[Discussion] Is Abortion An Innate Human Right?
- Thread starter Luther
- Start date
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
This is one of those topics that's located in a grey area, but where many people have an absolute black and white vision which is never a good sign.
You make child with two people, so saying "it's her body, her choice" is way too simplistic. If the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't, well there's something wrong there. However it can't be denied that woman very well should have the upper hand here. In the end the only thing that the guy does is dumping his semen inside a woman and that's it. After that he could just bolt and never return, but the woman however has to completely change her entire life. There's quite a huge gap her on how this affects the life of the woman and the man.
I think you shouldn't be able to haphazardly abort a baby like it's a common thing, but in the end it's simply rational that you should be able to do it in certain conditions. Realistically there are no rational arguments against abortion, pretty much all of them are from a moralistic nature that's more often than not hypocritical and of a dubious nature. To be honest I always found people who are vehemently against abortion to be selfish and egotistical. Imagine a woman gets raped. This regularly leads to physical damage, sometimes even permanently as rapists are mostly violent during the act. On top of that there's little doubt the woman will suffer from long term emotional damage. Now in many cases the rapist gets away with quite a mild punishment, maybe even without any, which makes it even more taxing on the woman. If that woman on top of that is pregnant of the guy, well people have gone mad for less. If she can't abort the child, she is forced to carry and give birth to it, which is a process that will take away 9 months of your life, but will affect it for much longer. Also childbirth still remains very well a risky medical procedure. Now if she raises the child herself she will be permanently reminded of the rape, if she gives the kid away she likewise will live with that for her entire life and the kid will wonder his entire life wondering why he doesn't have parents and wishing he didn't ask about it when does find out. Most kids like that really will have fortunate lives. So two or more people have to live agonizing lives full of physical and emotional torment all because some random non-involved people can feel good about themselves forcing their dubious morals onto other people?
Yes I too find it immoral if you have *** without regards of the consequences. The baby shouldn't be blamed for the idiocy of the parents, but what when it's not their fault? What when you get raped? What when you did get pregnant while using contraception and you know you can't possibly raise a child? What when the pregnancy poses and enormous health risk? I've heard stories about people who had to make drastic decisions when something went wrong during the pregnancy, there was even a case where the doctors said that they can save either the child or the mother, not both, one of them would die.
So arguments like "killing is wrong" and blablabla are flat out ludicrous and inane.
Also saying that if abortion is legal, so should murder, is ridiculous and nonsensical. Murder and killing are not the same thing. Murder is something that's specifically defined in legal terms. When a soldier kills another soldier during a war, that's not murder. When you kill someone out of self-defence, that's not murder. When a cop shoots someone in a situation he is allowed to shoot, that's not murder. It's the same thing with abortion.
The reality is abortion does not need to be rationalized as it is simply rational. The fact that almost all arguments against it are from a moralistic nature says it all as morals by default are subjective, open to interpretation and ever-changing. Rationally speaking it would be more irrational to be against abortion than in favor. It's also striking that the ones in this thread who have the weakest, most flawed and one-sided arguments are the ones who are the most foul-mouthed and aggressive about this and who are against abortion.
You make child with two people, so saying "it's her body, her choice" is way too simplistic. If the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't, well there's something wrong there. However it can't be denied that woman very well should have the upper hand here. In the end the only thing that the guy does is dumping his semen inside a woman and that's it. After that he could just bolt and never return, but the woman however has to completely change her entire life. There's quite a huge gap her on how this affects the life of the woman and the man.
I think you shouldn't be able to haphazardly abort a baby like it's a common thing, but in the end it's simply rational that you should be able to do it in certain conditions. Realistically there are no rational arguments against abortion, pretty much all of them are from a moralistic nature that's more often than not hypocritical and of a dubious nature. To be honest I always found people who are vehemently against abortion to be selfish and egotistical. Imagine a woman gets raped. This regularly leads to physical damage, sometimes even permanently as rapists are mostly violent during the act. On top of that there's little doubt the woman will suffer from long term emotional damage. Now in many cases the rapist gets away with quite a mild punishment, maybe even without any, which makes it even more taxing on the woman. If that woman on top of that is pregnant of the guy, well people have gone mad for less. If she can't abort the child, she is forced to carry and give birth to it, which is a process that will take away 9 months of your life, but will affect it for much longer. Also childbirth still remains very well a risky medical procedure. Now if she raises the child herself she will be permanently reminded of the rape, if she gives the kid away she likewise will live with that for her entire life and the kid will wonder his entire life wondering why he doesn't have parents and wishing he didn't ask about it when does find out. Most kids like that really will have fortunate lives. So two or more people have to live agonizing lives full of physical and emotional torment all because some random non-involved people can feel good about themselves forcing their dubious morals onto other people?
Yes I too find it immoral if you have *** without regards of the consequences. The baby shouldn't be blamed for the idiocy of the parents, but what when it's not their fault? What when you get raped? What when you did get pregnant while using contraception and you know you can't possibly raise a child? What when the pregnancy poses and enormous health risk? I've heard stories about people who had to make drastic decisions when something went wrong during the pregnancy, there was even a case where the doctors said that they can save either the child or the mother, not both, one of them would die.
So arguments like "killing is wrong" and blablabla are flat out ludicrous and inane.
I'm not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure there's a time limit. If a certain stage in the pregnancy period has been reached, you can't abort anymore.
Do you now seriously not see the hypocrisy and irrationality in your own words? It is morally wrong to abort people, but the people who disagree with that should have been aborted? That's simply hypocritical and you are in fact accepting that there are cases where it's justified to abort people. And as said not aborting in certain situations can be likewise morally wrong.
Also saying that if abortion is legal, so should murder, is ridiculous and nonsensical. Murder and killing are not the same thing. Murder is something that's specifically defined in legal terms. When a soldier kills another soldier during a war, that's not murder. When you kill someone out of self-defence, that's not murder. When a cop shoots someone in a situation he is allowed to shoot, that's not murder. It's the same thing with abortion.
If it's a separate body then there would be no issues removing it, no? As it's a separate body, it can just survive on its own, no? The baby is located inside someone else's body and pretty much leeches on it to survive. So yeah I think the person then should have the right to a certain degree to decide what to do with what's inside her own body. Frankly if that's the best visualization people can create against abortion, they really have no leg to stand on as they try to convince people saying that because it's not their body, not their choice while showing that it very well is their body here.
If that would be a sensible reasoning, each and every living human is a murderer as we all have been, direct or indirect, responsible for the deaths of countless of animals and bugs. Not to mention this is again an example of how anti-abortionists try to draw the moral card (no excuse for taking life) while in fact acting highly immoral (I don't give a damn what is yours).
If this would be a rational reasoning, then every time a man ejaculates, but did not succeed in producing a child, he's a mass-murderer. This would mean that every time a woman menstruates, she would be a murderer likewise as she did not succeed in getting her egg fertilized. All these sperm and egg cells could have become babies.
The reality is abortion does not need to be rationalized as it is simply rational. The fact that almost all arguments against it are from a moralistic nature says it all as morals by default are subjective, open to interpretation and ever-changing. Rationally speaking it would be more irrational to be against abortion than in favor. It's also striking that the ones in this thread who have the weakest, most flawed and one-sided arguments are the ones who are the most foul-mouthed and aggressive about this and who are against abortion.
NO!!!!
If there wasn't a place were people could go to murder their child then I honestly believe they'd think differently before opening their legs..
Government has made it ok for folks to murder their babies just like they made it ok to go to war an have man killing man.. It's wrong!!
If there wasn't a place were people could go to murder their child then I honestly believe they'd think differently before opening their legs..
Government has made it ok for folks to murder their babies just like they made it ok to go to war an have man killing man.. It's wrong!!
Lightbringer
Active member
So you consider egg yolk the equivalent of a baby chicken then?
Again, there are reasons why abortions are allowed before the third trimester.
Before then it's just cells coming together and molding the parts. It doesn't even have its own consciousness until 5 months at the earliest.
Since when did fetuses get that fatal?
Over a million lives are thrown into the toilet every year, how many of those "mothers" do you think were raped?
Then you work hard to raise that child.
Or don't have *** if you can't take the consequences. Playing with fire and expecting not to get burnt?
Or don't have *** if you can't take the consequences. Playing with fire and expecting not to get burnt?
Well, some mothers are selfless to let the child live. But I don't have a say in this. It's their choice because NOW it actually is "her body, her choice".
It's just how Mother Nature works. Women carry the babies.
And we actually have methods to incubate fetuses outside a women's body, so yeah it's a separate body to some extent. Not that I advocate for such methods, but it's there.
And why do you have to shame the morals of other people to get your point across? Do you feel a sense of superiority in doing so? Are your "morals" objectively better?
And we actually have methods to incubate fetuses outside a women's body, so yeah it's a separate body to some extent. Not that I advocate for such methods, but it's there.
And why do you have to shame the morals of other people to get your point across? Do you feel a sense of superiority in doing so? Are your "morals" objectively better?
Last edited:
Lightbringer
Active member
Really? Since life began lel.
Maternal deaths have always existed in virtually all species due to birth complications. Wow, I'm sorry, but that was a really stupid question.
Last edited:
A fertilized egg is a chick in development. That's why the chicken sits on it for a long period to keep it warm till it hatches. If necessary it will defend the egg. Contrary to that, when she lays an unfertilized egg she doesn't care about it and it's your for the taking. Why? No life-to-be in it.
Source: I have a farm.
I definitelly do consider taking an egg from under a caring chicken an inhumane and cruel thing so yeah...
As for the early abortion deal it really just hinges on a metaphysical question of what it is to be human. I wouldn't take awareness as a fundamental factor because people (normally considered people) aren't always conscious. A dead human is still a human for me.
Allow to draw an analogy. Do you like Lego? Bionicle for me, I loved those. Well, say you've started building your figure but you lack some parts and you leave it only partially built. Is it not a figure non-the less?
Or is a source code not a program in a sense?
Similarly, I consider a fetus an unfinished human, an object under a process of life-enabling. (Just like the egg, the figure and the source code)
Just my two cents.
There is a difference between having a miscarriage and abortion, in the former it wasn't intentional, the latter is an active participant trying to get rid of the baby. Saying abortion is rational does not make it so, the moment the egg gets fertilized, the process of life has begun and to stop that process would be murder. Also guess what, if I pushed a woman down the stairs, it'd be assault but if she was pregnant at whatever stage and my action caused a miscarriage than I'd be a murderer and sentenced as one.
So just who is being irrational here? A person who can't drive would never be given a drivers license because they couldn't handle the traffic, in the same way I believe people shouldn't have *** if they can't take responsibility for their actions, it means they're not ready for it. That's reality.
Lightbringer
Active member
That wasn't what you asked. You asked since when were fetuses fatal and I gave you an answer.
So yeah, no justification there.
Lightbringer
Active member
If you don't have a conscious, then you're technically not alive as an individual person. The body is just an unfinished shell before then.
It was more of an insult, to try and make them realize everything wrong with abortion. I didn't mean it literally lol why would i be so against it if i supported it.
About as ridiculous and nonsensical as the idea of abortion and those who back it up. A soldier makes his own choice and is willing to die, it's not the same with abortion, i don't think a fetus can enlist into the army, you know... make their own decision. So not only do i think is morally wrong, weak, and disgusting, but also selfish.
But you know what, i'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I will make an exception to justify abortion if there is rape involved, and only that.
Lightbringer
Active member
Science only can't pinpoint the exact location of where consciousness is active in the brain.
That's the extent of it. Consciousness is what gives people individuality, so without consciousness, you're not a person with your own thoughts and will.
Lightbringer
Active member
That's not the same thing. Having no developed conscious is not the same as having a concussion or coma where the conscious is suppressed.
Even still, when it comes to a coma, other people get to decide how long you remain on life support. So if you wanna compare a coma when it comes to consciousness, you should take that into account.
Last edited: