders_1st]

It should apply to cases of murder. Better yet, show them images of previous abortions BEFORE they make the choice and you would probably see a cut in the instances.

I believe they should be made to have the child and I think it's worth it the small chance of mental scars to bring a new life into the world.

 

[Miss BD]

It should apply to cases of murder. Better yet, show them images of previous abortions BEFORE they make the choice and you would probably see a cut in the instances.

I believe they should be made to have the child and I think it's worth it the small chance of mental scars to bring a new life into the world.

Your views concern me deeply. You evidently have no respect for women, nor indeed children, as you'd be forcing them to be born into far less than ideal situations.