Originally posted by Kritish
Who decides if it's necessary or not?
In the case of a rape pregnancy? If so, the decision would go to the pregnant rape victim, if the person happens to not be an adult; the responsibility would fall on the child’s parent and/or guardians to make the decision in the child’s best interest.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Oh my...I'm predicting another 300+ pages to come with the same arguments repeating each other...
Well considering the poll is very close to being 50/50 you're probably right. But the responsibility falls upon the pro-abortion side to prove the better argument since their view has the potential to kill a person, while the anti-abortion side has the potential to take away a right.
Given those two choices, the pro-abortion side has the potential for greater evil so the burden is theirs.
I haven't read every single page, but from what I saw when I glanced around; the pro-abortion people don't really have a good arguement, it basically comes down to "it's 'her' body, she'll do what she likes!" and that isn't going to cut it by itself considering we have death on the line.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Oh my...I'm predicting another 300+ pages to come with the same arguments repeating each other...
Word. I think I've reached my limit. Maybe I'll start arguing the opposite view just for kicks.
U uN5/-\VD |-|EA7HENS!!11! I'M GoiNG TO FYreBOM TeH ABORTION p|_/-\cE!11!one
Words like murder and morals need to be DEFINED – again.
So – morals are motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. Ideas being a key here, as well as “right” and “wrong”, which again are HUMAN terms. There is no absolute moral and no one to tell us what REALLY TRULY IS right or wrong.
Morals have changed over time – once slavery was ok, today it isn’t for example.
MURDER – is a legal term, it is the “UNLAWFUL killing of another human being”, as opposed to legal killings like executions, manslaughter (accidents) and war, and the slaughter of livestock. Sine an unborn foetus is not even a full human being capable of independent life; it falls in a category of its own.
But an abortion is NOT murder. It is not killing a human being, since a foetus is not a human being yet. This is a crucial point here. Whether YOU personally agree with abortions or not is irrelevant; it is NOT murder, since murder it is NOT the unlawful killing of another human being or a PERSON (An individual of specified character).
It’s important to remember, that most states that allow abortions do not do so completely free. There is a limit of 12 weeks here in DK, after that it requires a life threatening complication for the woman before the abortion will be performed. After about 3 months the girl/woman also has had ample time to decide whether or not SHE wants the child.
Originally posted by Robtard
I haven't read every single page, but from what I saw when I glanced around; the pro-abortion people don't really have a good arguement, it basically comes down to "it's 'her' body, she'll do what she likes!" and that isn't going to cut it by itself considering we have death on the line.
I'm not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice, and I am going to tell you that perhaps you need to read more into this topic if that's all the pro-abortion supporters are arguing.
And perhaps you need to specify death for me because that too is a point of view.
Originally posted by Robtard
In the case of a rape pregnancy? If so, the decision would go to the pregnant rape victim, if the person happens to not be an adult; the responsibility would fall on the child’s parent and/or guardians to make the decision in the child’s best interest.
Why do the Child's parents get to decide? It's not there body. Or I suppose you think Children are property.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
And you should respect PVS. He knows more than you do obviously. Your whole argument on the matter, including your opinion, is "supportless." Abortion is not wrong, and neither is it right. It has been stated more than enough times that abortion is all due to an individuals point of view. My point of view is that it's totally illogical to say that it's either wrong or right because no one has any memories from when he or she was a foetuse, therefore you cannot relate to the feelings or understandings of a foetuse growing in a woman's body because you have no remembrance of it, therefore you cannot know that a foetuse has thoughts or feelings. I can't remember getting circumcised let alone remember floating in my mother's womb. In any case, the decisions are up to the woman carrying the foetuse to make. No one elses.
I absolutely disagree with you on this. Ok, I'm a guy, but from an objective point of view,it's difficult to envision any other surgical procedure that left 85% of its patients depressed afterwards-some very severely so-and that (some studies,not all claim this) can increase the risk of breast cancer by 65%. There is,of curse, a point to saying the woman should be allowed one if she may commit suicide because of her pregnancy, but the British Medical Journal last November printed a study showing that the risk of women committing suicide was increased sevenfold by having an abortion. If a woman was already very depressed before her abortion, well, you work the risk out.
The fact is that there are very many women who have had abortions and who still suffer the psychological consequences. I'm not trying to scaremonger or use shock tactics, simply to show the downside to this procedure. Even the doctor who testified at the landmark US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade abortion case in the 70s has said that he now is firmly opposed to abortion.
The fact, also, is that you cannot place a limit on someone's right to life. It's OK to say that you can only drink once you're 18 even though there's no difference between 17 years 364 days and 18 years, but to use that sort of slapdash mechanism to rule on the difference between surgery and murder-the difference of a split-second eithert way of midnight-is madness. Biologically, unborn children display all the characteristics of living beings-they eat, they excrete, they breathe, they move. They are just as capable of reproduction as a 1-year-old living child and they have a DNA structure separate to the mother's. Basically, they are alive, just as much so as a baby is for the first few months after birth.
There is also a photograph the Irish Independent ran a few years ago, showing a 21-week-old baby-that was still within the legal range to be aborted where it was-being operated on by a doctor and, through the incision in the womb, the baby's hand was gripping the little finger of the surgeon. There used to be a link to this photo on but it's now out of date, and I can vividly remember seeing it in the paper the day it was printed, but since then it's been buried in the archives of the Independent's web page. Trust me, it's a truly remarkable picture.
Well, that's what I have to say on the matter anyway.
Originally posted by §ilent
I absolutely disagree with you on this. Ok, I'm a guy, but from an objective point of view,it's difficult to envision any other surgical procedure that left 85% of its patients depressed afterwards-some very severely so-and that (some studies,not all claim this) can increase the risk of breast cancer by 65%. There is,of curse, a point to saying the woman should be allowed one if she may commit suicide because of her pregnancy, but the British Medical Journal last November printed a study showing that the risk of women committing suicide was increased sevenfold by having an abortion. If a woman was already very depressed before her abortion, well, you work the risk out.The fact is that there are very many women who have had abortions and who still suffer the psychological consequences. I'm not trying to scaremonger or use shock tactics, simply to show the downside to this procedure. Even the doctor who testified at the landmark US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade abortion case in the 70s has said that he now is firmly opposed to abortion.
The fact, also, is that you cannot place a limit on someone's right to life. It's OK to say that you can only drink once you're 18 even though there's no difference between 17 years 364 days and 18 years, but to use that sort of slapdash mechanism to rule on the difference between surgery and murder-the difference of a split-second eithert way of midnight-is madness. Biologically, unborn children display all the characteristics of living beings-they eat, they excrete, they breathe, they move. They are just as capable of reproduction as a 1-year-old living child and they have a DNA structure separate to the mother's. Basically, they are alive, just as much so as a baby is for the first few months after birth.
There is also a photograph the Irish Independent ran a few years ago, showing a 21-week-old baby-that was still within the legal range to be aborted where it was-being operated on by a doctor and, through the incision in the womb, the baby's hand was gripping the little finger of the surgeon. There used to be a link to this photo on but it's now out of date, and I can vividly remember seeing it in the paper the day it was printed, but since then it's been buried in the archives of the Independent's web page. Trust me, it's a truly remarkable picture.
Well, that's what I have to say on the matter anyway.
Microscopic organisims also eat, excrete, not sure about breathing, but they do need oxygen, move, and act intiutively. They also carry their own DNA structure seperate from their parent or 'mother.' Basically, microscopic organisims are alive, just as much so as a baby, a man, a woman, a child, a dog, a cat, etc. etc. etc. and no one seems to call wiping off deadly bacteria from your hands murder. So what is your point?
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Microscopic organisims also eat, excrete, not sure about breathing, but they do need oxygen, move, and act intiutively. They also carry their own DNA structure seperate from their parent or 'mother.' Basically, microscopic organisims are alive, just as much so as a baby, a man, a woman, a child, a dog, a cat, etc. etc. etc. and no one seems to call wiping off deadly bacteria from your hands murder. So what is your point?
Well my point is according to the Irish Medical Organisation there is never a medical necessity for an abortion to be carried out to save the life of the mother (as opposed to operations such as a hysterectomy, where the loss of the child is an unintentional side-effect of necessary life-saving procedure).
Psychologically, of course, is a different matter, where a suicide risk is diagnosed,but see my previous post, where the increased likelihood of suicide after an abortion is mentioned.
Unfortunately,for most of you, abortion is a fact of life in your countries, which leads to a complacency about the issue and a lack of real debate about the consequences it can have for the mother, which is almost never mentioned in the media.
BTW, How do you feel about aborting a baby if it will be born disabled?
Originally posted by §ilent
Well my point is according to the Irish Medical Organisation there is never a medical necessity for an abortion to be carried out to save the life of the mother
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, considering I know women who had an abortion for that exact reason.
Originally posted by §ilent
Unfortunately,for most of you, abortion is a fact of life in your countries, which leads to a complacency about the issue and a lack of real debate about the consequences it can have for the mother, which is almost never mentioned in the media.BTW, How do you feel about aborting a baby if it will be born disabled?
There's a lack of debate for me anyway. Credible rebuttals haven't exactly been coming thick and fast in this thread.
Nothing more than a bunch of bible bashers telling people why they can and can't, should and shouldn't do things. That's not a debate.
-AC
Originally posted by §ilent
How do you feel about aborting a baby if it will be born disabled?
....if the baby's already born disabled, then I really don't think abortion would be an option.
Besides, there's no guarantee of any disability if any problems were to occur during pregnancy. Even through a stable pregnancy the chance of a child being born with some mental or physical disabilities are still likely to occur.
So, my answer to your question is:
If the woman wants a child, then let her have a child. But if she is worried about the possibility of the baby coming out deformed, or what have you, then she should be prepared for the worst. I don't know if you know this yet, but risks are also taken during pregnancy.
The problem with most pro-life supporters is that they think too much about the future. And that's not good... because they're living in nothing more than fantasy.