How can anyone actually believe that life starts at any time other than the moment of conception?

[Vinney]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Does the life of the mother not matter?

What are you defining as the life of the mother? Do you mean the mother's ability to choose her own destiny or the mother's ability to live? (verus the fetus' right to life). Empirically I believe (though I may be wrong) that most abortions are used more as a form of birth control than as a resort because the mother's life is in danger. If that's the truth, then what you're comparing is the mother's right to choose her own destiny versus the right (whatever that may be or not be) of the fetus to life. Then the question becomes, which do you value higher?

 

[kami333]

Originally posted by: NissanGurl

Originally posted by: kami333

But why shouldn't it? What seperates us from say a virus, other than that we are self-aware, aware of our existence, our surroundings, and the impacts we have on our surroundings?

On a totally not serious note: According to Agent Smith, humanity is a virus

lol

But it's hard to argue against it without invoking the "we're human, we're better" claim

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Ryan
There is a difference between life, and a person.

You can't be serious... from the moment of conception to the moment of death there is one entity. Development does not change what something is. From conception to death a human being is always a hunan being.

Leave the Hunan out of this.

And just because you believe in a "soul" and give weight to that, doesn't mean I do.

I don't believe in souls. I don't know where you got that from... Oh right, because I feel that abortion is wrong you think I'm some religious nut. Your assumption was wrong.

I hold all life in high regard, be it humans, hunans, other animals or plants.

I understand that I need to eat to survive and have no problem with killing to survive. If I kill an animal to eat, I treat it with respect. Everything is used so the animal did not die in vain.

Having an abortion is incredibly selfish and is so disrespectful to life it's sickening.

Does the life of the mother not matter?

If the life of the mother was in danger, there is no moral or ethical reason why a pregnancy shouldn't be terminated.

In all other cases, abortion is a selfish act.

Most often, the woman has willingly engaged in sex. Everyone knows the risk involved in having sex. Everyone knows you can become pregnant having sex. If you willingly consent to sex, you willingly consent to the possibility that you will become pregnant. If it disrupts your life, or your perfect body, tough sh!t. You made your bed, so you can lay in it.

Rape is a very touchy subject. You did not consent to sex and therefore you didn't consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. In a situation like this I feel that abortion is acceptable.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BigToque
In all other cases, abortion is a selfish act.

Most often, the woman has willingly engaged in sex. Everyone knows the risk involved in having sex. Everyone knows you can become pregnant having sex. If you willingly consent to sex, you willingly consent to the possibility that you will become pregnant. If it disrupts your life, or your perfect body, tough sh!t. You made your bed, so you can lay in it.

Rape is a very touchy subject. You did not consent to sex and therefore you didn't consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. In a situation like this I feel that abortion is acceptable.

For religious fundamentalists, this is the REAL argument against abortion, and everything else is just so much smokescreen. Pregnancy and having children is seen as "punishment" for the immoral action of having sex, and the problem with abortion is that it allows the consequences of immoral sexual activity to be nullified.

BigToque's comment on abortion being acceptable in the case of rape supports this idea, because in the case of rape he is no longer concerned as to whether or not the fetus is a human being. This is really interesting given the title he gave this thread when he started it.

 

[Night Blade]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
cunundrum that actually turned me pro-life:


Situation A: A lady is 6 months pregnant, gives birth prematurely, and the baby is in a neo-natal unit. Someone goes into the ward, kills the baby. What's he charged with?

Situation B: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and someone shoots her. She dies, and the baby dies. The shooter is ALWAYS charged with double homicide in those situations. Or say instead just the baby dies....the shooter is still charged with murder..


Situation C: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and decides she doesn't want a baby, so she has a doctor reach into her womb, tear the baby limb from limb and suck it out, or however the F they do it.


After I thought of it like that, I coudln't be pro-abortion any more. There's no difference in those 3 situations really.

Nice analagy :thumbsup:

On another note, I really wonder the percentage of pro-abortion people who DON'T have children? After seeing my daughter grow up for the last 5 years, my life has changed dramaticly for the better. I couldn't possibly fanthom life without her, life is too precious to just kill off because you don't have the ability/desire or whatever to raise your own child.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Vinney

Originally posted by: Ryan

Does the life of the mother not matter?

What are you defining as the life of the mother? Do you mean the mother's ability to choose her own destiny or the mother's ability to live? (verus the fetus' right to life). Empirically I believe (though I may be wrong) that most abortions are used more as a form of birth control than as a resort because the mother's life is in danger. If that's the truth, then what you're comparing is the mother's right to choose her own destiny versus the right (whatever that may be or not be) of the fetus to life. Then the question becomes, which do you value higher?

You make it seem as if this isn't an agonizing procedure for a woman. The mental effects of an abortion will be with that woman for the rest of her life - these things aren't decided on a whim in the VAST majority of situations.

The majority of abortions are performed on "accidental" pregnancies - IE, pregnancies that are not planned. Should a woman how practices safe sex (ie - condoms) be punished because she was in the statistical 3% that it's not effective for? Should she have to give up her dreams and asperations in life over an accident?

Should stupid teenagers be force to take very adult consequence of having a child (while at the same time being denied the ability to make the "adult" decision not to have a child?)?

Should a woman who is poor, lives in a abusive household, or some other kind of unsafe condition for forced to bring a child into the world, and subject them to that kind of abuse. If a woman does not feel she is capable to be a mother, why should a child be subject to that?

These are the real issues with abortion.

Pregnancy and birth are both a vastly different experience for a woman, why should you pass judgement on it?

 

[DivideBYZero]

By the OP's rational we should all feel very bad when we knock one out...

 

[Vinney]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Vinney

Originally posted by: Ryan

Does the life of the mother not matter?

What are you defining as the life of the mother? Do you mean the mother's ability to choose her own destiny or the mother's ability to live? (verus the fetus' right to life). Empirically I believe (though I may be wrong) that most abortions are used more as a form of birth control than as a resort because the mother's life is in danger. If that's the truth, then what you're comparing is the mother's right to choose her own destiny versus the right (whatever that may be or not be) of the fetus to life. Then the question becomes, which do you value higher?

You make it seem as if this isn't an agonizing procedure for a woman. The mental effects of an abortion will be with that woman for the rest of her life - these things aren't decided on a whim in the VAST majority of situations.

The majority of abortions are performed on "accidental" pregnancies - IE, pregnancies that are not planned. Should a woman how practices safe sex (ie - condoms) be punished because she was in the statistical 3% that it's not effective for? Should she have to give up her dreams and asperations in life over an accident?

Should stupid teenagers be force to take very adult consequence of having a child (while at the same time being denied the ability to make the "adult" decision not to have a child?)?

Should a woman who is poor, lives in a abusive household, or some other kind of unsafe condition for forced to bring a child into the world, and subject them to that kind of abuse. If a woman does not feel she is capable to be a mother, why should a child be subject to that?

I don't make it seem like anything, I've never even given a point of view. I just asked you to be fair in your question. Saying something like "does the life of the mother not matter" is an emotional appeal when the real question is not usually one of the typical life v. death but what that life means for the mother v. what it means for the fetus.

I'm sorry you seem to think that my question gave an inclination as to what my answer is, but the question about abortion is based completely on value assessments and I simply posed that question. I didn't answer it.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Ryan
There is a difference between life, and a person.

You can't be serious... from the moment of conception to the moment of death there is one entity. Development does not change what something is. From conception to death a human being is always a hunan being.

Leave the Hunan out of this.

And just because you believe in a "soul" and give weight to that, doesn't mean I do.

I don't believe in souls. I don't know where you got that from... Oh right, because I feel that abortion is wrong you think I'm some religious nut. Your assumption was wrong.

I hold all life in high regard, be it humans, hunans, other animals or plants.

I understand that I need to eat to survive and have no problem with killing to survive. If I kill an animal to eat, I treat it with respect. Everything is used so the animal did not die in vain.

Having an abortion is incredibly selfish and is so disrespectful to life it's sickening.

um. eating animals is selfish. you are selfish. if you were not you would not exist. selfishness provides the very basis for the foundation of the existence of living organisms.

when YOU use every part of the animal (Everything is used so the animal did not die in vain) it is your selfish nature to think the animal did not die in vain. The animal could care less about the human race and if it had a conscience it would most likely disagree with your assertion that it did not die in vain. it died to nurish the a being whose species will probably lead to the ultimate destruction of the planet, or at least come close to it. And by eating it you eliminate one of its kind and thus reduce its species collective reproductive potential.

the only context that "nothing is wasted" is an accurate statement is if we are talking about mass and energy. everything else is subjective.

Go read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins to broaden your horizons and contribute to the reduction of trees in the world. The tree won't mind because it is contributing to the development of the human race! what an honor!

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Ryan
There is a difference between life, and a person.

You can't be serious... from the moment of conception to the moment of death there is one entity. Development does not change what something is. From conception to death a human being is always a hunan being.

Leave the Hunan out of this.

And just because you believe in a "soul" and give weight to that, doesn't mean I do.

I don't believe in souls. I don't know where you got that from... Oh right, because I feel that abortion is wrong you think I'm some religious nut. Your assumption was wrong.

I hold all life in high regard, be it humans, hunans, other animals or plants.

I understand that I need to eat to survive and have no problem with killing to survive. If I kill an animal to eat, I treat it with respect. Everything is used so the animal did not die in vain.

Having an abortion is incredibly selfish and is so disrespectful to life it's sickening.

um. eating animals is selfish. you are selfish. if you were not you would not exist. selfishness provides the very basis for the foundation of the existence of living organisms.

when YOU use every part of the animal (Everything is used so the animal did not die in vain) It is your selfish nature to think the animal did not die in vain. The animal could care less about the human race and if it had a conscience it would most likely disagree with your assertion that it died in vain. it died to nurish the a being whose species will probably lead to the ultimate destruction of the planet, or at least come close to it. And by eating it you eliminate one of its kind and thus reduce its species collective reproductive potential.

the only context that "nothing is wasted" is an accurate statement is if we are talking about mass and energy. everything else is subjective.

Go read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins to broaden your horizons and contribute to the reduction of trees in the world. The tree won't mind because it is contributing to the development of the human race! what an honor!

Exactly.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: BigToque
If the life of the mother was in danger, there is no moral or ethical reason why a pregnancy shouldn't be terminated.

In all other cases, abortion is a selfish act.

Most often, the woman has willingly engaged in sex. Everyone knows the risk involved in having sex. Everyone knows you can become pregnant having sex. If you willingly consent to sex, you willingly consent to the possibility that you will become pregnant. If it disrupts your life, or your perfect body, tough sh!t. You made your bed, so you can lay in it.

Rape is a very touchy subject. You did not consent to sex and therefore you didn't consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. In a situation like this I feel that abortion is acceptable.

People like you kill me. You view pregnancy like a punishment for people having sex for purposes other than to have a baby. If you viewed babies as a life that you can't terminate, then there would be no difference in your head whether a woman consented to the sex or not.

Hey, I used to see things that way too, but no longer. I realize that truthfully, I don't have a problem with abortion if it's done early enough. I just discourage it in anyone I talk to, which has nothing to do with any moral objections I have (because I don't have any). If I truly was only against abortion because it ended a life, then it wouldn't matter whether the woman was raped or not.

Edit: I suck at quoting

 

[DrPizza]

Several of you have said "rights of the mother."

Uhhh, where do these supposed rights come from? A pregnant female in the United States has that right, because our laws give her that right. In other countries, a female does NOT have that right, because it hasn't been given to her. I don't understand where this concept of a "universal right" is coming from. Thus, your argument is boiling down to "it should be legal in the United States because it is legal in the United States." That's pretty flawed logic. Here's a link to the United Nations list of Universal Human Rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
I don't see "right to an abortion" or "right to terminate a pregnancy."

The issue boils down to whether one considers a fetus a human or not a human.


Now to get flamed for a bad analogy:
Why don't I have the right to drive around with a dozen 10 inch woofers in my car blasting out music as loud as possible?
Your answer is "because it infringes on the rights of others."
Well, in the abortion debate, why or why not abortion is allowed boils down to "is the fetus considered an other."

 

[Legend]

OP, go take a Bioethics class that isn't hosted by a conservative organization. You'll see that the issue is not black and white. I was once strongly pro-life.

OP's question:

Because early abortions do not kill anything with any cognitive function.

Without any brain activity, or a brain, you cannot be human.

A fetus can have the potential to become human, but so does a sperm and an egg. The only difference is that given a continued suitable environment it will mostly likely become a human.


Stop with the extreme examples. No woman wants to abort 1 day before birth. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's illegal. Don't polarize yourself to a political polarity like a sheep and demonize the counter viewpoint.

Certainly we shouldn't allow abortions after the 1st trimester, and there's already stuff in place for that. Once the cognitive function of the cells is questionable is when human life should be given the benefit of a doubt.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Several of you have said "rights of the mother."

Uhhh, where do these supposed rights come from? A pregnant female in the United States has that right, because our laws give her that right. In other countries, a female does NOT have that right, because it hasn't been given to her. I don't understand where this concept of a "universal right" is coming from. Thus, your argument is boiling down to "it should be legal in the United States because it is legal in the United States." That's pretty flawed logic. Here's a link to the United Nations list of Universal Human Rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
I don't see "right to an abortion" or "right to terminate a pregnancy."

The issue boils down to whether one considers a fetus a human or not a human.


Now to get flamed for a bad analogy:
Why don't I have the right to drive around with a dozen 10 inch woofers in my car blasting out music as loud as possible?
Your answer is "because it infringes on the rights of others."
Well, in the abortion debate, why or why not abortion is allowed boils down to "is the fetus considered an other."

If you would have read the thread, you'd realize that personhood arguments are fundamentally flawed.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BigToque
In all other cases, abortion is a selfish act.

Most often, the woman has willingly engaged in sex. Everyone knows the risk involved in having sex. Everyone knows you can become pregnant having sex. If you willingly consent to sex, you willingly consent to the possibility that you will become pregnant. If it disrupts your life, or your perfect body, tough sh!t. You made your bed, so you can lay in it.

Rape is a very touchy subject. You did not consent to sex and therefore you didn't consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. In a situation like this I feel that abortion is acceptable.

For religious fundamentalists, this is the REAL argument against abortion, and everything else is just so much smokescreen. Pregnancy and having children is seen as "punishment" for the immoral action of having sex, and the problem with abortion is that it allows the consequences of immoral sexual activity to be nullified.

BigToque's comment on abortion being acceptable in the case of rape supports this idea, because in the case of rape he is no longer concerned as to whether or not the fetus is a human being. This is really interesting given the title he gave this thread when he started it.

First off, there is nothing immoral about sex. Sex is great. With sex comes a huge responsibility, and part of that responsibility is knowing you might get pregnant. Pregnancy is not a punnshment. It's a responsibility you accepted when you willingly had sex.

As I said, rape is a touchy subject, one that I have not thought through as extensivly. The fetus is still a human being, however no consent was ever given for that human to be created. In a situation like rape, I feel that termination of the fetus is not unethical.

Now also don't forget that rape is an exception. I noticed that you directed your attention at the exception. You're not winning an arguement by pulling attention away from the main arguement.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BigToque
In all other cases, abortion is a selfish act.

Most often, the woman has willingly engaged in sex. Everyone knows the risk involved in having sex. Everyone knows you can become pregnant having sex. If you willingly consent to sex, you willingly consent to the possibility that you will become pregnant. If it disrupts your life, or your perfect body, tough sh!t. You made your bed, so you can lay in it.

Rape is a very touchy subject. You did not consent to sex and therefore you didn't consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. In a situation like this I feel that abortion is acceptable.

For religious fundamentalists, this is the REAL argument against abortion, and everything else is just so much smokescreen. Pregnancy and having children is seen as "punishment" for the immoral action of having sex, and the problem with abortion is that it allows the consequences of immoral sexual activity to be nullified.

BigToque's comment on abortion being acceptable in the case of rape supports this idea, because in the case of rape he is no longer concerned as to whether or not the fetus is a human being. This is really interesting given the title he gave this thread when he started it.

First off, there is nothing immoral about sex. Sex is great. With sex comes a huge responsibility, and part of that responsibility is knowing you might get pregnant. Pregnancy is not a punnshment. It's a responsibility you accepted when you willingly had sex.

As I said, rape is a touchy subject, one that I have not thought through as extensivly. The fetus is still a human being, however no consent was ever given for that human to be created. In a situation like rape, I feel that termination of the fetus is not unethical.

Now also don't forget that rape is an exception. I noticed that you directed your attention at the exception. You're not winning an arguement by pulling attention away from the main arguement.

But when your exception to the rule fundamentally flaws your argument, where do you stand? Does a women who gets pregnant even after using birth control have to consent to having a child?

Just goes to prove what another posted in one of these threads said before (sorry - I forgot your name): If men could have babies, and know what it was like to have a child, you'd be able to get abortions from vending machines on every corner. This wouldn't be an issue if you looked at it from the perspective of a woman (who isn't brianwashed).

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Ryan

You make it seem as if this isn't an agonizing procedure for a woman. The mental effects of an abortion will be with that woman for the rest of her life sounds like a reason against abortion- these things aren't decided on a whim in the VAST majority of situations.

The majority of abortions are performed on "accidental" pregnancies - IE, pregnancies that are not planned. Should a woman how practices safe sex (ie - condoms) be punished because she was in the statistical 3% that it's not effective for? Should she have to give up her dreams and asperations in life over an accident? What? Did adoption cease to be an option?

Should stupid teenagers be force to take very adult consequence of having a child (while at the same time being denied the ability to make the "adult" decision not to have a child?)? What? Did adoption cease to be an option? Or, do you you mean stretch marks as a consequence?

Should a woman who is poor, lives in a abusive household, or some other kind of unsafe condition for forced to bring a child into the world, and subject them to that kind of abuse. If a woman does not feel she is capable to be a mother, why should a child be subject to that? What? Did adoption cease to be an option?

These are the real issues with abortion. I'm waiting for an issue here.

Pregnancy and birth are both a vastly different experience for a woman, why should you pass judgement on it?

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
For religious fundamentalists, this is the REAL argument against abortion, and everything else is just so much smokescreen. Pregnancy and having children is seen as "punishment" for the immoral action of having sex, and the problem with abortion is that it allows the consequences of immoral sexual activity to be nullified.

BigToque's comment on abortion being acceptable in the case of rape supports this idea, because in the case of rape he is no longer concerned as to whether or not the fetus is a human being. This is really interesting given the title he gave this thread when he started it.

Heh... you type faster than I do, but we're clearly on the same page here.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Ryan

You make it seem as if this isn't an agonizing procedure for a woman. The mental effects of an abortion will be with that woman for the rest of her life sounds like a reason against abortion- these things aren't decided on a whim in the VAST majority of situations.

The majority of abortions are performed on "accidental" pregnancies - IE, pregnancies that are not planned. Should a woman how practices safe sex (ie - condoms) be punished because she was in the statistical 3% that it's not effective for? Should she have to give up her dreams and asperations in life over an accident? What? Did adoption cease to be an option?

Should stupid teenagers be force to take very adult consequence of having a child (while at the same time being denied the ability to make the "adult" decision not to have a child?)? What? Did adoption cease to be an option? Or, do you you mean stretch marks as a consequence?

Should a woman who is poor, lives in a abusive household, or some other kind of unsafe condition for forced to bring a child into the world, and subject them to that kind of abuse. If a woman does not feel she is capable to be a mother, why should a child be subject to that? What? Did adoption cease to be an option?

These are the real issues with abortion. I'm waiting for an issue here.

Pregnancy and birth are both a vastly different experience for a woman, why should you pass judgement on it?

Dude - you have no idea what you're talking about. Subjecting a child to an orphan farm while they wait for people to choose them isn't an effective option. Did you know that in the vast majority of adoptions, children who are not WHITE and HEALTHY don't get adopted as often? There aren't enough willing parents to take the amount of children that are aborted every year.

You make it sound like having children is as easy as 1, 2, 3. And as far as consequences go - should a woman be forced to end her career, and put her life on hold while she has a child, if she doens't want to? As a man - you don't see the kind of limitations having a child puts on a woman.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Ryan
But when your exception to the rule fundamentally flaws your argument, where do you stand? Does a women who gets pregnant even after using birth control have to consent to having a child?

Life is not black and white. There are always exceptions to rules.

I see rape as an exception and do not believe that it renders my arguement invalid in any way. In almost every case I see abortion as an extremely selfish act. The woman terminates a pregnancy because it will somehow inconvenience her.

A woman who has sex with some form of birth control still knows that there is a possibility that she can become pregnant. She took a reasonable precaution to try to prevent a pregnancy but still accepts that a pregnancy may occur.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Night Blade

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
cunundrum that actually turned me pro-life:

Situation A: A lady is 6 months pregnant, gives birth prematurely, and the baby is in a neo-natal unit. Someone goes into the ward, kills the baby. What's he charged with?

Situation B: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and someone shoots her. She dies, and the baby dies. The shooter is ALWAYS charged with double homicide in those situations. Or say instead just the baby dies....the shooter is still charged with murder..

Situation C: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and decides she doesn't want a baby, so she has a doctor reach into her womb, tear the baby limb from limb and suck it out, or however the F they do it.

After I thought of it like that, I coudln't be pro-abortion any more. There's no difference in those 3 situations really.

Nice analagy :thumbsup:

This is the poorest example of logic I've ever seen. In situation A, the baby is no longer a part of the mother and A) the mother wants the baby to grow and therefore her rights are squashed if the baby is killed, and B) the baby, if developed enough has become its own entity as it is no longer dependant on the mother to survive.

In situation B, if that person hadn't acted, that woman would have survived, and assuming the woman intended to have the baby it would have survived as well. Therefore, he not only destroyed the woman's right to continue to exist, but destroyed the CHANCE for that baby to be born, grow up, and be a conscious being. So the punishment isn't double murder, but there should be a separate charge for killing the child. IMO, if the baby was in the 3rd trimester, then it WOULD be double murder, because legally we've said that it's now old enough and conscious enough that the mother no longer can end its life so neither can someone else. If it's not in the third trimester, then the person should be charged a different crime because the law can't prove that the baby would have been born successfully, nor can it prove the woman wasn't intending to end its life before it was born.

In situation C, again, she has the right to end the life if it's not yet conscious. She can't kill the baby once it's reached the 3rd trimester.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Ryan
But when your exception to the rule fundamentally flaws your argument, where do you stand? Does a women who gets pregnant even after using birth control have to consent to having a child?

Life is not black and white. There are always exceptions to rules.

I see rape as an exception and do not believe that it renders my arguement invalid in any way. In almost every case I see abortion as an extremely selfish act. The woman terminates a pregnancy because it will somehow inconvenience her.

A woman who has sex with some form of birth control still knows that there is a possibility that she can become pregnant. She took a reasonable precaution to try to prevent a pregnancy but still accepts that a pregnancy may occur.

You're right - life is not black and white, which is why the government should not make this decision for women.

The only people and person capable of weighting the pro's and con's of abortion are the women and woman if effects. Not you, me, or Joe Somebody in the government trying to impost their points of views on the masses.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BigToque
In all other cases, abortion is a selfish act.

Most often, the woman has willingly engaged in sex. Everyone knows the risk involved in having sex. Everyone knows you can become pregnant having sex. If you willingly consent to sex, you willingly consent to the possibility that you will become pregnant. If it disrupts your life, or your perfect body, tough sh!t. You made your bed, so you can lay in it.

Rape is a very touchy subject. You did not consent to sex and therefore you didn't consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. In a situation like this I feel that abortion is acceptable.

For religious fundamentalists, this is the REAL argument against abortion, and everything else is just so much smokescreen. Pregnancy and having children is seen as "punishment" for the immoral action of having sex, and the problem with abortion is that it allows the consequences of immoral sexual activity to be nullified.

BigToque's comment on abortion being acceptable in the case of rape supports this idea, because in the case of rape he is no longer concerned as to whether or not the fetus is a human being. This is really interesting given the title he gave this thread when he started it.

First off, there is nothing immoral about sex. Sex is great. With sex comes a huge responsibility, and part of that responsibility is knowing you might get pregnant. Pregnancy is not a punnshment. It's a responsibility you accepted when you willingly had sex.

As I said, rape is a touchy subject, one that I have not thought through as extensivly. The fetus is still a human being, however no consent was ever given for that human to be created. In a situation like rape, I feel that termination of the fetus is not unethical.

Now also don't forget that rape is an exception. I noticed that you directed your attention at the exception. You're not winning an arguement by pulling attention away from the main arguement.

So by your argument then, it's morally acceptable to kill, say, a five year old boy who was born as the product of rape, because no "consent" was given for the pregnancy? If you maintain that a human being is created from the moment of conception (as you state in the thread title and have argued in this thread), there is NO DIFFERENCE between aborting such a fetus and killing such a child.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Several of you have said "rights of the mother."

Uhhh, where do these supposed rights come from? A pregnant female in the United States has that right, because our laws give her that right. In other countries, a female does NOT have that right, because it hasn't been given to her. I don't understand where this concept of a "universal right" is coming from. Thus, your argument is boiling down to "it should be legal in the United States because it is legal in the United States." That's pretty flawed logic.

I don't disagree with you, and that's exactly why I never use that particular argument. As I said before, I believe that the only universal human right is the right to do whatever you want as long as it in no way affects other people's ability to do the same.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Ryan

You make it sound like having children is as easy as 1, 2, 3. And as far as consequences go - should a woman be forced to end her career, and put her life on hold while she has a child, if she doens't want to? As a man - you don't see the kind of limitations having a child puts on a woman.

As a husband, with a wife who HAS had children, I see that the limitations you feel a woman has while she is pregnant are grossly exaggerated. Have *YOU* ever gotten someone pregnant? Have *YOU* ever held someone's hair while they puked into the toilet with morning sickness? Limitations: no drugs, very limited alcohol (especially during the first trimester), no hot tubs, uhhhhh.. geez, after 2 kids, you'd think I could think of more.