Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Gikoku Harakami]

Allow me to put this one up, let's take God for example..

He created all of us (well.. so the Bible says), and many many religious people easily feel God has every right to take our lives away if he so chooses, but yet us humans do not deserve the right to take another life away, and an unborn life at that? If we do it, it's a horrible act of sin, it's wrong... but if God does it.. "Ohh, I'm sure the Lord had his reasons."

I'd rather pay my taxes towards orphanages and giving kids a chance to live their life as they choose than paying for the deaths of millions of babies. Because even though they are only foetuses at abortion stage, they are going to grow up to become adults and in so nobody has the right to end their life before they are even born. Most people would believe that killing a day old baby is wrong - how is a foetus any different?

So will my semen, if I dump it in my girl's vagina.. (ahh, i should feel bad for the poor ones that don't win that race and just "die off"... could've became a healthy adult)

Well, I'm sure those smart enough, will have an abortion before it ever fully develops into a fetus. Of course they have the right to an abortion or.. "taking life away" as you put it, it's your morals however that are saying otherwise.

By your logic of, "it cannot make it's own choices, deciding it's fate is wrong" ... well, I could say dumping Religious beliefs on a young developing mind of a child is wrong..

Why does a newborn baby have a right to life but the foetus doesn't? Neither of them can think. Why is it murder if the baby is killed at birth but legal (and even moral) if she/he is killed in the womb?

Who said the fetus didn't have the right to live? It's not like any of us are going "You're just a fetus! .. You don't have the RIGHT, TO LIIIVE!" I'm sure if the fetus could talk to us, we'd let it decide it's own fate.. but it can't, so it's up to the parents to decide, they have every right in the world to make the deicision if they want to.. I could say: You don't have the right to tell them what they can & can't do with their unborn child, it's their damn baby, not yours.

What I said about growing up to become a healthy human, I wasn't putting any emphasis on "healthy". Sure, some babies will be born with an illness, but does that automatically make their life unliveable and is it anybody else's choice to make?

Sure it is, but you seem to be okay with letting the child live with no matter what.. take this infant's case for example:

Spoiler

A child suffering from Harlequin Ichthyosis.
[video=youtube;VZFcH0srTRU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZFcH0srTRU[/video]

Obviously the baby can't make the decision, so it's up to the parents, but then.. you feel they don't have the right to relieve the baby of it's suffering? You can either put this child out of it's misery soon, or let it live through it's entire lifespan (of about week to a few weeks), before it dies off anyway..

While orphanages are a good thing for completely incapable parents (e.g. drug addicts), I think both the mother AND father have a responsibilty to care for the child that they brought into the world. Every action has a consequence and murder is never the answer.

Morally for you, sure. I myself however don't feel you can murder someone who hasn't even been born yet. How can a drug addict not be a capable parent? Say a man is addicted to Vicodin, is he incapable? My friend is addicted to alcohol, yet he's able to be responsible enough and is definitely capable of being a really good father.

 

[Squall7]

I'd rather pay my taxes towards orphanages and giving kids a chance to live their life as they choose than paying for the deaths of millions of babies. Because even though they are only foetuses at abortion stage, they are going to grow up to become adults and in so nobody has the right to end their life before they are even born. Most people would believe that killing a day old baby is wrong - how is a foetus any different?

That's not true. Kids die of disease every day. A day old baby is an individual. A foetus is not (it lives as part of the mother for it's 9 month incubation). Besides, how does a foetus having the potential to grow into and adult equal having a right to life? Surely by that logic, we shouldn't eat fruit, or seeds of any description...

Why does a newborn baby have a right to life but the foetus doesn't? Neither of them can think. Why is it murder if the baby is killed at birth but legal (and even moral) if she/he is killed in the womb?

Actually babies do a lot of learning.
Nobody is saying it is moral, it's simply not amoral. If for example, the mothers' life is in danger because of the pregnancy, your logic would be to risk both lives for the sake of a foetus.

What I said about growing up to become a healthy human, I wasn't putting any emphasis on "healthy". Sure, some babies will be born with an illness, but does that automatically make their life unliveable and is it anybody else's choice to make?

It's all 'ifs' and 'buts' here. It would obviously depend on the condition. Is it anyone else's choice to make? Yes. The mother and fathers'. While it isn't technically owned by it, the parents do have the responsibility to make decisions for it. Why is it that a parent should make the decision to indocrinate their children in an incredibly specific way, but not to prevent a life of suffering for their child? I personally believe that children should be given the whole story of all known religions, before being pushed into a single one.

While orphanages are a good thing for completely incapable parents (e.g. drug addicts), I think both the mother AND father have a responsibilty to care for the child that they brought into the world. Every action has a consequence and murder is never the answer.

...Orphanages are for orphans (i.e. mother and father deceased). What you'd put children into, if their parents weren't looking after them, would be Child Care. Also, one cannot assume the state of the parents based upon their vices. One has to look at the particular behaviour of the parent's at hand (a non-drug addicted parent can still abuse their child, while a parent who has an addiction can still love and provide for their child).

 

[Spinty]

Allow me to put this one up, let's take God for example..

He created all of us (well.. so the Bible says), and many many religious people easily feel God has every right to take our lives away if he so chooses, but yet us humans do not deserve the right to take another life away, and an unborn life at that? If we do it, it's a horrible act of sin, it's wrong... but if God does it.. "Ohh, I'm sure the Lord had his reasons."

God has created us and given us life - He has the right to take it.

By your logic of, "it cannot make it's own choices, deciding it's fate is wrong" ... well, I could say dumping Religious beliefs on a young developing mind of a child is wrong..

You underestimate the underestimate the reasoning of a young mind. Teaching a child in the way of one faith is not brainwashing them into a lifestyle. Many atheists have had deeply religious upbringings yet clearly they were able to make their own decisions.

However, I'll take a Christian upbringing over being killed as a foetus/embryo any day.

And why bring up religion so often?

Who said the fetus didn't have the right to live? It's not like any of us are going "You're just a fetus! .. You don't have the RIGHT, TO LIIIVE!"

\/\/\/ This guy did

Mistakes happen, and when they do, the woman has a right to her life, and to make her own life choices. The fetus doesn't have this right, and as it barely exists, mommy has every right to abort the sucker.

I'm sure if the fetus could talk to us, we'd let it decide it's own fate.. but it can't, so it's up to the parents to decide, they have every right in the world to make the deicision if they want to.. I could say: You don't have the right to tell them what they can & can't do with their unborn child, it's their damn baby, not yours.

So we can kill dumb people as well? They can't talk after all - somebody else can decide when to end their life.

And parents can treat their baby in whatever way they wish? Your morals imply that a parent should be able to molest or torure their child. Do you always do everything your mommy tells you to do? You'd better - she has the right to kill you - after all, you're her child.

Sure it is, but you seem to be okay with letting the child live with no matter what.. take this infant's case for example:

Spoiler

A child suffering from Harlequin Ichthyosis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZFcH0srTRU

Obviously the baby can't make the decision, so it's up to the parents, but then.. you feel they don't have the right to relieve the baby of it's suffering? You can either put this child out of it's misery soon, or let it live through it's entire lifespan (of about week to a few weeks), before it dies off anyway..

Harlequin Ichthyosis is a horrible disease and it is saddening to see a child like that. Not all sufferers die though - there are success stories of children leading a near normal life. I still do not believe anybody can make that decision for them. Should we simply pursue a eugenics course and completely eliminate all babies that are not perfectly healthy at birth? After all, the baby can't think for itself - why not kill it?

Nazi Germany had similar views to you. They believed in killing/neutering all those they saw to be a burden on humanity. This included the blind, lame, mental patients and of course the Jews. Do you suggest we kill all defective babies at or before birth.

Morally for you, sure. I myself however don't feel you can murder someone who hasn't even been born yet. How can a drug addict not be a capable parent? Say a man is addicted to Vicodin, is he incapable? My friend is addicted to alcohol, yet he's able to be responsible enough and is definitely capable of being a really good father.

I don't necessarily feel that you are murdering a baby during abortion but it is tantamount to it. The foetus/embryo would have become a baby yet abortion cuts their life tragically short.

I was not denying that a drug addict or alcoholic could be a loving and caring parent, yet when they have this other influence in their life (which could easily make them extremely ill) which detracts from their duties as parent, it's not possible to say that this addiction makes them a better parent.


Sorry if I went overboard with the reducto ad absurdum arguments.

 

[Chewy]

So we can kill dumb people as well? They can't talk after all - somebody else can decide when to end their life.

And parents can treat their baby in whatever way they wish? Your morals imply that a parent should be able to molest or torure their child. Do you always do everything your mommy tells you to do? You'd better - she has the right to kill you - after all, you're her child.

A fetus is attached to the mother. It is literally a part of her. I believe she has just as much of a right to remove it from her as she does to removing a parasite from herself.

Nazi Germany had similar views to you. They believed in killing/neutering all those they saw to be a burden on humanity. This included the blind, lame, mental patients and of course the Jews. Do you suggest we kill all defective babies at or before birth.

Pretty sure he was implying that it would be better if the baby stopped suffering for the babies sake, not because it was harder to take care of.

 

[Squall7]

God has created us and given us life - He has the right to take it.

Well, that's surely a problem for those of us who do not believe in God now isn't it. Likewise, a mother and father literally create a baby's life, why is it that in this instance, it's unacceptable?

You underestimate the underestimate the reasoning of a young mind. Teaching a child in the way of one faith is not brainwashing them into a lifestyle. Many atheists have had deeply religious upbringings yet clearly they were able to make their own decisions.

Many, but not all. Teaching a child a religion isn't brainwashing, but instructing them in how to behave, think and feel according to said religion, because of said religion is.

However, I'll take a Christian upbringing over being killed as a foetus/embryo any day.

Most people would take a lot of things before being killed. However, if I didn't live life before, I wouldn't miss it (through lack of experience of it).

And why bring up religion so often?

It's intuitively linked to this issue, especially with things like the statement: "God has created us and given us life - He has the right to take it."

So we can kill dumb people as well? They can't talk after all - somebody else can decide when to end their life.

I don't think that's what he was trying to say. It's not the fact that they cannot talk that allows them to be aborted. If they could talk, they shouldn't be aborted, as talking involves a lot of awareness, and generally sentience. In easier to understand terms:
Talk = no abort. No talk = possibility to abort (under certain circumstances).
Well, according to the original quote's owner at least.

And parents can treat their baby in whatever way they wish? Your morals imply that a parent should be able to molest or torure their child. Do you always do everything your mommy tells you to do? You'd better - she has the right to kill you - after all, you're her child.

Unborn baby does not equal actual child/individual. So long as the baby is inside the mother, it is the parent's responsability and choice. When the baby is outside of the mother, it becomes an individual in it's own right, with everything that entails.

Harlequin Ichthyosis is a horrible disease and it is saddening to see a child like that. Not all sufferers die though - there are success stories of children leading a near normal life. I still do not believe anybody can make that decision for them. Should we simply pursue a eugenics course and completely eliminate all babies that are not perfectly healthy at birth? After all, the baby can't think for itself - why not kill it?

And if that child wished to end it's suffering through death, your religion would condemn it. And what do you consider a 'near normal life'? As far as I'm concerned, there's no 'normal' life, and therefore no 'near normal' one either. If one's fate was completely upto oneself, we would not have a next of kin, and indeed in an ideal world, we wouldn't need one. On both front's, we have to conceed that this is not an ideal world, and that there is a next of kin in which we trust to make decisions on our behalf. Without it, nothing could be done. In the case of a baby, shouldn't it's mother and father be considered it's decision makers? And what about a child's decision to lead the life that they want, rather than having their parent's choose for them? Surely if we assume that we should do nothing because a foetus cannot choose, we should also assume that a parent should not be able to indocrinate their child into gender, sexuality, lifestyle, substances or religion.

Nazi Germany had similar views to you. They believed in killing/neutering all those they saw to be a burden on humanity. This included the blind, lame, mental patients and of course the Jews. Do you suggest we kill all defective babies at or before birth.

Oh, bad arguement. Hitler was also like you, in that he was Christian.

See what I did there?

Anyway, seriously, the guy was not saying anything about killing any babies that have a disease. He was saying it's the parent's choice. It's the ironic thing about the whole situation. It ultimately isn't about whether or not to kill babies, it's about choice.

I don't necessarily feel that you are murdering a baby during abortion but it is tantamount to it. The foetus/embryo would have become a baby yet abortion cuts their life tragically short.

True. Though medicine is getting better able to deal with it.

I was not denying that a drug addict or alcoholic could be a loving and caring parent, yet when they have this other influence in their life (which could easily make them extremely ill) which detracts from their duties as parent, it's not possible to say that this addiction makes them a better parent.

Not better, just not necessarily unfit either. A caffeine addiction for example, wouldn't automatically mean that a mother or father would become incapable of looking after the child (in fact, it's possible it could help with concentration)

Sorry if I went overboard with the reducto ad absurdum arguments.

Yay! I love that term.

 

[Gikoku Harakami]

God has created us and given us life - He has the right to take it.

See, that is exactly what I'm talking about. God gets a free pass, and why exactly does he get a free pass with taking away lives?

By your statement, a Mother & Father deserve just as much right to abort their child since they themselves created it also.

I would love for you to really explain why it's OK for God to take away human life, yet it's not OK for a human to perform the same action.. regardless for whatever the cause. Because your statement is very hypocritical.

You underestimate the underestimate the reasoning of a young mind. Teaching a child in the way of one faith is not brainwashing them into a lifestyle. Many atheists have had deeply religious upbringings yet clearly they were able to make their own decisions.

That's pretty much what brainwashing is. Why not wait until the child has reached an age of better understanding where they can truly make their own decisions, rather than doing it at a more vulnerable age?

However, I'll take a Christian upbringing over being killed as a foetus/embryo any day.

Of course you would, since you know what it would be like..

So we can kill dumb people as well? They can't talk after all - somebody else can decide when to end their life.

And parents can treat their baby in whatever way they wish? Your morals imply that a parent should be able to molest or torure their child. Do you always do everything your mommy tells you to do? You'd better - she has the right to kill you - after all, you're her child.

That is not what I implied, nor said..

First off, that "dumb" person is not a fetus and does not qualify for abortion... for obvious reasons. So let's not go there.

Are parents able to molest their children? Of course they are, should they?.. I wouldn't want them to.. Eithery way, you took what I said out of context.. We are talking about what they should be allowed to do with their unborn child before birth, not some toddler or kid.

Harlequin Ichthyosis is a horrible disease and it is saddening to see a child like that. Not all sufferers die though - there are success stories of children leading a near normal life. I still do not believe anybody can make that decision for them. Should we simply pursue a eugenics course and completely eliminate all babies that are not perfectly healthy at birth? After all, the baby can't think for itself - why not kill it?

Nazi Germany had similar views to you. They believed in killing/neutering all those they saw to be a burden on humanity. This included the blind, lame, mental patients and of course the Jews. Do you suggest we kill all defective babies at or before birth.

I sure hope you're not calling me a Nazi.. But again, you take what I say out of context (this is the 3rd time now). No, I do not suggest we kill off all defective and unhealthy babies, however if I were to be aware of beforehand that my child is going to be born with something horrible (like say.. Harlequin Ichthyosis) that kills it off long before it even learns to speak or even crawl, then I wouldn't want him/her to suffer through something like that.

If my child were born with an arm missing, I wouldn't have him/her killed, I'd still want them. Even if they were born mentally retarded, I'd still want them.

I don't necessarily feel that you are murdering a baby during abortion but it is tantamount to it. The foetus/embryo would have become a baby yet abortion cuts their life tragically short.

.. it's not alive yet, so no life is being "tragically" cut short.

I was not denying that a drug addict or alcoholic could be a loving and caring parent, yet when they have this other influence in their life (which could easily make them extremely ill) which detracts from their duties as parent, it's not possible to say that this addiction makes them a better parent.

I can agree with that.

A caffine addiction for example, wouldn't automatically mean that a mother or father would become incapable of looking after the child (in fact, it's possible it could help with concentration)

Yeah, but.. coffee isn't a drug.

 

[Sovieto]

God has created us and given us life - He has the right to take it.




You underestimate the underestimate the reasoning of a young mind. Teaching a child in the way of one faith is not brainwashing them into a lifestyle. Many atheists have had deeply religious upbringings yet clearly they were able to make their own decisions.

However, I'll take a Christian upbringing over being killed as a foetus/embryo any day.

And why bring up religion so often?



\/\/\/ This guy did





So we can kill dumb people as well? They can't talk after all - somebody else can decide when to end their life.

And parents can treat their baby in whatever way they wish? Your morals imply that a parent should be able to molest or torure their child. Do you always do everything your mommy tells you to do? You'd better - she has the right to kill you - after all, you're her child.



Harlequin Ichthyosis is a horrible disease and it is saddening to see a child like that. Not all sufferers die though - there are success stories of children leading a near normal life. I still do not believe anybody can make that decision for them. Should we simply pursue a eugenics course and completely eliminate all babies that are not perfectly healthy at birth? After all, the baby can't think for itself - why not kill it?

Nazi Germany had similar views to you. They believed in killing/neutering all those they saw to be a burden on humanity. This included the blind, lame, mental patients and of course the Jews. Do you suggest we kill all defective babies at or before birth.



I don't necessarily feel that you are murdering a baby during abortion but it is tantamount to it. The foetus/embryo would have become a baby yet abortion cuts their life tragically short.

I was not denying that a drug addict or alcoholic could be a loving and caring parent, yet when they have this other influence in their life (which could easily make them extremely ill) which detracts from their duties as parent, it's not possible to say that this addiction makes them a better parent.


Sorry if I went overboard with the reducto ad absurdum arguments.

You have a topic in your post that is a counter-argument to another. I will bold them.

Hitler's Youth?

 

[Chewy]

Yeah, but.. coffee isn't a drug.

I don't really disagree with your overall argument but that is just a pet peave of mine...

Coffee IS a drug. An addictive stimulant. That is a fact.
It just doesn't get a bad wrap as a drug because it isn't counter-productive.

 

[Gikoku Harakami]

I don't really disagree with your overall argument but that is just a pet peave of mine...

Coffee IS a drug. An addictive stimulant. That is a fact.
It just doesn't get a bad wrap as a drug because it isn't counter-productive.

It is addictive and stimulating, but I don't see it as an actual drug. Because it is those two things does not automatically make it a drug. Take for example, Sex: It is stimulating and can be addictive, but you wouldn't consider it a drug, would you?

 

[Napalmbrain]

Coffee isn't a drug. The caffeine in it is.

 

[Chewy]

It is addictive and stimulating, but I don't see it as an actual drug. Because it is those two things does not automatically make it a drug. Take for example, Sex: It is stimulating and can be addictive, but you wouldn't consider it a drug, would you?

Sex is not a chemical that you consume.You can not overdose on sex. Sex is not actually physically addictive.

Trust me on this, I've been to several drug and alcohol education courses and I've researched various drugs as a hobby.

It is a well known fact that it is a drug, it is scientifically classified as a drug.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/caffeine/caffeine.shtml

You seriously don't think its a drug?

 

[Gikoku Harakami]

Sex is not a chemical that you consume.You can not overdose on sex. Sex is not actually physically addictive.

Trust me on this, I've been to several drug and alcohol education courses and I've researched various drugs as a hobby.

It is a well known fact that it is a drug, it is scientifically classified as a drug.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/caffeine/caffeine.shtml

You seriously don't think its a drug?

Coffee isn't a drug. The caffeine in it is.

What the N-Brain said.

 

[Chewy]

What the N-Brain said.

The post you quoted said caffeine.
And nonetheless coffee has a drug in it(unless its decaf)...

 

[Squall7]

Yeah, but.. coffee isn't a drug.

Excuse the sources:

Coffee is a brewed beverage prepared from roasted seeds, commonly called coffee beans, of the coffee plant. Caffeinated coffee has a stimulating effect in humans. Today, coffee is one of the most popular beverages worldwide.

Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline xanthine alkaloid that acts as a psychoactive stimulant drug and a mild diuretic

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeinated
If you want to get into semantics, I will conceed that there are non-caffeinated options for coffee (although it is non-standard) and that it contains, rather than is a drug per se.

EDIT:

The post you quoted said caffeine.

*facepalm* Trust me not to read my own quote...

 

[Gikoku Harakami]

The post you quoted said caffeine.

Yeah, and you and me both said Coffee, so..