Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Adam Caramon]

I think that you and I both agree that
1 Getting pregnant when do not want to is irresponsible

Yes, agree.

2 Abortion as a means of birth control is wrong

What do you mean by "wrong"? Do you mean you don't like it, or do you mean that the government should prevent women from doing this?

Because I agree with the 1st, but not the second.

Is IMHO quite wrong

We'll have to agree to disagree. Assuming that a person has the mental faculties to understand that sex can result in pregnancy, then 1 unplanned pregnancy as a lack of knowledge is irresponsible. There are several ways to prevent pregnancy. If you are unaware of those ways, engage in sex anyhow, and become pregnant, that is irresponsible.

I really cannot think of a situation where someone becomes pregnant as a result of a lack of knowing that I would not label as being irresponsible. If you don't know how birth control works, why are you having sex?

Do you have a specific situation in mind that you're thinking of that maybe I am not?

 

[Galaxiom]

No birth control method is 100 percent reliable.

 

[ColinEssex]

Because I agree with the 1st, but not the second.

It's incorrect grammar to have a combination of numbers and numbers spelt out in the same sentence.

Col

 

[dan-cat]

What is the necessity of this kind of language?
It seems as if you're being intentionally rude.

No, you're simply failing to answer the question posed and replacing it with one of your own.

I'll reword it a third time.

So there is no incremental factor for you. An abortion is immediately irresponsible. Same question still stands. What is it about the abortion that makes it irresponsible?

 

[Adam Caramon]

No birth control method is 100 percent reliable.

True, which is why I have specifically been saying "as a lack of knowledge". If you take the proper precautions and pregnancy still results, then I would not deem that as irresponsible.

 

[Adam Caramon]

So there is no incremental factor for you. An abortion is immediately irresponsible. Same question still stands. What is it about the abortion that makes it irresponsible?

No. I did not say abortion is immediately irresponsible. I said:

There is no incremental factor, 1 unplanned pregnancy due to lack of knowledge is irresponsible. 1 abortion to "fix" that irresponsibility is irresponsible.

The abortion is irresponsible in this case because it stems from the irresponsible act of becoming pregnant when you did not desire to, due to a lack of knowledge.

An abortion to rid a woman of a child that is the product of incest or ra**, for example, is not irresponsible.

 

[dan-cat]

A better question, would you want to be the baby that your mother wanted to abort but was unable to due to governmental regulations?

I have a niece and two nephews (twins) who are unwanted by their mother. She went through with the two pregnancies but left soon after the last and rarely talks to her children.

The father has custody and their life is difficult but they laugh, play, attend school and stay overnight at our and their grandmother's house often.

Does this answer your question?

 

[dan-cat]

The abortion is irresponsible in this case because it stems from the irresponsible act of becoming pregnant when you did not desire to, due to a lack of knowledge.

You refuse to answer the question. It's irresponsible because it's irresponsible

What makes it irresponsible?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Does this answer your question?

I'm inferring based on the above that your answer is yes, if so, that answers my question.

You refuse to answer the question. It's irresponsible because it's irresponsible

What makes it irresponsible?

I think you have an "ah-ha" moment that you're trying to bring about, but in order to do so, you need me to answer your question in a certain way, and since I am not, you're stating that I am not answering the question.

But I am answering your question. I do not think that abortion is irresponsible. Using abortion as a method of birth control is irresponsible. What makes it irresponsible in this context? The need for an abortion could have been avoided had the proper precautions been taken. Therefore the abortion is irresponsible. Its not a black and white situation, there's plenty of gray.

 

[ColinEssex]

Danielle, refusing to answer a question on these forums is a normal occurrence, I tried for several months to get an answer to a question but the person involved was just too ill mannered to do it. The person made unqualified comments with no reference as to why.

Take care.

Col

 

[dan-cat]

The need for an abortion could have been avoided had the proper precautions been taken. Therefore the abortion is irresponsible. Its not a black and white situation, there's plenty of gray.

I'll let on to what I'm doing.

My point is that defining anything as solely it's current state is not sufficient.

You have succeeded in defining your entire notion of responsibility, in this context, within the boundaries of forward thinking. That is, responsibility in this context as you have defined, relies on the careful consideration of what currently does not exist but what could happen.

To me, it makes no sense whatsoever to completely ignore this way of thinking, which you have used quite correctly when defining responsibility, when considering an important subject as abortion.

 

[Vassago]

Danielle, refusing to answer a question on these forums is a normal occurrence, I tried for several months to get an answer to a question but the person involved was just too ill mannered to do it. The person made unqualified comments with no reference as to why.

Take care.

Col

That sounds like horrible service. Why would you want to stick around a forum where they treat you like that? If I walked into a business and was refused the answers to the questions I had, I certainly wouldn't stay. I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Brianwarnock]

In your post , post 421 I thought that you had disagreed with my assertion that abortion as a means of birth control was wrong. :banghead:

I really do have difficulty following your debating style.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

In your post , post 421 I thought that you had disagreed with my assertion that abortion as a means of birth control was wrong.

Post 421 where I said:

What do you mean by "wrong"? Do you mean you don't like it, or do you mean that the government should prevent women from doing this?

Because I agree with the 1st, but not the second.

I said I agree that I do not like abortion as birth control. I disagreed that based on that, the government should prevent women from doing so.

I really do have difficulty following your debating style.

I'm starting to see that. Abortion is a very nuanced topic. I apologize that I cannot condense my answers down to something that is easier to follow. A simplistic answer, while it may be more clear, it would not correctly reflect my opinion.

 

[Adam Caramon]

You have succeeded in defining your entire notion of responsibility, in this context, within the boundaries of forward thinking. That is, responsibility in this context as you have defined, relies on the careful consideration of what currently does not exist but what could happen.

If I'm following you, then I completely agree. The way to determine if an action is good or bad or smart or dumb or whatever else you want to gauge is by analyzing the potential outcomes of said action.

To me, it makes no sense whatsoever to completely ignore this way of thinking, which you have used quite correctly when defining responsibility, when considering an important subject as abortion.

You've lost me here I'm afraid. You're saying that it doesn't make sense to ignore my way of thinking? Or are you saying that you can't disregard that conception leads to the birth of a baby, and thus you must consider that at conception?

If you mean the second thing, then I think our disagreements are probably coming from the "sanctity of life" issue.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I said I agree that I do not like abortion as birth control. I disagreed that based on that, the government should prevent women from doing so.

I don't think I ever said that the government should.
I may think that it is morally wrong, irresponsible and even dangerous. I also have concerns regarding the medical staff involved but that is outside my area of knowledge, but an outright ban by legislation, no.

And FWIW I do believe that abortion does involve the taking of a life, that's why there needs to be a damn powerful argument in favour before it is done. Perhaps the request or should be shown a scan of what is to be destroyed in "on demand" cases.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

The embryo does not have a life in the usual sense of the word until it is supported for many months by a particular woman.

Every day our bodies shed millions upon millions of cells each with the potential to become new humans given a little technological intervention the same nurturing available to a fertilized egg.

Do we lament the failure to realise that potential?

 

[Adam Caramon]

I don't think I ever said that the government should.

I did not claim that you did. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "wrong."

...but an outright ban by legislation, no.

We agree then.

And FWIW I do believe that abortion does involve the taking of a life, that's why there needs to be a damn powerful argument in favour before it is done. Perhaps the request or should be shown a scan of what is to be destroyed in "on demand" cases.

I disagree that it is a life. That aside, why do you want to require the women view the collection of cells before they are allowed to abort? Do you truly think that the person requesting an abortion hasn't thought it through? Do you think they don't understand the circumstances?

Or do you believe this will shame/guilt some of them into carrying to term?

 

[dan-cat]

You've lost me here I'm afraid. You're saying that it doesn't make sense to ignore my way of thinking? Or are you saying that you can't disregard that conception leads to the birth of a baby, and thus you must consider that at conception?

If you mean the second thing, then I think our disagreements are probably coming from the "sanctity of life" issue.

You're almost there on all parts.

Yes, it doesn't make sense to ignore your way of thinking because it is a fundamental way that humans use to balance what is right and wrong. One is irresponsible because they failed to consider the potential of their actions.

Now plant this concept into the context of considering what an embryo actually is. To consider an embryo solely as a clutch of cells is to dismiss this way of thinking entirely. To remove our anticipatory nature when defining what we see is not realistic.

A woman seeking an abortion does not simply view an embryo as a parasite. She also views what it will likely become and it is that very thought that defines her actions. It is why the definition of an embryo as a parasite jars. It is a convenient definition that fails to include a vital part of our rationale.

Now this is not a be and end all argument against abortion. It is simply an argument that the consideration of the potential of the embryo must be taken into account when weighing up the decision to proceed with the abortion.

 

[Adam Caramon]

A woman seeking an abortion does not simply view an embryo as a parasite. She also views what it will likely become and it is that very thought that defines her actions. It is why the definition of an embryo as a parasite jars. It is a convenient definition that fails to include a vital part of our rationale.

I do not define the embryo as a parasite. I have never been in the situation where I or a close loved one was in need of an abortion, so I don't presume to know how difficult of a decision it may be.

Now this is not a be and end all argument against abortion. It is simply an argument that the consideration of the potential of the embryo must be taken into account when weighing up the decision to proceed with the abortion.

That's why I say the difference between us is likely the sanctity of life argument. If we consider the potential of the embryo, then all embryos are equal. All have the potential to eventually become humans.

However, imagine an embryo that is the result of a woman who is raped. If she chooses not to carry that embryo to term, there are very few who would disagree with her. So clearly society has different levels of importance for different embryos.

The conclusion of all of this that makes the most sense to me (and is the easiest to legislate) is to let the woman who is pregnant make the choice.