Abortion

[whitelotus]

is it murder when the baby hasnt even started developing (embrio), much less has been born ? lol
This has been argued over and over the past i dunno years. People have differences in opinion, There is no fact.

is it murder when a child hasnt even been born, is it murder when its only a embrio.? some think it is, some dont.

its very much like the arguement of making abortion legal or illegal, it will never be solved.

[loseyourname]

You just restated my reason for outlawing it. If it can't be shown that it isn't murder, then it should be outlawed. We have laws protecting braindead but functioning bodies; why not embryos? This is an appaling legal inconsistency and it exists purely for political reasons, without any regard given to legality or morality. Again, the issue is not being taken seriously. You admit yourself that it may be murder, but you don't seem to have a problem with that. Why not?

[whitelotus]

in my opinion its not murder, because it hasnt been brought into the world, i said others might think it is. So there is never going to be one opinion nor fact.

i never said its okay to murder. My opinion of preventing a embryo of entering the world isnt murder.

[loseyourname]

So an embryo is not at any point a person while still in the womb? You define personhood as existence outside of the uterus? That is unsatisfactory given that the only difference between a child immediately before and after birth is that one breathes air, the other does not.

[Anonymouse]

Abortion is indeed a hot topic, but you can bet that it is just another tool, and the only benificiary of it is the State, once more.

During election time, the Republican candidates and their bombast like to assure the Christian and conservative voters about their policy of "partial birth abortion" not totally rejecting it, yet at the same time, somehow pretending to be opponents against it ( while most of the Right doesn't realize the present Republican Neo cons made government bigger than any other administration since Roosevelt ). The Democrat bunch also lards their speech with saintly oils of how they are for "individual sovereignty" for this instance, when usually they don't care for the individual, rather the collective. It should be clear to any critical thinking individual that abortion is a tool for the State.

The argument for "individual sovereignty" at least for me, doesn't hold. I am for the individual, and the rights of the individual. However the concept of individual sovereignty as a means for evaluating abortion rights falls short. To cede to a woman the power of life and death over the life inside her body because it is inside her body is just is stretching it thin.

If we take the logic of "since it's the womans body she has a right to do what she wants with the life inside her" can be applied to other places. If we make an argument for government and borders, and for landowners and plantations, then this logic seems to suggest that the government is right in whatever it does within its borders, and the landowner can own a slave on his plantation. Of course the argument can be raised that "but the fetus is not a life". I mean come on. Call it a fetus, call it a person, nonetheless it is a life. In the age of genome mapping there is no denying that when the sperm and the egg join, the DNA is set.

To say that because all thistakes place insde the mothers body and she has sovereignty over this new life means that having the power of life and death gives us the right to exercise that power. At its root this is saying no more than that might makes right. Eventually what makes anyone sovereign at any point in life over themselves they must be recognized as sovereign. That means no less than defending life when it canot defend itself, in the beginning and at the end, whether against the State and its armies, or the mother and the abortionists.

In so far as people continue to throw themselves on the Left or Right of the political spectrum solely on this issue, just like gun control, so long will the State wield masses to its advantage. Eventually, the questions and morality raised by the abortion issue is something that cannot be answered by the State.

[SagGal]

It is still a living thing and its a fact that when the abortion process happens, the baby feel pain also. It is definitely murder, in my opinion.
Some believe that it is a woman's right and that it's OK because it is not born yet. If this is true, then why is it illegal for a mother to kill her baby when's its actually born? What's the difference? I mean, it is a living thing when it's inside of the woman. I say "baby" because it will develop into a baby. It's just the first living step of becoming a human being.
If Abortion becomes a common thing, a lot of teenage girls will feel more comfotable about having sex because right now the main things that keeps them from having sex is the idea of getting pregnant. If they do not worry about this because they will feel that they can always get an abortion, diseases such as Aids and STD's will enter the picture.

I should have added a poll to this thread, but oh well.

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by surferarmo CKbejug, you put it perfectly. Our leftist oops...I mean...uh...Canadian friend believes that everyone must be indoctrinated with the beliefs that he has subscribed himself or herself (you never know, its Canada) to. (Baron, I am not trying to say that Bush is the BEST IN THE WORLD or anything like that, just that he can get the job done and should BE RE-ELECTED).

Arguing is not about convincing, its about presenation.

Anyway, this is a serious topic for me, and you all better believe I will get into this later on tonight. There are so many manipulations of language in this arguement and so many euphimisms at play. In fact, most people argue for or against the use of abortion in fallacious terms; they often use the same word with different meanings throughout the arguement. I cant wait to get into this. Ready yourselves.

Before I get on this later tonight, you should try to define a person biologically, and then you should define a person politically (based on the country in which you reside).

I love you Baron. (Why did I say that?) (And why I am using so many parenthesis)

Alright, let me rephrase, so that our fellow american readers can understand. My initial point was that the subject of abortion is not one that can be based on UNDENIABLE proof, and is only based on personal values. That is why, most people cannot back themselves up with anything more than their own beliefs. Which eventually leads to redundancy.

Once again, I don't understand what surfer is saying when he speaks of being indoctrinated with the same ideas as I am, as I personally have not yet formed an opinion on abortion, mostly because there is no proof to sway me on one side or another. I would have a hard time justifying why a 14 year old or a rape victim must keep her baby though...

[SagGal]

Originally posted by Baron Dants ...I would have a hard time justifying why a 14 year old or a rape victim must keep her baby though...

there is adoption.

[jahannam]

oh God.
here we go again
the 111th "abortion" thread or something.
anyway
I'll say this again...
no matter how many times you say "abortion is murder", it's a solution to a lot of problems, and it's gonna go on.
make it legal.
make it illegal.
neither doctors nor expecting women care.
if they're gonna do it, they're gonna do it.
you can't stop science.
you can't slow down technology.

[SexyAries]

A person should have the right to make their own choices. Personally i don't like the idea of killing a baby even if it hasn't fully developed. Although, and it is very selfish, if i was to ever get pregnant from the ages of 16 to before I'm married I would most likely get an abortion, if i have no means to support myself and the child, if i do then an abortion will never be an option, if i had to i would just leave, go far far away.