In our country in most cases abortion as an instrument is generally being used by people who wants to get rid of a girl child.They really don't want to get themselves overburdened by the excessive responsibility of a girl child to get her married with a lot of dowry.Such stupid reasons make people tempt for attempting abortion.Such actions are equivalent to a murderous attempt of not just one person but rather its an effort to abolish a gender from society.Repeated attempts like this will tamper with the sex ratio and a day will come when our society will be truly deprived of a particular sex.
Such a far reaching affect is generated just due to abortion.So definitely abortion must be banned.A very few cases come up regarding abortion where one can really give a go ahead approval.Say if the mother going to deliver a child is not in a healthy condition to give birth to a child.There are even cases when just because parents are not sure of affording the expenses of a new born baby, they try to abort it. Such cases can be also not approved.
| |
|
Welcome to AstaHost - Dear Guest 
, Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply
w/o Sign-Up!
| |
Toggle shoutbox
Shoutbox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Replying to Abortion
Topic Summary
lonelym
Posted 03 August 2007 - 01:09 AM
Since this is off topic, I put this in quotes.
Yes, it is wrong of me not to take people wanting to have sex as a fact. I guess you are correct in saying that humans naturally have sexual urges.
Another mistake of mine was forgetting to add the words, "But sometimes, abortion appears to be the best answer, in case to case basis."
You guys are right, without knowing when something becomes life it is hard to determine if it is really killing something alive.
It was also wrong of me to be stubborn of me to keep looking at the picture in black and white. I guess it is hard to see if abortion is right or wrong.
And, It was also cruel of me to baby bear to speak so rudely about her family. I'm sorry.
NeoTeemZ
Posted 26 July 2007 - 09:58 AM
Well said, Jeigh. Saved me a lot of writing 
I had actually discussed most of those arguments already in my previous posts on this topic, but I think lonelym missed them since there are many posts already.
Now, back to lonelym...
Kindly read Jeigh's post above then take a look at my first post on this topic. To kill something/someone, they have to be alive in the first place, right? Now, if you can tell me what life is, either biologically or philosophically, and can apply that definition to one of the stages of embryological, fetal, or other prenatal development, then perhaps we can start talking about the moral aspect of "killing a living being." But not before that
Notice that this argument, unlike most of my others, is dependent from spiritual influence altogether. I mean, most of my other argument are influenced by the fact that I'm an agnostic, which is why they can be largely debatable when confronted by a religious belief. But this particular argument is actually almost purely practical. It poses a direct question and waits for its answer to dictate what should and should not be done.
I had actually discussed most of those arguments already in my previous posts on this topic, but I think lonelym missed them since there are many posts already.
Now, back to lonelym...
No! I'm talking about what's best for the "yet-to-be-born" child. My mention of the parents has been almost purely collateral. If the child is born to parents who have no money and no responsibility, THE CHILD will suffer a terrible life. In this case, it seems to me that abortion is the right thing to do FOR the CHILD.Yes, if they already had a child, abortion seems to be the best solution for both the parents.
What I don't understand is the fact that the child is killed because of the irresponsible cases of pregnancy.
Kindly read Jeigh's post above then take a look at my first post on this topic. To kill something/someone, they have to be alive in the first place, right? Now, if you can tell me what life is, either biologically or philosophically, and can apply that definition to one of the stages of embryological, fetal, or other prenatal development, then perhaps we can start talking about the moral aspect of "killing a living being." But not before that
Notice that this argument, unlike most of my others, is dependent from spiritual influence altogether. I mean, most of my other argument are influenced by the fact that I'm an agnostic, which is why they can be largely debatable when confronted by a religious belief. But this particular argument is actually almost purely practical. It poses a direct question and waits for its answer to dictate what should and should not be done.
Jeigh
Posted 25 July 2007 - 02:12 PM
I haven't voiced an opinion on this topic in awhile, but since it's still going I'll hop back in
Firstly, accept the fact that people want to have sex, they enjoy it, they won't always be married, etc. Saying people shouldn't have sex until ready to have a baby is simply being ignorant to the world we live in. That will never be a reality, probably never has been and probably never will be. People have primal, sexual urges that, unless they have particular beliefs, they will satisfy prior to wanting to have a child.
Now, picture this scenario. A woman becomes pregnant, accidentally, and due to various medical conditions it is known that she has a high percentage chance of dieing during childbirth. Further these conditions would heavily impact the health of the baby, if it survives at all. You're saying that having an abortion would be wrong, but allowing the mother and child to both die, or mother to die and child to live a heavily painful life, is the 'right' choice?
Again we'll go back to what constitutes a living being as well. All of your arguments for anti-abortion circle around murder being wrong, but all your arguments are pointless without determining what, at least in your mind, is the stage at which an unborn entity becomes a living being. When does it become life? When is it given a soul? etc.
Going through with a pregnancy and living a life knowing you would outlive your child, as in the case of babybear's sister, to me would be more horrifying then I think I could handle. Her sister is one of the many parents with an amount of strength I know I would have trouble being able to draw forth. If she had chosen to risk it on her own it would make more sense but going through with it because other people told her she would go to hell? This makes no sense to me.
Again, I am not arguing FOR abortion. There are cases where I feel it is right, others it is very very wrong. For example, some countries actually saw abortion (still may) as the PRIMARY form of birth control. I wish I had a link for a source but I don't, I might hunt one later. Regardless this is a situation I feel it becomes an appalling abuse of such a procedure. As far as your organ harvesting idea, however, I think that is ridiculous. The government WOULD make such acts illegal, abortion being legal or not, and as such anyone who would be willing to be that twisted would be outside the law regardless so I'm sure making the abortion illegal wouldn't slow them down any.
I am a Christian. Hell I am a Catholic, so obviously my church is anti-abortion, pro-life, whichever term you choose. I choose pro-choice. Even from a religious point this has never made sense to me. How is forcing someone to not sin any better then letting them sin? They would still sin if given the power to do so, so how is that any better? We are a free society and should be given the choice to make our own decisions if they do not affect others. Mother's should be allowed to choose what happens to their bodies and their babies, or unborn blobs of developing tissue.
Firstly, accept the fact that people want to have sex, they enjoy it, they won't always be married, etc. Saying people shouldn't have sex until ready to have a baby is simply being ignorant to the world we live in. That will never be a reality, probably never has been and probably never will be. People have primal, sexual urges that, unless they have particular beliefs, they will satisfy prior to wanting to have a child.
Now, picture this scenario. A woman becomes pregnant, accidentally, and due to various medical conditions it is known that she has a high percentage chance of dieing during childbirth. Further these conditions would heavily impact the health of the baby, if it survives at all. You're saying that having an abortion would be wrong, but allowing the mother and child to both die, or mother to die and child to live a heavily painful life, is the 'right' choice?
Again we'll go back to what constitutes a living being as well. All of your arguments for anti-abortion circle around murder being wrong, but all your arguments are pointless without determining what, at least in your mind, is the stage at which an unborn entity becomes a living being. When does it become life? When is it given a soul? etc.
Going through with a pregnancy and living a life knowing you would outlive your child, as in the case of babybear's sister, to me would be more horrifying then I think I could handle. Her sister is one of the many parents with an amount of strength I know I would have trouble being able to draw forth. If she had chosen to risk it on her own it would make more sense but going through with it because other people told her she would go to hell? This makes no sense to me.
Again, I am not arguing FOR abortion. There are cases where I feel it is right, others it is very very wrong. For example, some countries actually saw abortion (still may) as the PRIMARY form of birth control. I wish I had a link for a source but I don't, I might hunt one later. Regardless this is a situation I feel it becomes an appalling abuse of such a procedure. As far as your organ harvesting idea, however, I think that is ridiculous. The government WOULD make such acts illegal, abortion being legal or not, and as such anyone who would be willing to be that twisted would be outside the law regardless so I'm sure making the abortion illegal wouldn't slow them down any.
I am a Christian. Hell I am a Catholic, so obviously my church is anti-abortion, pro-life, whichever term you choose. I choose pro-choice. Even from a religious point this has never made sense to me. How is forcing someone to not sin any better then letting them sin? They would still sin if given the power to do so, so how is that any better? We are a free society and should be given the choice to make our own decisions if they do not affect others. Mother's should be allowed to choose what happens to their bodies and their babies, or unborn blobs of developing tissue.
lonelym
Posted 25 July 2007 - 01:16 PM
Yes, if they already had a child, abortion seems to be the best solution for both the parents.lonelym, I think you're looking at this the wrong way
Take a look at the following two questions of yours, directed at baby bear in regard to her latest comment:
Do you see what these two questions have in common? They're not discussing abortion; they're discussing irresponsible cases of pregnancy.
Deeming abortion illegal, which I suppose is what you're arguing for won't solve any problem in the abovementioned cases. The parents won't get richer or become more responsible. And, more importantly, the child will still have to suffer the consequences of the irresponsible actions of his/her parents! Actually, in cases like these, abortion seems to be the better solution for both the child and the parents.
Now, why not go straight to the source of the problem, i.e. irresponsible conceptions, instead of its consequence, i.e. abortion? Perhaps it might make more sense if we proposed some form of legal action against parents who are found guilty of irresponsible conception.
What do you think?
What I understand from what you are saying is that we shouldn't do something about preventing it, because it's already happening. Instead, we should try to solve the problem that is already at hand, instead of preventing it.What I don't understand is the fact that the child is killed because of the irresponsible cases of pregnancy. The fact that the child growing in the mother's womb is a living being convinces me that killing it is wrong. I mean, what is the difference between murdering an adult to murdering a child? Wouldn't murdering a child be even worse?
Yes, doing abortion would clearly help both the parents, both financially and in health, but since the parents made the mistake (irresponsible cases of pregnancy) shouldn't they take the consequences for their actions? Why should the child, born into this world take the consequence?
I supposed it is a STD, but I hope not. Anyways...my sister had sex with a man named mark. he had something I don't remember what it's called but when I do i'll post it. but anyways she had a kid with the man and now her kid has it. her kids name is drea. he's mentaly retarted and he has the condition also and almost all people who get it die in the their late 20s or early 30s. drea will die before my sister will. now drea suffers because mindy didn't have an abortion because people kept telling her that she would go to hell if she had an abortion.
Do not think of it as a wrong choice of having them do abortion. I believe living is better than not living at all. And so, another question pops up in my mind.
WHAT is the purpose of life? If life is filled with problems and questions that we need to solve, WHY do we even need to solve it? Why can't he just get on with it? (Just kill ourselves) We'll all die anyways. Is living really that worth it to endure and solve all the problems we will encounter?
And so, once you find out the answers to that, come back to me. Once we know the answers, we'll know if Drea really is better off abortion-ed or if she is better living a hard life.
Off topic: I walk around my school, watching children play, friends chat, and barkadas (groups of people) enjoy their time. I sit, alone, thinking about the purpose of life, and the questions I stated above. I wonder if they (students) even know why they live, and what their answers are to the questions above.
