Abortion

There was an article in a local paper the other day about Abortion, and how it was so wrong. I know a girl here who's pregnant at 15, but her parents are forcing her to keep her baby, because they are against abortion. I think that's beyond stupidity - however, is it considered murder? At what point does abortion become murder? Does it only constitute once the fetus has developed to a certain stage, or is it murder as soon as the egg is fertilised?

Thoughts?

 

I believe that once and egg is fertilised it is a human being. I don't personally believe in abortions unless there is a legit medical reason for it. But that is just me.

We all have our own reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe. I won't say your beliefs are wrong so don't say mine are either.

 

Even if the girl was unfortunate enough to be forced into sex? To me, that seems a little...over the top. Obviously if you're just being careless in sex and fall pregnant, an abortion is by all means less than honorable and wrong, but if the poor girl was assaulted, i believe she shouldnt have to have the baby, and should be able to abort it if she choses.

 

Here is where I stand on the issue:

If the fetus cannot feel pain or is not aware of its existence then I don't consider it murder, and therefore I have no problem with abortion.

 

Why is this?

 

Fair enough. But are you still not killing a living being, without it having anything to do with the matter?

 

Just an FYI - this is a topic as potentially volatile as any I can think of. So fair warning, the first sign of flaming I (or another mod) wil shut it down without further warning.

 

Just because it is not murder does not mean that it is not wrong. There are plenty of things short of murder that one human being can do to another that we'd all consider to be wrong. There are also ways of killing another human being that we see as wrong that are not murder.

 

Okay, it is technically wrong - an act of human manipulation against nature.

However, in the majority of circumstances that women have an abortion, I believe it is reasonable for the points I stated previously.

 

I'm close to Bluemouth on this. If the fetus is not yet interacting with the external world through its' senses, then I don't believe killing it is a harmful thing to do.

I would much rather take having a child killed painlessly before it can ever be aware of itself, over a child being born into a world where it thinks it's not wanted, and where all the people who it is surrounded by in its early, and very important years, will live up to that thought.

 

Ok here we go.

I've been pregnant a few times now. I've two amazing children and lost a couple of pregnancies that I don't speak about and only my friends know about.

Once an egg is fertilized it has a heart beat. So therefore it is living, growing and that is what a human being does. Lives and grows. So how can it not be classed as a human being?

I've seen a feotus at 5 weeks. It is tiny, not much to see really. But it has a heartbeat. It is growing. It is living inside its mother. Feeding. So I can't see it as any less than a human being. But I am not saying that you have to see it the same way. It is just how I see it.

Once the feotus is 7 weeks it already has the human shape to it. I know I have seen this in an ultrasound of my own children. I have also seen 3d ultrasounds and the feotus is very much human looking. SO why would I call it any less than a human being if it look slike one and does exactly what we would do? We live, we grow we feed etc. THey do the same. They pass bodily fluids as well inside their mother. The are alive they are human.

I've seen babies the size of my own hand. They are tiny and constantly fighting the oddds to live. But they fight so damn hard to live. It is so hard for them. I'd rather see a child be given the chance to live if possible than to see its life disgarded.

At the same time though. I will stand by a friend or who ever if they say they want an abortion. I will tell them how I feel, but I will stand by them. We are all our own person and what we do is our choice and so is what we think and feel.

If there is good reason for an abortion then fair enough. Rape and health reasons are good reasons. But it is not my place to say what reasons there are to terminate a life and what reasons their aren't. I am not highly educated in that area and so I've no place to tell others what they can and can't do and I won't.

Abortion is something that should never be taken lightly. There is a lot to think about when opting to end the life of a feotus/baby. At the end of the day it is the persons decision. THese are just my thoughts and feelings on the matter.

(If I have offended anyone I do apologise it isnot my intension at all with this post)

 

They are aware though. They are aware of their mother. They are interacting with their mother all the time. They are inside their mothers womb feeding of their mother. How can you say it isn't aware of that?

 

They do this on instinct ( Or something similar ). They may be aware in a sense, but no more aware, and at this point no more knowledgeable, than the animals we kill to fill our plates.

 

That is crap! I don't think that is a very nice way of putting it either.

I am sorry but I have to withdraw from this discussion as I can feel myself getting heated over the whole topic and I do not wish to cause an arguement.

THank you for the discussion thus far and all that stuff. But I am now leaving this debate/discussion and won't be returning.

 

So all industry is wrong? That is certainly mankind manipulating nature.

Well, in order for you to see humankind as manipulating nature, you have to see humankind as outside of nature.

Is it reasonable, just because you don't feel like being responsible, to kill off what has the direct potential to become a human being?

 

A fertilized egg has no heart. Many things live and grow (including plants). Many things live and grow and have a heartbeat, including the lowliest of insects. Does that mean that it is immoral and reprehensible to kill an insect, or anything else that fits those characteristics?

But anything that is alive will fight to live, that is the very nature of life. Would you then say that anything that fights to live should not be killed?

But you are then essentially friends with a murderer according to your reasoning. Just because you like them doesn't mean they should be less of a murderer in your eyes. That's undeniable injustice.

But you ARE making that judgment, thereby invalidating your insistence that you have no place to make that judgment.

Please don't hide behind such non-committal tactics. It does not make you look mature--it makes you look insecure about your beliefs.

I don't think anyone is taking it lightly.

You are being extremely inoffensive. You needn't worry.

 

I am sorry, really. It wasn't my intention to make it sound harsh or hostile. It's just how I feel, and how I feel about this subject is not hostile at all. I guess I just sometimes make it seem that way.

I'm not a mom, so I've never had the experiences like you've had, so your thoughts on this might be more valid than mine. Then again, they may not. Either way, it was a nice discussion while it lasted.

 

Don't worry about it, Cole. You did nothing wrong.

She is reacting in a hyper-maternal fashion, completely abandoning reason and hiding in the sanctity of her experience. Most people do this type of thing (not the hyper-maternal reaction, but the rest) when truly questioned on their beliefs on something relevant to them. I do not hold it against her.

 

Very true - indeed, babies do not develop the capabilities to 'think' (which is what we as humans define ourselves by; living off by rationalised thought as opposed to instinct) until they are well out of the womb. This in itself puts a baby on any heirachy on the same place as any common animal. This does not of course make it right to kill one. But is it right to kill a cow? Just because we have dominion over it?

Ah, but no it isn't! He's perfectly right.

Because one has more experience in a matter, does not make one's thoughts more valid than any others.

Animals feel pain. We have no trouble killing them.

 

The mangiest, ugliest, grossest, least desirable, least useful of dogs can feel pain, too.

 

You told me yourself the process was 'wrong'. I was merely stating as a result of human manipulation of a natural process that it could be deemed wrong, unnatural, and inappropriate in some circumstances.

I am certainly not saying that 'industry' is wrong. Humans have gained extensively through the utilisation of natural resources and, in some cases, altering natural life processes. This in itself could start another debate. Are the issues relating to genetic engineering 'wrong'? Should we be messing with nature? In that regard I have my issues concerning genetically modified foods - there is no way of knowing what effects they will have on our body. We have not lived far enough into the future to know.

Another topic of recent interest has been the genetic cloning of animals and plants for certain desired outcomes. Is this process morally acceptable? Is it fair to bring to life a sheep that may be at an immediate disadvantage in life and live a painful existence? Furthermore, what happens if we begin cloning the DNA of extinct animals ... dinosaurs, even. It's entirely possible, but there are some immediate concerns with it. While I tend to back this particular idea for research purposes I'm not so certain with the others. I'm obviously going off-topic here and targeting the genetic engineering side of human manipulation.

Yes, I believe it is. Why, if the child is not born, cannot think for itself, and, once again, is unaware of its existence, must it be born into a world where it is at an immediate disadvantage with a poor upbringing. Of course if the child were to be put up for adoption or given foster care then I believe the child should be born. If this is not the case and the reasons given by the mother are very strong in favour of adoption, then I would not dispute.

 

Then we must assume that any baby born to parents where it has the a chance of not being looked after properly, ought to be aborted? Unless I'm drastically mistaken, you can't put a baby up for adoption until you've had it, and of course, even then, it's not definite the baby will be adopted, or that (s)he won't have a poor upbringing there either.

Fixed. Sorry about that.

 

Uh, I didn't post that Frost???

Lp, I didn't know that, but now I'm getting a sudden sense of deja vu. I'll check this one out.

Oh my goodness do NOT get me started on the fur industry. I have the video of ALL videos that shows how disgusting some people really are. I don't care if they're 'supporting their families' - what they do to those animals is a disgrace. Call me hypocritical but I wish the same fate upon them.

 

I did not say that.

But that's not the sole metric. You basically said that abortion would be wrong because it is against nature.

You are not directly stating it, but you certainly imply it.

And because humanity gains means that something is right? On what time frame must we gain for the action to be right? Only our gain matters?

If we can just kill off the children that we don't want, then can we simply kill off every fetus that may be deemed "suboptimal"? For instance, can we kill off a child because it has lower than average intelligence, or because it'll be born missing an eye?

From what you say, it would be reasonable to extrapolate that we could then manipulate an fetus in any way we so please, just because it is not self-aware, can feel pain, or whatever else.