Abortion and the Death Penalty

[kaneda]

Most abortions happen in the first few weeks. Any that happen after 12 weeks is hard for a woman who has been carrying it all that time. It is down to the woman concerned and not some crank in a frock who lies that god is against it. There is nothing in the bible against it.

Many people who kill go on to kill again. So far, no one who has been executed has ever killed again. It costs a fortune to keep people in jail for decades.

 

[Simon Anders]

For smoking and drug abuse? Of course! They should be reported and open to accountability for any damage to the baby. I would assume that if one were to see a woman giving alcohol or drugs to her child after it has been born, they would consider her accountable for it.

Driving or being a passenger in a car SEVERELY increases the chances of both the mother and the foetus dying. Should this be illegal?
Women over 35 are more likely to miscarry? are they, therefore, more likely to be killers? Should they be restricted from getting pregnant?
Women with diabetes?
Women with prior miscarriages? (should these women be banned from pregnancy? If the feotus is to be considered 'the same as a human being' why does it seem odd to restrict women who have had miscarriages - and are therefore likely to repeat this - from getting pregnant and putting a 'child' in harm's way?)
Should fathers over 45 be denied the right to procreate since this is a factor in miscarriage?

 

[lucifers angel]

LA what about the products of rape?
what about 13 year old mothers?
what about etopic pregnancies?

etopic pregnancies generally loose them anyway, and they will then remove the baby, if a 13yr old wants to go out and get pregnant then she should be treated like a adult, and has for rape victims, and i am not trieing to belittle them at all, then they shoudl consider adoption,

 

[S.A.M.]

Driving or being a passenger in a car SEVERELY increases the chances of both the mother and the foetus dying. Should this be illegal?
Women over 35 are more likely to miscarry? are they, therefore, more likely to be killers? Should they be restricted from getting pregnant?
Women with diabetes?
Women with prior miscarriages? (should these women be banned from pregnancy? If the feotus is to be considered 'the same as a human being' why does it seem odd to restrict women who have had miscarriages - and are therefore likely to repeat this - from getting pregnant and putting a 'child' in harm's way?)
Should fathers over 45 be denied the right to procreate since this is a factor in miscarriage?

Actively killing a child is more than a probability, don't you think? Abortion cannot be compared to a car drive or a late pregnancy or a older parent or a woman with an inability to carry through a pregnancy. Those are probabilities. Abortion results in certain death. Fetal alcohol syndrome is real. Heroin addiction leads to addicted babies.

 

[Simon Anders]

Actively killing a child is more than a probability, don't you think? Abortion cannot be compared to a car drive or a late pregnancy or a older parent or a woman with an inability to carry through a pregnancy. Those are probabilities. Abortion results in certain death. Fetal alcohol syndrome is real. Heroin addiction leads to addicted babies.

Well, you mentioned smoking, earlier which is probabilities.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is also probabilities.
Further the parents in the categories I mentioned are increasing the chances that a child will die.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, you mentioned smoking, earlier which is probabilities.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is also probabilities.
Further the parents in the categories I mentioned are increasing the chances that a child will die.

Smoking and fetal alcohol syndrome are not probabilities. Just a question of degree. Its like saying chopping off a childs arm is not fatal, so abortion is fine, cos its a lot of chopping off.

 

[Simon Anders]

Smoking and fetal alcohol syndrome are not probabilities. Just a question of degree. Its like saying chopping off a childs arm is not fatal, so abortion is fine, cos its a lot of chopping off.

This is incorrect. You have children from parents who drank alcohol who have no symptoms and cannot be distinguished from the rest of the population.
The same can be said for the children of mothers who smoked.
In the cases I mentioned those parents - women with miscarriages, older men - are selfishly putting a soul-child in a dangerous situation where that foetus may die a painful death. Why are they not culpable in your belief system? Should they not leave childbearing to those with safer wombs and better sperm?

 

[S.A.M.]

This is incorrect. You have children from parents who drank alcohol who have no symptoms and cannot be distinguished from the rest of the population.
The same can be said for the children of mothers who smoked.

Link please? Any statistics?

In the cases I mentioned those parents - women with miscarriages, older men - are selfishly putting a soul-child in a dangerous situation where that foetus may die a painful death. Why are they not culpable in your belief system? Should they not leave childbearing to those with safer wombs and better sperm?

Sure, I have no objection. Its called surrogacy and sperm banking :shrug:

 

[Simon Anders]

Link please? Any statistics?

Actually SAM the burden of proof is on you. You raised the issue and are making the claim that the issue with smoking and alcohol and smoking are not issues of probability, that all babies are damaged. You provide the links that prove that it is not an issue of probability.

Sure, I have no objection. Its called surrogacy and sperm banking :shrug:

This made no sense. These are options - for some - but do not address the problem of these, essentially, bad parents who will not care properly for the child in the womb. They increase the chances of damage and death to these unborn children just like smokers and drinkers do.

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually SAM the burden of proof is on you. You raised the issue and are making the claim that the issue with smoking and alcohol and smoking are not issues of probability, that all babies are damaged. You provide the links that prove that it is not an issue of probability.

As I said, its a question of degree. There is plenty of evidence available:

Smoking:

The impact of tobacco on human development will be reviewed. Fertility, conception, survival of the conceptus, most phases and aspects of development studied to date, as well as postnatal survival and health are adversely impacted by maternal tobacco use or exposure. Effects in surviving offspring are probably life-long, and are still being elucidated.

Link

Alcohol:

Alcohol is a well known teratogen. Its role in causing fetal alcohol syndrome/fetal alcohol effects is well documented. A vast amount of study over the past several decades has finally provided insight into many aspects of its effect. The only effective treatment is complete abstinence from the drug during pregnancy.

Link

Now perhaps you could provide evidence showing smoking and alcohol consumption is not teratogenic?


From what I see, its very simple. Is it alright for a woman to share her cigarette or drink with a baby? I don't think so, and I don't see why an exception should be made for the fetus.

This made no sense. These are options - for some - but do not address the problem of these, essentially, bad parents who will not care properly for the child in the womb. They increase the chances of damage and death to these unborn children just like smokers and drinkers do.

Sure, and I agreed with you and showed that there are options available. Like surrogacy, sperm banks and adoption.

 

[Simon Anders]

Now perhaps you could provide evidence showing smoking and alcohol consumption is not teratogenic?

I'll go you one better. Studies show that the grandmother's smoking can have ill effects on her daughter's children via the eggs, already present in her daughter while she, the grandmother, is pregant. I am hardly contesting that smoking and alcohol consumption are teratogenic. I still think we are dealing in probabilities of damage. Older fathers, again, increase the risk of fetal - I'll go for another spelling - death.

Sure, and I agreed with you and showed that there are options available. Like surrogacy, sperm banks and adoption.

So parents in the categories I mentioned earlier should be only allowed to have children via these methods?

 

[Sciencelovah]

I have come to realized that to discuss abortion with atheists is completely useless.
They have no fear whatsoever to play God because they don't believe in one. They
think that making children is like making pie: they prepare the materials, they cook
themselves, hence they can decide what to do with it, either to eat it or throw it.
No one consider that children have spirit, and the spirit isn't made by them or belong
to them, they are entrusted goods which are belong to Gods. Good luck in playing God.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'll go you one better. Studies show that the grandmother's smoking can have ill effects on her daughter's children via the eggs, already present in her daughter while she, the grandmother, is pregant. I am hardly contesting that smoking and alcohol consumption are teratogenic. I still think we are dealing in probabilities of damage. Older fathers, again, increase the risk of fetal - I'll go for another spelling - death.

Its not a probability when its a question of degree. Unless you have studies showing otherwise.

So parents in the categories I mentioned earlier should be only allowed to have children via these methods?

Sure, if it can be proved that its teratogenic. After all, here we are dealing with probabilities.

 

[Enmos]

I have come to realized that to discuss abortion with atheists is completely useless.
They have no fear whatsoever to play God because they don't believe in one. They
think that making children is like making pie: they prepare the materials, they cook
themselves, hence they can decide what to do with it, either to eat it or throw it.
No one consider that children have spirit, and the spirit isn't made by them or belong
to them, they are entrusted goods which are belong to Gods. Good luck in playing God.

It's a little more nuanced than that though, but no we don't believe in spirits or God.
What about when you need an operation ? Do the doctors play God ?

 

[Norsefire]

I think it's simple: it's a matter of innocence. Barbaric criminals deserve barbaric punishments. However, babies are innocent, and therefore, they do not deserve to die for the irresponsbility or inability of their parents. If the parent truly does not care to raise the child, they can put it up for adoption, but killing it is unacceptable.

With that reasoning, it is entirely justifiable killing babies so long as they're in the womb. What if YOU were aborted? What if white supremacist groups thought it was "ok" to kill babies in the womb since they're "not people yet"?

 

[Enmos]

With that reasoning, it is entirely justifiable killing babies so long as they're in the womb. What if YOU were aborted? What if white supremacist groups thought it was "ok" to kill babies in the womb since they're "not people yet"?

I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but I would have no problem with it if I was aborted.. lol
How could I, I would be dead.

 

[Norsefire]

I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but I would have no problem with it if I was aborted.. lol
How could I, I would be dead.

Not you, just people in general

Well, of course, but I mean, it just isn't right to rob a potential person of their life, after it's been activated. It isn't fair. How do we know we haven't aborted the next genius?

 

[Enmos]

Not you, just people in general

Well, of course, but I mean, it just isn't right to rob a potential person of their life, after it's been activated. It isn't fair. How do we know we haven't aborted the next genius?

We don't..
Is it fair to the millions of sperms cells when you masturbate ? Or.. imagine I asked a hypothetical person

 

[Norsefire]

We don't..
Is it fair to the millions of sperms cells when you masturbate ? Or.. imagine I asked a hypothetical person

But those cells never actually began the development process. After conception, it's began, and that is a person, a person that will grow and experience, and killing it then, even if it isn't a full person yet, isn't fair.
Also, no no, I'm a guy, every guy does

 

[Enmos]

But those cells never actually began the development process. After conception, it's began, and that is a person, a person that will grow and experience, and killing it then, even if it isn't a full person yet, isn't fair.
Also, no no, I'm a guy, every guy does

Well, the sperm cell isn't a full person either, it's halve it's chromosomes short
Either way, they are living things and they are human.