abortion

[User6773]

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil."

I was driving this morning and a good argument hit me:

Should mothers be allowed to chop off the limbs of their unborn children?

If you answer "yes", then the response is "So parents are allowed to do whatever they want to their children as long as they're still in the womb, even if it scars them for life? Even if they have to live their whole lives a cripple?"

If you answer "no", then the response is "So how come they're allowed to kill their children, but not deform them? Isn't a bit silly that you're only allowed to intentionally harm a human being as long as you completely kill them?

And if you think my argument is ridiculous, read Brave New World...as part of their social engineering projects they inject some babies with drugs that make them retarded.

[perfect_fat]

social engineering

ummm Mitnick?

Anyways, (sorry bout that). What does it say on your birth certificate? Does it say your date of conception? No, it says that day that you were born. When society decided that you were imbued with life. You can argue with the definition, but your example is just ridiculous and I'm not even going to respond to it.

[fusi0n]

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil."

I was driving this morning and a good argument hit me:

Should mothers be allowed to chop off the limbs of their unborn children?

If you answer "yes", then the response is "So parents are allowed to do whatever they want to their children as long as they're still in the womb, even if it scars them for life? Even if they have to live their whole lives a cripple?"

If you answer "no", then the response is "So how come they're allowed to kill their children, but not deform them? Isn't a bit silly that you're only allowed to intentionally harm a human being as long as you completely kill them?

And if you think my argument is ridiculous, read Brave New World...as part of their social engineering projects they inject some babies with drugs that make them retarded.

that's a pretty rediculous situation. cutting off a child's limb is just unecessary cruelty. abortion isn't always unecessary. you are stretching it

[perfect_fat]

Abortion is a neccessary evil. I think everyone can agree to that one.

No.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you think that abortion is an "evil", that means you'd rather people didn't have to do it. Well, my arguement is that people shouldn't have done stuff in the first place so that abortion would be the "best course of action."

What about rape? Was she asking for it by dressing a certain way?

[BluE_MeaniE]

I just don't see what's wrong with taking pleasure from something that gives you pleasure. Sure there are consequences, but there are things to get rid of those consequences. But then ever once in a while those things don't work. So they have more things to help get rid of the consequences.

Of course, things are more complicated than that, when you get to the consequence, but that's my view on the point that if they have sex, they have to expect the consequences, or that they shouldn't have sex at all unless they are fine with the consequences.

[User6773]

I just don't see what's wrong with taking pleasure from something that gives you pleasure. Sure there are consequences, but there are things to get rid of those consequences. But then ever once in a while those things don't work. So they have more things to help get rid of the consequences.

Of course, things are more complicated than that, when you get to the consequence, but that's my view on the point that if they have sex, they have to expect the consequences, or that they shouldn't have sex at all unless they are fine with the consequences.

There's nothing wrong with taking pleasure from sex, and I wasn't saying that there was. I find it ironic that you say "once in a while those (countermeasures) don't work", because from a biological standpoint, sex exists for reproduction and reproduction alone, and if a child was not conceived, then something didn't work right.

My rule is this: No two people should be having sex unless they're willing to accept the fact that they might become parents. Which is why I won't get married until I'm at least in my mid-twenties.

Anyways, (sorry bout that). What does it say on your birth certificate? Does it say your date of conception? No, it says that day that you were born. When society decided that you were imbued with life. You can argue with the definition, but your example is just ridiculous and I'm not even going to respond to it.

The birth certificate says that you've been born, not that you're alive. Being born (coming out of your mother) is a lot different than being alive.

The date of conception is fairly irrelevant, as is the date of birth, if you think about it. And it's impossible to prove on what date you were conceived - but this doesn't mean there wasn't an instantaneous moment when you became a complete single-celled human being.

The fact that you refuse to respond to my argument shows nothing but your inability to counter it.

that's a pretty rediculous situation. cutting off a child's limb is just unecessary cruelty. abortion isn't always unecessary. you are stretching it

So injuring someone else is cruel, but killing them isn't? And it's okay to kill, but not okay to injure?

[jewpinthethird]

I didn't convince you, Jewpin, but I successfully argued my case before many. I'm sure some people were swayed somewhat by my arguments...it seems like Blue Meanie was leaning that way to an extent.

I mean, you just had good points and information.
Of course, that could be all wrong, but the way it is, I just don't know.

This is true, you did have very many good points. But, in my opinion, it always seemed to end in a stalemate.

I cant say I was totally unaffected by anything you said, there were some points that made me think for awhile.

[C104K3D]

You can't kill what isn't living, so the real debate here is whether a child is alive when they are still in their mothers womb. In my opinion, something may be removed from existence by it's creator before it is finished, but not after (only in the case of human life). Lets say someone painted a picture, and before it was finished he scrapped it. He painted another picture, and when it was finished he still didn't like it and wanted to destroy it as well. Someone else said they liked it and didn't want him to destroy it, so he didn't. Now change the painting and artist to a baby and it's parents. Before the child is born, if both parents agree to it, they should be able to have an abortion, because they either may not be able to support the child, or just don't want to have children at all. This should be their decision, whether to bring life into this world, and not someone else's. Abortion is not murder, because matter that isn't born yet wouldn't be considered life, as our age is based on our birth date. And I strongly oppose people that meddle with parents that choose to have an abortion. It's their child, whether they'd like to have it or not, and I'm sorry, but it's not your decision. Now killing a child after it's born is murder.

The painting example was bad, but in the end I made my point.

[User6773]

You can't kill what isn't living, so the real debate here is whether a child is alive when they are still in their mothers womb. In my opinion, something may be removed from existence by it's creator before it is finished, but not after (only in the case of human life). Lets say someone painted a picture, and before it was finished he scrapped it. He painted another picture, and when it was finished he still didn't like it and wanted to destroy it as well. Someone else said they liked it and didn't want him to destroy it, so he didn't. Now change the painting and artist to a baby and it's parents. Before the child is born, if both parents agree to it, they should be able to have an abortion, because they either may not be able to support the child, or just don't want to have children at all. This should be their decision, whether to bring life into this world, and not someone else's. Abortion is not murder, because matter that isn't born yet wouldn't be considered life, as our age is based on our birth date. And I strongly oppose people that meddle with parents that choose to have an abortion. It's their child, whether they'd like to have it or not, and I'm sorry, but it's not your decision. Now killing a child after it's born is murder.

The painting example was bad, but in the end I made my point.

A human being is "complete" from the moment of conception. Once conception takes place, the human has a complete set of human DNA and begins to grow. Nothing new will be added to his being until his natural death. All he needs to turn into an adult is time and nutrition.

Now what about a 6 year old? He has a complete set of human DNA and begins to grow. Nothing new will be added to his being until his natural death. All he needs to turn into an adult is time and nutrition.

Neither of those examples are fully mature humans, though. Young children haven't gone through puberty, so if you make the claim that unborn babies are "incomplete" you must argue that humans up until the age of puberty are also "incomplete." But you'd be wrong. They're still complete human beings -- they're just growing, that's all.

[Anonymous]

Well anyways, the main point I was trying to get across was the fact that others shouldn't have the right to decide whether someone should have an abortion. It's THEIR decision. If one of the parents didn't agree then the abortion shouldn't take place, and whoever wanted the abortion shouldn't have to pay for raising the child. My opinion: Whoever wants to bring life into this world has to pay for it! And sex doesn't always result in a child so having intercourse doesn't always mean that you want to have a child!

[DracIV]

I have two intertwined arguments that seem to support abortion.

The right to pursue happiness. If having a baby screws over your entire life forever after (I've seen it happen), then it is part of your right to pursue preventing that baby when a mistake was made. Everyone makes mistakes, but should someone's life be totally ruined because they made the wrong mistake? This adds a situation to the list of times when abortion might be acceptable. If the child is born, it means that they will most likely grow up in poverty or fairly poor conditions with incompetent parents, or they will spend their youth being juggled in the adoption system.

A similar situation is if you are taking the SATs and you mess up a single question. Because you messed up that question, you are screwed over for life and no longer have a hope for a good college or well-paid job. Due to that one mistake, everything went down the drain. That's why people can take the SATs multiple times, to let them correct their mistakes and do better next time. Why can't this apply to this situation? Abortion gives the parents a second chance to not ruin their lives with a stupid mistake.

(note: my argument was discussing parents [far] under age 28)

[User6773]

How not to get pregnant:

Don't have sex.

People make it seem like pregnancy is something uncontrollable.

[fusi0n]

that's a pretty rediculous situation. cutting off a child's limb is just unecessary cruelty. abortion isn't always unecessary. you are stretching it

So injuring someone else is cruel, but killing them isn't? And it's okay to kill, but not okay to injure?

the reason just injuring it would be worse would be that the baby would have to live with that injury, and with the insane mother that decided to inflict the damage her child. the child would have to live with that pain. with that injury, it is being tortured for the rest of its life, and there is nothing that person can do about it.

[Jam930]

Don't have sex.

that's not as easy as you think.

[Lupin_the_3rd]

Jam930, don't be foolish. They make those blow up dolls for a reason...