• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are abortionists just lazy and irresponsible women?

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I just don't get it. What makes abortionists want abortion to be legal? Why do they think that it is morally ok? Why do they want it to be morally ok?

Ok, I'm pro-life, but I'll pretend I'm not for a moment. If a women gets pregnant but does not want to have a child, what makes her choose to have an abortion? Since no one knows for sure if the fetus is a living "human being" or not, wouldn't it be a bad idea to risk it?

The only ideas I can think of are laziness and irresponsibility. The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals.

Does it not occur to the women that they might be wrong in their beliefs? Do they never even consider the possibility that it is a child? Do they realize that there is a chance that they are morally commiting a murder? I would think that the idea would come up when making a decision such as abortion.

Sure, I've heard lots of reasons why women have abortions, including money, school, rape, and incest, and I realize that people who are pro-choice believe that the fetus is not a child, but this is what I am asking: Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are wrong and that all along children have been dying because of abortions? Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?
 
Last edited:

proverbialthought

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting post. It will be interesting to see how history judges us 50 years from now. Think about this:

-Nazis thought they were right for exterminating Jews - History Judred them differently

-Hutus in Rwanda thought they were right for murdering Tsutsis - History Judged them differently

-European Americans thought they were right for enslaving Africans in America - History Judged them differently

-Some Americans think they are right for aborting babies - History will judge them differently

WHen the mask is removed, and the doors are opened on the practices that go on behind the closed doors of abortion clinics don't get caught on the side that will later be convicted of geneocide. Throughout history people have followed social movements, never considering that they might be committing terrible atrocities, only to find out they were.

Think about it, if scientists do eventuall unequivicolly prove that a fetus is alive, do you want to be found to be a supporter of a terrible social movement? Expand your realm of morality beyond the past forty years and ask yourself why this practice has never, ever in the history of the world been so popular?
 

IndiConservative

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
proverbialthought said:
Interesting post. It will be interesting to see how history judges us 50 years from now. Think about this:

-Nazis thought they were right for exterminating Jews - History Judred them differently

-Hutus in Rwanda thought they were right for murdering Tsutsis - History Judged them differently

-European Americans thought they were right for enslaving Africans in America - History Judged them differently

-Some Americans think they are right for aborting babies - History will judge them differently

WHen the mask is removed, and the doors are opened on the practices that go on behind the closed doors of abortion clinics don't get caught on the side that will later be convicted of geneocide. Throughout history people have followed social movements, never considering that they might be committing terrible atrocities, only to find out they were.

Think about it, if scientists do eventuall unequivicolly prove that a fetus is alive, do you want to be found to be a supporter of a terrible social movement? Expand your realm of morality beyond the past forty years and ask yourself why this practice has never, ever in the history of the world been so popular?
Science has already proved they are alive from conception.
Now pro-abortionists redraw the lines of choice.
They made the choice by having sex knowing what can happen.
Abortion is mainly used out of convenience. Pro-abortion has succesfully smeared what is moral and immoral to confuse a vast amount of people.
In the death throws of the pro-abortion arguement thats what you get.
Whether or not the supreme court will use science fact or partisan garbage to rule on this issue again is unknown.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IndiConservative said:
Science has already proved they are alive from conception.
Science has also proved that the sperm and egg are alive too.
 
R

rees

Peralin said:
I just don't get it. What makes abortionists want abortion to be legal? Why do they think that it is morally ok? Why do they want it to be morally ok?

Ok, I'm pro-life, but I'll pretend I'm not for a moment. If a women gets pregnant but does not want to have a child, what makes her choose to have an abortion? Since no one knows for sure if the fetus is a living "human being" or not, wouldn't it be a bad idea to risk it?

The only ideas I can think of are laziness and irresponsibility. The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals.

Does it not occur to the women that they might be wrong in their beliefs? Do they never even consider the possibility that it is a child? Do they realize that there is a chance that they are morally commiting a murder? I would think that the idea would come up when making a decision such as abortion.

Sure, I've heard lots of reasons why women have abortions, including money, school, rape, and incest, and I realize that people who are pro-choice believe that the fetus is not a child, but this is what I am asking: Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are wrong and that all along children have been dying because of abortions? Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?

these are some things i've learned,

the Real question is during what stage of development does a child becomes truly alive, gain sentience.

IndiConservative said science has proved an embryo is alive...well the dictionary defines 'alive' as something that has full of moving things, i dont doubt that cells in the embryo or whatever moves around lol... as Shuamort pointed out, even the sperm and egg is 'alive'. My eyes are alive as well, since it moves around, has animation. so doesn't this mean my Eyes is equally important to an embryo? yes, if we were to 'only' base it on the 'aliveness' of it..thus, the embryo would need something More then just being 'alive'..it needs what we all have, 'consciousness'...

The real question is when does something become sentient? having Consciousness?

the real fact? no one really knows for sure. anyone who thinks otherwise, is talking out of their a$$. There are just opinions...but i myself like to think it gains consciousness during the late stages of pregnancy, when it is almost ready to get the baby out.

if you think something is murder just because it is alive and that it doesn't matter if it is sentience or Conscious ....then imagine whenever some guy masturbates, he is murdering thousands of lively sperm.

but if your thinking it has potential life (life as in forming a consciousness, being aware)

Then, a Fetus has the potential to become a sentient being, but if we are talking about potential life and if potential life is so important, then a Male sperm or the female egg has Potential Life as well....

if you think this way, then you might need to Ban masturbation :(
well even ban sex as well(that would ultimately lead to our extinction), because when the dude lets out...only one sperm or two or whatever is going to be fertilized, and the rest is going to Die, if potentiality is so important, ... isn't it moral to ban sex entirely just so each sperm don't have to suffer...oh wait..suffering is something that is inherent only in a sentient being...since you can't suffer if you have no conscious or awareness.

we all just have to accept that when Life is potentially created, alot of potential Life will be lost as well. ie: thousands or however many sperms racing to the egg.

so i mean, I don't think you should say poeple who are aborting is actually Murdering, i think if they do it Early enough, then i'd say its fine... i'd say you could see it as cruelty to abort in the late stages of pregnancy when the baby is ready to be born though...or basically when the fetus has developed fully and is moving around..

Thus if you need an abortion, i think the best way is to do it earliest as possible...and giving woman, depending on the 'circumstances' such as rape, should be given the chance to...but thats only if Potentiality mattered so much to a pro-lifer, otherwise circumstances such as rape would not matter, cause any lady can just get an abortion without reason as long as its done early enough if Potentiality wasn't important.
 

IndiConservative

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
Science has also proved that the sperm and egg are alive too.
Yes they have but sperm are not human and eggs are not human they are parts of humans. Sperm + Egg = Human
Typical arguement. I want a ban on destroying humans not parts of humans.

rees said:
The real question is when does something become sentient? having Consciousness?
So you are fine just assuming they are not conscious?
These are not potential lives. These are absolute lives.
Meaning that they are going to finish developement unless stopped by artificial or natural means. Facts are that the pro-abortion crowd wants social liberalism. Which unfortunatly can't happen for sometime because people are irresponsible. Casual sex is not healthy for a society and should not be endorsed.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IndiConservative said:
Yes they have but sperm are not human and eggs are not human they are parts of humans. Sperm + Egg = Human
Typical arguement. I want a ban on destroying humans not parts of humans.
Why? Why draw the line there? Without sperm, no human. Sperm is life's catalyst.
 

Hume

New member
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
IndiConservative said:
Yes they have but sperm are not human and eggs are not human they are parts of humans. Sperm + Egg = Human
Typical arguement. I want a ban on destroying humans not parts of humans.
A child is still attached to its mother until the doctor cuts it off; up until being born it is completely reliant upon its mother for any care of its life. How come this doesn't qualfy as part of the mother like an egg would?

IndiConservative said:
So you are fine just assuming they are not conscious?
These are not potential lives. These are absolute lives.
Meaning that they are going to finish developement unless stopped by artificial or natural means. Facts are that the pro-abortion crowd wants social liberalism. Which unfortunatly can't happen for sometime because people are irresponsible. Casual sex is not healthy for a society and should not be endorsed.
"Which unfortunately can't happen for sometime because people are irresponsible". Therefore we should make decisions on what they can do for them? Sounds a lot like facism. What gives you the right to determine if they are being irresponsible or not?

And no one is endorsing casual sex. Why should a kid be born into conditions where the parents didn't even want it in the first place? What kid wants to be born into a family that doesn't want them.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Peralin said:
I just don't get it. What makes abortionists want abortion to be legal? Why do they think that it is morally ok? Why do they want it to be morally ok?

Ok, I'm pro-life, but I'll pretend I'm not for a moment. If a women gets pregnant but does not want to have a child, what makes her choose to have an abortion? Since no one knows for sure if the fetus is a living "human being" or not, wouldn't it be a bad idea to risk it?

The only ideas I can think of are laziness and irresponsibility. The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals.

Does it not occur to the women that they might be wrong in their beliefs? Do they never even consider the possibility that it is a child? Do they realize that there is a chance that they are morally commiting a murder? I would think that the idea would come up when making a decision such as abortion.

Sure, I've heard lots of reasons why women have abortions, including money, school, rape, and incest, and I realize that people who are pro-choice believe that the fetus is not a child, but this is what I am asking: Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are wrong and that all along children have been dying because of abortions? Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?
You claim that you're attempting to be objective. But you're not. Condemning it as murder is entirely slanted.

Prove that:
1) The baby has a right to the woman's body.
2) Having an abortion is murder (not knowing that the fetus is a person or not)
3) Having an abortion is murder (knowing that the fetus is a person)

Before you take a stand like you have, you need to be able to properly answer these questions. So do it.

I callenge you, who knows all that there is in the morality of abortion, to prove those three things using facts, logic, and reasoning. Do not use opinions as I will call you on those, so do not be surprised.

Prove your case, or don't close your mind to other possibilites like you have (we all know that when you made this thread, you weren't really looking to have a civil debate, you just wanted to post your opinion, so don't claim otherwise).
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
IValueFreedom said:
You claim that you're attempting to be objective. But you're not. Condemning it as murder is entirely slanted.

Prove that:
1) The baby has a right to the woman's body.
2) Having an abortion is murder (not knowing that the fetus is a person or not)
3) Having an abortion is murder (knowing that the fetus is a person)

Before you take a stand like you have, you need to be able to properly answer these questions. So do it.

I callenge you, who knows all that there is in the morality of abortion, to prove those three things using facts, logic, and reasoning. Do not use opinions as I will call you on those, so do not be surprised.

Prove your case, or don't close your mind to other possibilites like you have (we all know that when you made this thread, you weren't really looking to have a civil debate, you just wanted to post your opinion, so don't claim otherwise).

You have to be kidding me! Are you sure you read my post??? I said absolutely nothing that needed to be supported by evidence! I never condemned abortion as murder, I never said that the baby has a right to the mother's womb, and I was completely objective the whole time.

Go ahead, challenge my opinions, and good luck to you (I haven't given any opinions that need to be supported!) Despite the fact that none of the things you listed can possibly be proven. You are asking me to do the impossible. If they could be proven or disproven the abortion issue would be settled by now.

I have taken no stand, I simply asked a question which I did not know the answer to. I have never said that I know everything about the morality of abortion, or that I know anything about the morality of abortion. I don't know where you are getting this **** from, but it's obviously not coming from my post.

And, believe it or not, I did not start this thread to post my opinions. I have only given one opinion and that was this:
"The only ideas I can think of are laziness and irresponsibility. The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals."

The reason I started this thread was because, after much thought, I could not figure out why women want abortions at all. I have been completely objective and have left the conversation up for grabs. Again, there is no reason for you to claim that I just wanted to post my opinion, as none have been given.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Yeah, I read your post. Did you?

Peralin said:
I never condemned abortion as murder
Peralin said:
I realize that people who are pro-choice believe that the fetus is not a child, but this is what I am asking: Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are wrong and that all along children have been dying because of abortions? Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?
"Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?" Those are your words. Your argument is that IF the fetus is a child, then it would be murder.

Prove this. I challenge you.

Peralin said:
Go ahead, challenge my opinions, and good luck to you (I haven't given any opinions that need to be supported!) Despite the fact that none of the things you listed can possibly be proven. You are asking me to do the impossible. If they could be proven or disproven the abortion issue would be settled by now.
I never challenged your opinions in my post, only demanded that you prove what you're asserting. People are allowed to have opinions, I value that, but your post has claims in it that you can't support. I realize that those aren't solved at this point in time. That was exactly my point. You've made up your mind when you don't have all the information.

Peralin said:
I have taken no stand
Peralin said:
Ok, I'm pro-life

Peralin said:
I have never said that I know everything about the morality of abortion, or that I know anything about the morality of abortion.
Umm... I beg to differ...

Peralin said:
The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals.
"regardless of morals" This implies that having an abortion is an immoral act.

Prove that's the case.


Peralin said:
I have been completely objective and have left the conversation up for grabs. Again, there is no reason for you to claim that I just wanted to post my opinion, as none have been given.
Your post is so filled with pro-life rhetoric it's not even funny. Objective my ***. Look at the title... "Are abortionists just lazy and irresponsible women? " Wow, how one sided can you get? Let's form it as a question and then it instantly becomes objective! That's not how it works.

As for my question with the baby's right... I asked you to prove it because it is a pivital part of the morality discussion (within the academic community). You never brought it up, but as of this point, from the smartest people in the country, there's no way of getting around it. So, I asked you to prove it preemptively, since you know that it is immoral to have an abortion.
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Is it worth the moral risk?

IValueFreedom said:
Yeah, I read your post. Did you?





"Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?" Those are your words. Your argument is that IF the fetus is a child, then it would be murder.

Prove this. I challenge you.
You are taking things out of context, which is exactly what I expected you to do. Here's a quote from my first post:
"Do they realize that there is a chance that they are morally commiting a murder?"
Now, I was talking about a moral murder. I don't think there is any way that you could say that killing a human child is not morally a murder. Again, I am not saying that the fetus is a child, I am asking "what if it was?" By aborting a child you are taking a risk that you are morally commiting a murder, because you cannot prove that the fetus is not a child. I am simply asking a "what if?"

IValueFreedom said:
I never challenged your opinions in my post, only demanded that you prove what you're asserting. People are allowed to have opinions, I value that, but your post has claims in it that you can't support. I realize that those aren't solved at this point in time. That was exactly my point. You've made up your mind when you don't have all the information.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Have I made up my mind about abortion? How do you know that I'm not swaying more towards pro-choice? Do I not have any information? Why do you think that I don't have all the information before I made my choice to be pro-life? I don't think you have any idea how much I know about this stuff, and neither does anyone else. You shouldn't make judgements about my knowledge when you have no idea.

True, I do not know for sure that thee fetus is a child. But is that going to stop me from debating wether it is or not? No. BTW, I'm not starting this thread to argue about whether abortion is right or wrong. There are other threads about that, and I have a good question that should be the topic of this thread.



IValueFreedom said:
Umm... I beg to differ...



"regardless of morals" This implies that having an abortion is an immoral act.

Prove that's the case.
You know that's impossible, and that's not what this thread is for. I said "regardless of morals" meaning that they must not take morals into consideration, not meaning that abortion is wrong. I was saying that I do not understand why a woman would have an abortion if she stopped to think about how morality plays into the equation. By this I mean that since it is possible that she is killing a human child, she would probably decide that it's not worth taking a moral risk. Understand that?



IValueFreedom said:
Your post is so filled with pro-life rhetoric it's not even funny. Objective my ***. Look at the title... "Are abortionists just lazy and irresponsible women? " Wow, how one sided can you get? Let's form it as a question and then it instantly becomes objective! That's not how it works.
Yes, I understand that the title may seem one-sided. But my title serves one real purpose: To catch the reader's attention. I didn't want this thread to be all about whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether it should be a woman's decision or a man's. I knew the title would catch people's attention, and they would realize that this isn't just another abortion thread. That this one actually has a specific topic.

But maybe you're right, maybe it would be better to move the subject to "Is it worth the moral risk?" At the time of the post I didn't realize that it would seem so one-sided, but I do see your point. However, I really was being objective. I never said that abortion was wrong, or that it was murder, or any of that. I was just trying to ask the question "what if it was?"

IValueFreedom said:
As for my question with the baby's right... I asked you to prove it because it is a pivital part of the morality discussion (within the academic community). You never brought it up, but as of this point, from the smartest people in the country, there's no way of getting around it. So, I asked you to prove it preemptively, since you know that it is immoral to have an abortion.
Again, I am not trying to start another argument over whether it is right or wrong. True, if this was that type of argument it would have to be brought up, but this is supposed to be an argument over why women have abortions despite the possibility of the fetus being a child.

And then there's the last phrase: "since you know that it is immoral to have an abortion." I NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS IMMORAL!!!! Besides, as I said before, I don't know for sure if it is or isn't! No one knows!

You know, I really appreciate you assuming that I know everything about abortion, and I hate to disappoint you, but I DON"T! Sure I wish I could, then I could shut down this entire category of debatepolitics.com. But will you give me a break? I never said I was the master of abortion knowledge and I never will. I don't know why you think that I said that, but I never did.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: Is it worth the moral risk?

Peralin said:
Now, I was talking about a moral murder. I don't think there is any way that you could say that killing a human child is not morally a murder. Again, I am not saying that the fetus is a child, I am asking "what if it was?" By aborting a child you are taking a risk that you are morally commiting a murder, because you cannot prove that the fetus is not a child. I am simply asking a "what if?"
Now, you seem to be heartfelt that you're attempting to be objective. My mistake.

But, if you look at my last post, I boiled it down to one simple topic. Morality. I took two issues with what you said.

First is this:

Assuming that the fetus is a child. Then by having an abortion, the mother is killing the baby. This killing of a baby is a moral murder.

When I read what you wrote, it sounded as if this is the same for all people. I don't believe that to be the case. Can it not be looked at as 'letting the fetus/baby die' rather than killing it? (this is where the baby's rights to the mother's body come into play) By assuming that aborting a person would be killing, therefore a moral murder, you're defining a characteristic of morality. If you still believe that everyone who aborts a person is killing that person, and therefore committing a moral murder, then we're in the same position as I originally thought. The reason why I attacked this so heavily is that it pisses me off when people take their own views on morality and assume they're everyones (not specifically you)'.

The second issue:

"The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals."

Regardless has two uses/meanings.
1) In spite of
2) Unmindful of

Given the rhetoric that you used thruout both the sentence and post, it's not hard to imagine why I felt your intent was for the first usage of the word. You never portrayed the woman in a good, or even nuetral light, calling her lazy etc.

hope this help clarify what I take issue with.

basically, there are a lot of people in these forums who believe with all their heart that their viewpoint is the correct one, and therefore it has to be, becuase they are smart individuals. But really, I don't think any answer could be conclusive yet. If you look at another thread, I take issue with someone who is gung-ho "pro-choice." This issue is so complicated and deals so heavily with people's morality that I doubt there is a clear, "cut 'n dry" answer.
 
Last edited:

IndiConservative

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
Why? Why draw the line there? Without sperm, no human. Sperm is life's catalyst.
Sperm are 1/2 of what makes a human. Sperm and egg together are a full human. All chromosones are present in a fertilized egg. Sperm do make people but not all sperm make people. Most die on the journey. Its natural. Abortion is not natural unless the womans body self aborts without human interference.



Hume said:
A child is still attached to its mother until the doctor cuts it off; up until being born it is completely reliant upon its mother for any care of its life. How come this doesn't qualfy as part of the mother like an egg would?



"Which unfortunately can't happen for sometime because people are irresponsible". Therefore we should make decisions on what they can do for them? Sounds a lot like facism. What gives you the right to determine if they are being irresponsible or not?

And no one is endorsing casual sex. Why should a kid be born into conditions where the parents didn't even want it in the first place? What kid wants to be born into a family that doesn't want them.
A zygote/fetus/baby are genetically different than the mother. It is not the mother. The human is not attached to the mother it resides in the mother.

Take it as you will. If I sound facist to you then so be it. The government already makes plenty of decisions we do. They should to some degree. People are inherently wreckless. Don't believe so? Crack a newspaper. Killing what is already defined as humans for convenience is irresponsible and malicious.

Not endorsing casual sex? With abortion you don't have to take responsibilty for your children and have sex with anyone without any ties. It endorses itself. It doesn't have to stay with the family if they don't want it. Adoption should cover that. I think i'd rather be alive than dead.

So now for you how does abortion make a positive impact on society at large?
The bigger picture is that we go down the road of eugenics through abortion.
Sounds a bit facist to me but read about the founder of planned parenthood.
She was after all a believer in it.
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Is it worth the moral risk?

IValueFreedom said:
Now, you seem to be heartfelt that you're attempting to be objective. My mistake.

But, if you look at my last post, I boiled it down to one simple topic. Morality. I took two issues with what you said.

First is this:

Assuming that the fetus is a child. Then by having an abortion, the mother is killing the baby. This killing of a baby is a moral murder.

When I read what you wrote, it sounded as if this is the same for all people. I don't believe that to be the case. Can it not be looked at as 'letting the fetus/baby die' rather than killing it? (this is where the baby's rights to the mother's body come into play) By assuming that aborting a person would be killing, therefore a moral murder, you're defining a characteristic of morality. If you still believe that everyone who aborts a person is killing that person, and therefore committing a moral murder, then we're in the same position as I originally thought. The reason why I attacked this so heavily is that it pisses me off when people take their own views on morality and assume they're everyones (not specifically you)'.
Okay, this is starting to make a bit more sense. I would like to restate that I never did say that abortion was murder. However, you did catch me on the one thing that I did assume: that all people would consider killing a child as murder (which has nothing to do with whether abortion is murder or not).

Now, we are not in the same position as before, because I refuse to argue with you over whether abortion is right or wrong. We could go on forever about that, and I think we should continue that in the thread "how would you like to be pregnant against your will?" instead of bringing it onto this thread. I still believe that abortion is wrong, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my question: Is it worth the moral risk?

Now, I do understand why you would challenge my assumption. But I cannot imagine that anyone could possibly disagree that killing a human child could be defined as a murder (morally). Now I am not saying that abortion kills a human child, I am saying that no one knows for sure and that there is a chance that abortion does kill a human child. No one knows for sure, and that argument is for a different thread.


IValueFreedom said:
The second issue:

"The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals."

Regardless has two uses/meanings.
1) In spite of
2) Unmindful of

Given the rhetoric that you used thruout both the sentence and post, it's not hard to imagine why I felt your intent was for the first usage of the word. You never portrayed the woman in a good, or even nuetral light, calling her lazy etc.

Okay, again, you have a good point. I should have thought about this before I used the word "regardless". However, I truly did mean the second definition: Unmindful of. As evidence I will copy and paste a quote from my first post:

"Does it not occur to the women that they might be wrong in their beliefs? Do they never even consider the possibility that it is a child? Do they realize that there is a chance that they are morally commiting a murder? I would think that the idea would come up when making a decision such as abortion."

I used words like "occur", "consider", "realize", and "idea" which clearly show that I meant the second definition. It seemed to me that women would at least think about the morality of abortion before they go through with it. I do not know whether they do or not, but it leads up to my next qquestion, which was: (If they do consider morality) would it be worth the moral risk?

I'm not saying that abortion is morally wrong, I am simply saying that I can't imagine that a woman would want to take a risk like abortion if she is unsure whether the fetus is a child or not. I understand that I did portray the woman as a bad person, but I really didn't mean to. I did propose that they may be "lazy" and "irresponsible, and I'm sorry if that offended anyone. But my purpose was to start an argument. I was not trying to insult pro-choice women at all, I was just trying to say that those were the only answers I could think of that would answer my question: Is it worth the risk?

1. Yes, I am really don't feel like having a child right now (sounds a bit like prochoicedanielle, doesn't it?)

2. Yes, I cannot have children now because I would miss school or lose a job. (Irresponsible for getting pregnant at a bad time)

But I don't want to argue these ideas (I don't even believe them!). They are simply conversation starters.

IValueFreedom said:
basically, there are a lot of people in these forums who believe with all their heart that their viewpoint is the correct one, and therefore it has to be, becuase they are smart individuals. But really, I don't think any answer could be conclusive yet. If you look at another thread, I take issue with someone who is gung-ho "pro-choice." This issue is so complicated and deals so heavily with people's morality that I doubt there is a clear, "cut 'n dry" answer.
Right, I believe it is in the thread I mentioned earlier in this post, where we are fighting prochoicedanielle. When I started this thread, I knew there would not be a clear-cut answer, but I wanted to see what ideas we could come up with. I know there are some people who stick to their beliefs no matter what, but I am not one of them.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Peralin said:
I just don't get it. What makes abortionists want abortion to be legal? Why do they think that it is morally ok? Why do they want it to be morally ok?

Ok, I'm pro-life, but I'll pretend I'm not for a moment. If a women gets pregnant but does not want to have a child, what makes her choose to have an abortion? Since no one knows for sure if the fetus is a living "human being" or not, wouldn't it be a bad idea to risk it?

The only ideas I can think of are laziness and irresponsibility. The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals.

Does it not occur to the women that they might be wrong in their beliefs? Do they never even consider the possibility that it is a child? Do they realize that there is a chance that they are morally commiting a murder? I would think that the idea would come up when making a decision such as abortion.

Sure, I've heard lots of reasons why women have abortions, including money, school, rape, and incest, and I realize that people who are pro-choice believe that the fetus is not a child, but this is what I am asking: Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are wrong and that all along children have been dying because of abortions? Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?
What makes woman have abortions? They do not want to be pregnant, they are not healthy enough to be pregnant, they do not want children, they cannot support a child, or simply just do not want to be a parent. Are those enough reasons for you?

Your ideas of "laziness and irresponsibility" are nonsense. What I call irresponsible is bringing a child into the world who is unwanted and you cannot care for properly. Too lazy to go through a pregnancy? Have you ever been pregnant? It is not an over night occurance. It is 40 long weeks of discomfort and medical problems, and for a woman who does not WISH to become a mother, or be pregnant, abortion is her option.

Does it ever occur to you that just because you believe that abortion is wrong, does not make it wrong? Do you consider the fact that a fetus it not a child, until it is born (medical FACT). Do you realize that MURDER is nothing more than a legal term for ILLEGAL killing. Therefore abortion cannot be murder simply because it is legal. You would think that it would, but you also have to realize that not everyone thinks the same way that you do.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
IndiConservative said:
Science has already proved they are alive from conception.
Now pro-abortionists redraw the lines of choice.
They made the choice by having sex knowing what can happen.
Abortion is mainly used out of convenience. Pro-abortion has succesfully smeared what is moral and immoral to confuse a vast amount of people.
In the death throws of the pro-abortion arguement thats what you get.
Whether or not the supreme court will use science fact or partisan garbage to rule on this issue again is unknown.
It does not matter if a fetus is alive or not. Without the woman, it would not be alive. And if a woman does not wish to have the fetus residing in her uterus, she can have it removed. Then her and the fetus can both get on their merry way.
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ProChoiceDanielle said:
What makes woman have abortions? They do not want to be pregnant, they are not healthy enough to be pregnant, they do not want children, they cannot support a child, or simply just do not want to be a parent. Are those enough reasons for you?

Your ideas of "laziness and irresponsibility" are nonsense. What I call irresponsible is bringing a child into the world who is unwanted and you cannot care for properly. Too lazy to go through a pregnancy? Have you ever been pregnant? It is not an over night occurance. It is 40 long weeks of discomfort and medical problems, and for a woman who does not WISH to become a mother, or be pregnant, abortion is her option.

Does it ever occur to you that just because you believe that abortion is wrong, does not make it wrong? Do you consider the fact that a fetus it not a child, until it is born (medical FACT). Do you realize that MURDER is nothing more than a legal term for ILLEGAL killing. Therefore abortion cannot be murder simply because it is legal. You would think that it would, but you also have to realize that not everyone thinks the same way that you do.
Actually, yes it has occured to me. I have NEVER said that abortion is wrong or immoral or any of that in this thread. I don't know where you are getting this from, cause it isn't here! I have not said that abortion is murder, but that there is a chance that it is morally a murder. There is a possibility that the fetus is a child, you cannot deny that. There is a possibility that it isn't a child also. The fact is that we do not know, so I am wondering this: Is it worth taking a risk that the fetus is a child and that you are moraly murdering it? I'd like to bring up a quote which you said in the thread "how would you like to be pregnant against your will? The quote is "Can you read?"- Prochoicedanielle.

I understand that it is not legally murder, but there is a chance that it is morally murder. Got it????? Once again, you are taking things out of context.

Ok, no, I haven't been pregnant before. But, as I have said several times, I'm not going to argue with you on whether abortion is right or wrong . I wish you would just answer the question!!!! As I said before, I am not looking for reasons why you would have an abortion. I want to find out why the woman, after thinking about the chance that she may be commiting a murder MORALLY, would set aside this fact and go through with the abortion. I would think that, because of the fact that the fetus could be a child, the woman would decide not to take the risk of abortion.

It would have been clear if you had read my first post.

Another thing that I said before is that my calling the women "lazy" and "irresponsible" were simply conversation starters, to get people to give their opinions. Also, as I said before, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE REASONS ARE CORRECT!!!!! So I ask you, why are you posting on this thread when you obviously have not thoroughly read every post?
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
okay, so...

In the situation that a woman has similar morals to you (believing that aborting a human being would be killing it, and therefore a possible moral murder), I honestly don't know why they would go thru with it.

BUT, I'm sure that in their heart they've struggled with the decision and believe that what they're doing is the best thing. If this is the case and their intent is just (i.e. not laziness), then I don't feel that I have any right to question their actions.

To me, this is a sort of an "ignorance is bliss" type situation. The less they know, the less harshly they can be judged.


Now, I pose to you this question...

If the woman aborts and for the sake of argument the fetus is a human being, is it killing or is she just letting it die?

The human being baby is 100% dependent on the mother keeping it sheltered and alive, while mother gets nothing in return (biologically). The baby is considered to be a parasite. How would someone make the case that refusing to host a parasite is "killing" it instead of letting it die?
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Is it worth the moral risk??

IValueFreedom said:
okay, so...

In the situation that a woman has similar morals to you (believing that aborting a human being would be killing it, and therefore a possible moral murder), I honestly don't know why they would go thru with it.

BUT, I'm sure that in their heart they've struggled with the decision and believe that what they're doing is the best thing. If this is the case and their intent is just (i.e. not laziness), then I don't feel that I have any right to question their actions.
Ok, that's what I was looking for. Now we're starting to get somewhere. Assuming that you are pro-choice, I understand that you would feel that it is none of your business to question their actions. But, being pro-life myself, it would be helpful to find something like this out. For me it would answer lots of questions about abortion. Because I think it is very, very important to make a decision on whether the fetus is a child or not, I feel like I should at least have some idea of whether or not the woman has thought about the moral risk of "murdering" someone. (I will continue to say that it is a moral murder to kill a child because I cannot think of a better way to put it. I do realize that "murder" is actually a legal term)


IValueFreedom said:
To me, this is a sort of an "ignorance is bliss" type situation. The less they know, the less harshly they can be judged.
I can't agree with you on this one. To me, the less they know, the more harshly they should be judged. If the woman has a good, solid reason for why she decided to take the moral risk of abortion, I would not judge them harshly. However, if the woman did not even think on the matter, I would judge them harshly. To me, you should always contemplate morals beforehand, and it would be terrible for a woman to abort without thinking about whether it is morally right or wrong (No, danielle, I am not saying abortion is immoral).



IValueFreedom said:
Now, I pose to you this question...

If the woman aborts and for the sake of argument the fetus is a human being, is it killing or is she just letting it die?

The human being baby is 100% dependent on the mother keeping it sheltered and alive, while mother gets nothing in return (biologically). The baby is considered to be a parasite. How would someone make the case that refusing to host a parasite is "killing" it instead of letting it die?
Now, there is no correct answer on this, so I am going to give you my own opinion. I would say that, in this case (assuming that the fetus is a child), an abortion is murder. I say this because the woman is actually deciding for the baby to die, while naturally the baby would live. The baby is considered a parasite, but to me, an abortion would still be killing it.

"Letting it die", in my own opinion, would only work if the baby was already outside the womb to begin with but was still dependant on the mother. In my opinion, "letting it die" would have to be to allow a natural death to occur. But abortion is anything but natural. Abortion (Again, we are assuming that the fetus is a child for this argument only) would be murder because the woman is forcing the baby to die when naturally, it would survive.

For example: A woman refuses to feed her child and it dies. This is "letting it die", because it died naturally. But if the woman strangles the child to death, it is murder, because the mother forced the baby's death. See what I mean? Again, this is only my own opinion.
 

IndiConservative

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
ProChoiceDanielle said:
It does not matter if a fetus is alive or not. Without the woman, it would not be alive. And if a woman does not wish to have the fetus residing in her uterus, she can have it removed. Then her and the fetus can both get on their merry way.
The fetus will not get on its merry way it will be dead. That means you have justified death by convenience. Ultimately it means that life is of no cosequence to you. Personally I think thats really sick.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
IndiConservative said:
The fetus will not get on its merry way it will be dead. That means you have justified death by convenience. Ultimately it means that life is of no cosequence to you. Personally I think thats really sick.
So it is my fault that an unwanted fetus at 8 or 10 weeks cannot survive outside of my womb? If it is not wanted, I do not have to keep it. And like I have stated several times on this board already. I do not wish to have any children, and neither does my husband. We want to wait atleast another couple years because we are not in a position to have any children. Simply because of that fact we are not going to stop having sex all together. You can choose to not have sex if you do not want any children, but that is your choice, and this is mine.
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Is it worth the risk?

ProChoiceDanielle said:
So it is my fault that an unwanted fetus at 8 or 10 weeks cannot survive outside of my womb? If it is not wanted, I do not have to keep it. And like I have stated several times on this board already. I do not wish to have any children, and neither does my husband. We want to wait atleast another couple years because we are not in a position to have any children. Simply because of that fact we are not going to stop having sex all together. You can choose to not have sex if you do not want any children, but that is your choice, and this is mine.
You stil don't get it. We are not debating what YOU pesonally do. Nor do we care. The world does not revolve around you. This site is not about you. This thread is not about you. Life will go on after you die, believe it or not. Nobody cares what you or your husband do, or whether you want children or not. It is obvious to me that, no matter how badly you are beaten, you will never give in.

But since you bring it up, I believe you when you say that "it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive or not". I think that even if it can be proven that the fetus is a child and everyone realizes their mistakes, you would still have an abortion. I think this because you refuse to even consider the possibility that you are wrong and that the fetus may be a living, human child. You probably don't care, because you want abortion because you can't live without sex.

But anyway,. I'll move onto something else, because, again, I DON"T WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOU ANY MORE! There are more important things than what danielle thinks.

So anyway, I'll discuss your first two sentences (this time you should have kept it at two sentences). A 3-year-old child also cannot live without you (general form), does that give you the right to kill him if you don't want him any more? No, it doesn't. Some people are so physically sick that they depend on you to feed them, does that give you the right to kill them if you don't want to feed them anymore? No. Just because some one depends on you doesn't give you the right to kill them off. What is the difference in dependancy between a recently-fertilized egg and a fetus that is a few days away from birth? None, they both depend on you for survival. But would you kill either of them? No, because they are different in your views, right? But they both depend on you the same, so that argument is out of the question.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Is it worth the risk?

Peralin said:
You stil don't get it. We are not debating what YOU pesonally do. Nor do we care. The world does not revolve around you. This site is not about you. This thread is not about you. Life will go on after you die, believe it or not. Nobody cares what you or your husband do, or whether you want children or not. It is obvious to me that, no matter how badly you are beaten, you will never give in.

But since you bring it up, I believe you when you say that "it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive or not". I think that even if it can be proven that the fetus is a child and everyone realizes their mistakes, you would still have an abortion. I think this because you refuse to even consider the possibility that you are wrong and that the fetus may be a living, human child. You probably don't care, because you want abortion because you can't live without sex.

But anyway,. I'll move onto something else, because, again, I DON"T WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOU ANY MORE! There are more important things than what danielle thinks.

So anyway, I'll discuss your first two sentences (this time you should have kept it at two sentences). A 3-year-old child also cannot live without you (general form), does that give you the right to kill him if you don't want him any more? No, it doesn't. Some people are so physically sick that they depend on you to feed them, does that give you the right to kill them if you don't want to feed them anymore? No. Just because some one depends on you doesn't give you the right to kill them off. What is the difference in dependancy between a recently-fertilized egg and a fetus that is a few days away from birth? None, they both depend on you for survival. But would you kill either of them? No, because they are different in your views, right? But they both depend on you the same, so that argument is out of the question.
But the fact still remains that I am not wrong. A medical dictionary does not consider a fetus a child. Simple as that. You can harp on it as much as you want, but a fetus is a fetus, and only a fetus.

Killing a 3 year old child is called murder. Have fun in jail.
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Is it worth the risk?

galenrox said:
A ha, but there is the flaw in your logic. A three year old can be just fine without its mother, as long as someone else is there to take the mother's place. The same does not apply to a fetus, until viability, after which I think that abortion is wrong.
You see, that is the primary difference that makes all of your examples completely worthless in terms of this argument. The fact is an of those other things can be cared for by anyone with the proper skills, while a fetus can only survive within the mother's womb, and if it is removed, no one else can take care of it. If you can find people who know how to take care of fetuses (or is it feti) outside of the mother's womb, then by all means, pop that bad boy out of there and send the mother on her merry way, but since there is such a thing as an unviable fetus, your argument holds no water.
Thanks, galen, I appreciate the great post. I realized this logic when I was 3/4 finished with the post, but I decided to post it anyway. (I would never have started a thread on this, because I know that my argument would not work.) So I concede this point.

But that isn't my real point. The real thing I do not understand is what I explained in post #1. I want to find out why a woman would want to take a risk that the fetus may be a child, and that they may be killing the child. Since there is a chance that the fetus is a child, what would make them decide that it is worth the risk?

For example, a woman got pregnant and chose to abort the fetus. So she aborted it and lived the rest of her life in peace. Then, she dies, and she expects to go to heaven (I realize this would change depending on what religion you are). But then, God tells her that the fetus that she aborted was actually a child, and that it was a sin because she killed, which is against the ten commandments. So then, because of this moral murder, she is banished to live in hell forever.

Okay, not likely, but I'm hoping you get the point. Do the women even consider that the fetus might be a child? Just think of how terrible you would feel if, after an abortion, you found out that you killed a child. So I'm wondering, Is it worth the moral risk?
 
Top Bottom