Should Abortion be Allowed? (1 Viewer)

[ColinEssex]

The fact that intentionally ending the newly conceived life is murder is not an opinion. The science supports it based on the evidence I stated previously,

Abortion is not illegal though. The debate as to whether it is muder or not will go on forever.

The long and short of it is that too many women have kids after a night of passion and vodka - then they expect the state to pay child benefit and all the other perks whilst they go to work and fob the kid off on someone else. It costs the taxpayer billions. There should be no child benefits at all.

Women (who have historically brought up kids) should not be allowed to go to work whilst the kid is less than say 15 or 16. It's a pain on the employer when the woman rings to say little Jimmy is sick so she can't work - also they have to tollerate maternity leave for months and legally hold her job open. It's just stupid.

If you get preggers then you should leave work when the brat is due or if you need the money then abort it and don't have unprotected sex.. . . . . .simples.

If you get preggers via ra** then the same applies, don't expect the state to pick up the tab.

There are too many freeloaders sponging from the state and women and their brats are a high percentage.

Col

 

[Eva]

I think you are missing the point - abortion is murder. There is no debate based on scientific facts. I understand our society has made it legal and that "murder" is illegal, but that is one of the gross inconsistencies in our current laws. If you look at Roe v. Wade (in the US), you will see that there were great errors, misinformation, and inconsistencies that went into making that decision.

I agree there is a major behavioral problem among women and men, and that reducing the number of children born outside of marriage is a desirable task. However, kill your child to save the taxpayers some money is quite a statement, and displays rather obviously a distorted and inverted sense of priorities. Given the psychological and emotional trauma that is well documented in post-abortive women and men (fathers are also deeply affected), I highly doubt that offering abortions as an alternative will result in a healthy and high functioning society, especially since once a woman has an abortion she is highly more likely to have a second and third abortion, increasing the trauma exponentially.

Another little known fact, based on research done by the Guttenmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country) is that contraceptives increase the occurrence of abortions, since contraceptives do not always work, nor are they taken as prescribed. Contraception and abortion are the same mentality - I don't want you - so why would we expect anything but that?

 

[Adam Caramon]

The fact that intentionally ending the newly conceived life is murder is not an opinion.

Sure it is, you even say in your next post that murder is specifically defined as an illegal killing. As abortion is not illegal, then it is, by definition, not murder. Your choose to label it murder, that is all.

This isn't a issue of morality or religion or culture. It is a question of science.

Of course it is an issue of morality, religion, and culture. It would be nice if we could simplify everything, but that's not the case. A fetus, at the moment of conception, can not survive outside of the womb. So to imply that the fetus has everything it needs to survive is quite silly.

I'm not sure how I insinuated that I was the only person to have thought of this before...

I can help you with that. Based on your tone, your matter-of-a-fact statement, etc., you seem to be implying that there are no shades of grey in this matter, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid.

I think you are missing the point - abortion is murder. There is no debate based on scientific facts. I understand our society has made it legal and that "murder" is illegal, but that is one of the gross inconsistencies in our current laws. If you look at Roe v. Wade (in the US), you will see that there were great errors, misinformation, and inconsistencies that went into making that decision.

All I see are a bunch of opinions, which are worth about as much as everyone else's.

Another little known fact, based on research done by the Guttenmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country) is that contraceptives increase the occurrence of abortions, since contraceptives do not always work, nor are they taken as prescribed. Contraception and abortion are the same mentality - I don't want you - so why would we expect anything but that?

Sounds like a statistic with your explanation based on your understanding of what the statistic means.

 

[ColinEssex]

I think you are missing the point - abortion is murder. There is no debate based on scientific facts. I understand our society has made it legal and that "murder" is illegal, but that is one of the gross inconsistencies in our current laws. If you look at Roe v. Wade (in the US), you will see that there were great errors, misinformation, and inconsistencies that went into making that decision.

I'll wager that for every "scientific" fact that proves that abortion is taking a life, you will find one that says the opposite. There are reports commissioned that will prove anything if it is worded correctly.

I agree there is a major behavioral problem among women and men,

You're not wrong there honey

and that reducing the number of children born outside of marriage is a desirable task.

The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. As long as our teen girls go out on a Friday and Saturday night, get bladdered on booze, then get into sex with any passing bloke, then that will be the case. Just go to any town on a Saturday night and see how many teenage girls are so drunk they are lying on the ground.

However, kill your child to save the taxpayers some money is quite a statement, and displays rather obviously a distorted and inverted sense of priorities.

Why? One abortion can save thousands in child benefit and other benefits to an unmarried mum.

Given the psychological and emotional trauma that is well documented in post-abortive women and men (fathers are also deeply affected), I highly doubt that offering abortions as an alternative will result in a healthy and high functioning society,

The alternative is what? If they suffer the trauma you describe then that's tough - they should be more careful.

I think that this will go on forever - I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about it love.

Col

 

[dan-cat]

Of course it is an issue of morality, religion, and culture. It would be nice if we could simplify everything, but that's not the case. A fetus, at the moment of conception, can not survive outside of the womb. So to imply that the fetus has everything it needs to survive is quite silly.

I think you missed Eva's point. The notion of being a separate living entity doesn't rely on whether it requires certain conditions to survive.

Like all living things, the fetus has all the required elements to thrive as a separate entity under certain given conditions.

I always see the argument that self sufficiency is a criterion for life as somewhat inadequate. None of us are self-sufficient.

 

[chergh]

However, kill your child to save the taxpayers some money is quite a statement, and displays rather obviously a distorted and inverted sense of priorities.

I couldn't agree more. Abortion should be subsidised by taxpayers.

Good to see things haven't changed here.

 

[Eva]

"Sure it is, you even say in your next post that murder is specifically defined as an illegal killing. As abortion is not illegal, then it is, by definition, not murder. Your choose to label it murder, that is all."

I think you misunderstood... I said abortion is legal in the US and what is defined in the US as murder is illegal, however, abortion is murder, and therein lies the inconsistency. The definition of murder is the direct and intentional killing of another human being. This definition spans time and is not confined to nor was created in our lifetime or the past 500 years. I don't just make up definitions.


"Of course it is an issue of morality, religion, and culture. It would be nice if we could simplify everything, but that's not the case. A fetus, at the moment of conception, can not survive outside of the womb. So to imply that the fetus has everything it needs to survive is quite silly."

When I said the fetus has "everything it requires for life" I was speaking genetically. Uninterrupted, the fetus would continue to develop until natural death. I stated, various levels of dependencies are not enough to consider someone not a human being or not alive. As Dan-Cat rightly stated, none of us are self-sufficient.


"I can help you with that. Based on your tone, your matter-of-a-fact statement, etc., you seem to be implying that there are no shades of grey in this matter, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid."

I apologize if you have read into my writing a certain tone, but I am confident in what I'm saying and there really are no shades of grey. I don't think people who disagree with me are stupid, just, respectfully, wrong.

"All I see are a bunch of opinions, which are worth about as much as everyone else's."

Especially over the last century, but going far beyond that, there has been a requirement that religion "prove" itself in science. Science is seen to be "true" and "real" because it is what we can test, replicate, and prove. It is said there is no proof for religious beliefs, or that it boils down to societal needs and expectations. "All we know is what we see." I have provided scientific facts of human existence, and now you want to say, "well, on just this one topic we can't rely on science - no - we will ignore science because whether the fetus is a human being and is alive is more complicated than it? In fact, since religions all provide different principles on the matter, we can't find our answer in religion, and therefore we have no means of deciding its rightness or wrongness, so to each his own.

Too bad, based on that, there is no absolute right or wrong. Just what's best for me.

"Sounds like a statistic with your explanation based on your understanding of what the statistic means."

Right. Interesting you can judge me wrong on my interpretation of the statistic when you haven't seen it for yourself.

 

[Eva]

"I'll wager that for every "scientific" fact that proves that abortion is taking a life, you will find one that says the opposite. There are reports commissioned that will prove anything if it is worded correctly."

Post your wager and provide me a scientific fact that proves that the embryo is not as I described.

 

[chergh]

Is a fertilised egg a human being?

 

[Eva]

Is a fertilised egg a human being?

Yes. Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

 

[chergh]

Yes. Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

So do the 40% or so of these eggs which don't implant and develop in the womb go to purgatory as well with all the other unbaptised kids?

 

[Adam Caramon]

I think you missed Eva's point. The notion of being a separate living entity doesn't rely on whether it requires certain conditions to survive.

"Simple answer. The embryo formed at conception is a new and unique existence, with all that is required for life until he or she dies."

"With all that is required for life" is pretty hard to misconstrue.

Like all living things, the fetus has all the required elements to thrive as a separate entity under certain given conditions.

Right, similiar to a raw egg over a fire. If heat is applied, eventually the raw egg will become a cooked egg. But to call the raw egg a cooked egg would not be correct, right? What if the heat is removed? Would we still consider the raw egg as a cooked egg due to the fact that we assumed it would eventually become a cooked egg?

I always see the argument that self sufficiency is a criterion for life as somewhat inadequate. None of us are self-sufficient.

Can you imagine the legal nightmares that would exisit if a fetus at the time of conception was considered the same as a living baby? If a woman miscarried, there could be investigations into what caused her to do so, as a baby just died. Maybe the father stressed her out one day, and that stress caused her to miscarry. Would the father be charged with 2nd degree murder?

I think you misunderstood... I said abortion is legal in the US and what is defined in the US as murder is illegal, however, abortion is murder, and therein lies the inconsistency.

You would be correct if we all agreed to your assertion that "abortion is murder". But once again, you're categorically wrong. Can you murder a tree? No, because a tree is not a human being. Legally, a fetus is not a human being.

Your evidence for "abortion is murder" seems to be "because I said so", while law and the dictionary disagree with you.

I stated, various levels of dependencies are not enough to consider someone not a human being or not alive.

Which is an opinion not supported by current US (and I imagine many others nation's) law.

I have provided scientific facts of human existence...

You have provided quotes and statistics, and then added in your interpretation of them.

Right. Interesting you can judge me wrong on my interpretation of the statistic when you haven't seen it for yourself.

I know that this debate has been going on for 50+ years, and I have reason to suspect that if your evidence was as overwhelmingly convincing as you seem to think it is, I would have read about it in the news before hearing it on a forum dedicated to Microsoft Access.

 

[dan-cat]

"Simple answer. The embryo formed at conception is a new and unique existence, with all that is required for life until he or she dies."

"With all that is required for life" is pretty hard to misconstrue.

You seem to be managing it. It's obviously absurd to suppose that any living entity has "all that is required for life" in and of itself. No living entity has such a quality. The point is to match the fetus with a living being. That is, that the entity will thrive under favorable conditions.

Right, similiar to a raw egg over a fire. If heat is applied, eventually the raw egg will become a cooked egg. But to call the raw egg a cooked egg would not be correct, right? What if the heat is removed? Would we still consider the raw egg as a cooked egg due to the fact that we assumed it would eventually become a cooked egg?

There are varying degrees of existence in a common lifecycle. This doesn't disqualify base qualities to be consistent throughout. Unique DNA etc etc. The point is whether these base qualities are enough to define life. Eva argues that it is.

Can you imagine the legal nightmares that would exisit if a fetus at the time of conception was considered the same as a living baby? If a woman miscarried, there could be investigations into what caused her to do so, as a baby just died. Maybe the father stressed her out one day, and that stress caused her to miscarry. Would the father be charged with 2nd degree murder?

A woman that is pregnant is treated differently by our society. Look at Col's recent posts. To argue that our common perception of a fetus as a bundle of cells is not realistic in my opinion. If you are pregnant, you are going to have a baby unless something intervenes. This is how society views it. It's just that the pro-abortion view seeks to dismiss this ubiquitous perception.

 

[Adam Caramon]

You seem to be managing it. It's obviously absurd to suppose that any living entity has "all that is required for life" in and of itself. No living entity has such a quality. The point is to match the fetus with a living being. That is, that the entity will thrive under favorable conditions.

We're not talking about shelter, clothing, food, etc. We're talking about being able to survive outside of the womb. Are you familiar with the breath test for fetuses? If a fetus dies physicians check to see if there is any oxygen in the lungs. If the fetus took a breath, then it is assumed it lived. Do you think a fetus at the time of conception could take a breath outside of the womb?

You (and Eva) seem to be arguing from your own subjective stances, which is completely fine. I take exception when Eva tries to claim that science backs her interpretation, however. It is quite clear that the law does not.

Eva argues that it is.

I'd argue that it is not. Our opinions are equally unimportant.

If you are pregnant, you are going to have a baby unless something intervenes. This is how society views it. It's just that the pro-abortion view seeks to dismiss this ubiquitous perception.

The something that intervenes could be anything, though. Some women miscarry 3 and 4 times before they finally face the fact that they have little to no chance of being able to produce a living baby.

As far as society is concerned, American society is still largely Christian in nature. And the Christian mythology asserts that all life is sacred, a gift from god, etc, etc. It should be no suprise that, based on this foundation, that society (in general) views pregnancy as you explain.

They also believe that everything happens for a reason, god works in mysterious ways, a guy herded two of every creature imaginable into a boat and survived a world-wide flood, etc. You get the idea.

 

[Rabbie]

I think you are missing the point - abortion is murder. There is no debate based on scientific facts. I understand our society has made it legal and that "murder" is illegal, but that is one of the gross inconsistencies in our current laws. If you look at Roe v. Wade (in the US), you will see that there were great errors, misinformation, and inconsistencies that went into making that decision.

As a simple statement of fact abortion is not murder. In the UK murder is a crime with a mandatory life sentence. Abortion provided it is done in the correct manner is legal. A fundamental difference in my opinion. If it is legal then it's not murder - Simples.

You may think abortion should be made illegal. In that case use the democratic process to change the law but be aware many women will die painful deaths as a result of botched illegal abortions. If you think that is better well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it but I think you are wrong

 

[dan-cat]

We're not talking about shelter, clothing, food, etc. We're talking about being able to survive outside of the womb. Are you familiar with the breath test for fetuses? If a fetus dies physicians check to see if there is any oxygen in the lungs. If the fetus took a breath, then it is assumed it lived. Do you think a fetus at the time of conception could take a breath outside of the womb?

You (and Eva) seem to be arguing from your own subjective stances, which is completely fine. I take exception when Eva tries to claim that science backs her interpretation, however. It is quite clear that the law does not.

I was trying to clarify that you are both NOT talking about the same thing. Eva is talking about an entity that will flourish in favorable circumstances. You are talking about an entity that will flourish outside of the womb. In a sense I see Eva's perspective if you view the earth (atmosphere, sunlight etc etc) as a womb in macrocosm. What these conditions are, are irrelevant to the argument. It is the effect of their removal that is the point.

I'd argue that it is not. Our opinions are equally unimportant.

Kind of takes the fun out of things. I'm not quite sure what your motivations are for contributing then.

The something that intervenes could be anything, though. Some women miscarry 3 and 4 times before they finally face the fact that they have little to no chance of being able to produce a living baby.

Not sure what your point is here. We're talking about a willful decision to interrupt a process. Not something that is beyond our control.

As far as society is concerned, American society is still largely Christian in nature. And the Christian mythology asserts that all life is sacred, a gift from god, etc, etc. It should be no suprise that, based on this foundation, that society (in general) views pregnancy as you explain.

They also believe that everything happens for a reason, god works in mysterious ways, a guy herded two of every creature imaginable into a boat and survived a world-wide flood, etc. You get the idea.

I get the idea but I don't think it has much to do with religion. It's just a common sense point of view that conception will likely end in a birth. It may not but society *should* dictate that you give up your seat for a pregnant woman. She's nurturing something that is going to become a child. To not take this viewpoint seems a little odd to me.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I was trying to clarify that you are both NOT talking about the same thing.

But we actually are. We're talking about a fetus. We're just looking at it from different perspectives. Her view is that once the flag is planted, the country is owned, the claim is legitimate and all legal rights and protections should be granted. Even in the cases of ra** and incest.

Not sure what your point is here. We're talking about a willful decision to interrupt a process. Not something that is beyond our control.

My point is that for some women, even though conception can happen, they can never deliver that fetus to term. In such cases, the fetus will never become a living baby. So it doesn't always follow that fetus = baby.

It may not but society *should* dictate that you give up your seat for a pregnant woman.

As to that, I give up my seat for a woman regardless if she is pregnant or not.

 

[Galaxiom]

Under the terms proposed here by some posters, every time a woman completes a menstual cycle without becoming pregnant it could be considered murder. Under favourable conditions that egg had the capacity to become a human being.

All it needed was a tiny amount of sperm to reach the human status afforded to a fertilized egg. Far less then the contribution made by a woman in gestation and no doubt many men would happily provide it.

 

[Eva]

Under the terms proposed here by some posters, every time a woman completes a menstual cycle without becoming pregnant it could be considered murder. Under favourable conditions that egg had the capacity to become a human being.

All it needed was a tiny amount of sperm to reach the human status afforded to a fertilized egg. Far less then the contribution made by a woman in gestation and no doubt many men would happily provide it.

No, the egg only has 23 chromosomes and, while it belongs the the human species, is not itself a human being. Human beings have 46 chromosomes.

 

[Eva]

Even though conception can happen, they can never deliver that fetus to term. In such cases, the fetus will never become a living baby. So it doesn't always follow that fetus = baby.

When exactly does fetus=baby?