Is Abortion a right someone should have?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by hug-a-tree, Dec 31, 2005.

  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    If we support abortion, then on what basis will we say no to 'selective abortion'. After all a woman may also have the right to decide what kind of children she wants in to the world.

    In my country, killing of female foetuses is assuming a huge proportion as a problem. People use technology to find out if the foetus is female, and then they kill it.

    Tommorow science will give us a greater insight and thereby control over the qualities that we want in our children. And then what would stop us from killing foetuses that will have the qualities we don't want, because of our biases.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Phillip Registered Member

    If we didn't legalise abortions then according to your statistics, up to a third of babies born could be up for adoption.

    I don't see what's the big deal with birth control. The reality is, with medicine, more of our species survive in the face of death. So there is more of us surviving to reproduce. There are now six billion and a half of us. God knows how many without birth control.

    You can't stop people from having sex. That's what's natural. But because of our advances in science and medicine, we have already interrupted natural selection. It would be only responsible of us in controlling the population of our species as well.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    So you consider cotton bandages to be natural, because they're made from a natural substance? Even though cotton bandages don't occur in nature?

    I see no reason to believe that you have any idea what you're talking about. Can you add any suport to your assertions?

    Note that I didn't mention processing food, or overcooking it.
    Is cooking a slab of meat to kill bacteria and parasites a good thing or not?

    Ahhh... so not all unnatural things are bad... just those that are bad.

    Of course. My point was to rebut your bullshit generalisation that "anything unnatural is eventually harmful to humankind".

    It certainly would not be unnatural. Animals of the same species kill each other all the time. Pre-civilised humans do as well. It's as natural as nature, red in tooth and claw.

    But that doesn't mean it's good. "Natural" and "good" are just plainly unrelated.

    I suspect that you've never seriously thought about what is "natural" and what isn't, and that subconsciously, part of your criteria for "natural" is that it must be "good".
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    a.) you could do the same thing in a much better way with a bandage made of plant leaves.

    b.) There are degrees of going away from nature. After a limit the harm starts weighing down any benefits that you may obtain by going against nature.

    Whatever I say is based on the principles of naturopathy. I have myself benefitted greatly from these principles. Most ancient system of medicines also believed that the more raw things you eat the better.

    Cooking food is also processing it. Although modern processing --- with chemicals and packaging is extremely harmful.

    Meat is a different matter altogether. I believe (it's not proved yet) that meat is not natural for humans, since they cannot digest or eat it raw.

    Every action against the flow of nature will have a negative reaction. To an extent the reaction will be too mild to notice or bother about. After that ......

    I think as a principle I believe in it. In the short run it may benefit the individual. But in the long run and to the larger natural scheme of things it may cause disruptions and harm, which will eventually get back to the individual.

    All ancient medicinal traditions talk of a 'balance'. And say that diseases occur when this balance is disturbed. They are right in principle.

    Not for no reason. I think in most cases animals don't kill without a good reason. Even lions leave their prey alone unless they're hungry. When animals kill one of their own it is generally a rival who is a threat to their own survival. They don't kill their own children or foetesus (except in rare cases!). That happens even in humans. If a man threatens me or my family, and I know that my society cannot prevent him, then it would be natural for me (whether legal or not) to want to kill that man.

    If I want to kill a man because I don't approve of him, it would be unnatural (even if supported by law) to kill him (take the case of Iranian teenagers).

    I only partly agree. They may not affect the individual in the short run --- may even benefit him if stretched to some extent. In the long run and after a point, going against nature is always, always harmful.

    I work on gender and sexuality, so I have dealt on this issue for hours. But I agree there are still points for which I need answers.

    It seems that nature is always 'right' in the end, even if it means trouble for the individual. For the interest of the individual we may have to disturb nature to some extent --- and I think it is allowed by the nature. E.g. even animals use tools to accomplish their basic natural tasks. But when the optimum point is broken, the individual may seem to accumulate a lot of physical benefits, but it will get round to him in the shape of 'side-effects' when the nature is stretched too far.
  8. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Oh yeah, that's nice. Just abandon your child into foster care as usual. That's more irresponsible than having an abortion! Heck, at least with an abortion, your child may go to heaven (if you believe in such a thing) being put of it's misery. Throwing them in an orphanage, you now have it suffering for a great many years. And yes, adding yet another child to the huge selection of kids that have not been adopted is just great. You think people pick up kids in orphanges left and right? Yeah right. That's why all the ophanges are empty, eh? They're packed full of unlucky children who feel abandoned. That emotional damage is much more harmful than ending the life of a fetus who has yet to experience anything therefor knows no such thing as joy or suffering.

    Pretty much right on target. I hope she reads that over and over. It's quite easy to make decisions you've yet to make, especially when you think the outcome will be rosy and cheerful. What you said is EXACTLY the thoughts that will go through her head and the reactions she'll receive from others.

    - N
  9. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member


    It seems that you look through everything through your lense of
    hetero/homo beliefs. All does not come back to an argument about
    state protection and endorsement of male-female sex.
    As for abortion being un-natural... how is it unnatural?
    I imagine that anything falling in the realm of human behaviour
    and ability would be natural to us. We have a strong inclination for
    innovation as a species and anything coming as a result of this drive
    I would call "natural".
    Abortion is a very sensitive topic. Medically, it is the process by which a pregnancy ends, or terminates, before birth. Induced abortions are medical procedures conducted to terminate pregnancy. When pregnancies end due to natural causes, they are called miscarriages, or natural abortions.
    A woman can also induce a miscarriage using organic methods
    such as miscarriage tea,,
    Abortion induced by herbs or manipulation was used as a form of birth control in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome and probably earlier. In the Middle Ages in Western Europe it was generally accepted in the early months of pregnancy.
    Most all Biblical passages directly addressing abortion itself
    actually endorse terminating human life when conditions are unfavorable.
    For instance God was claimed to actually close all wombs inthe palace
    of Negeb when the king was with Abraham'swife. (Gen.20:17-18)

    During Job's hard times we find him wishing he were aborted or miscarriaged: "Why did I not die at birth, come forth from the womb
    and expire... Or why was it not a hidden untimely birth as infants who never see the light... Why is it to him who is given in misery, and life to the bitter soul? (Job 20:14-18)

    The prophet, Jeremiah, fares no better: "Cursed be the day I was born. [And cursed be he who] did not kill me in my womb...that my mother may
    been my grave. (Jer. 20:14-18) And even in the New Testament we find:"Rejoice O one who does not bear. Break forth and shout, ye who are
    not in labor. For the desolate has more children than she who has husband." (Gal.4:27 )

    The children of Israel's enemies were thought of even more harshly: "Now go attack Amaleck and..... kill both man and women, infant and
    nursing child..."(1 Sam 15:3)"Let them be like snails that dissolve like slime, like untimely births that never see the sun." (Ps. 58:1-8)
    "Happy he shall be who takes your little children and dashes them against a rock." (Ps. 137:9) "Give them a miscarrying womb and dried out breasts." (Hos. 9:14) Also, a woman's life was considered more
    precious than that of her unborn child. The writer of Exodus states thatif someone caused a woman's miscarriage against her will he had to pay a fine. But if the injury caused the woman's death, the perpetrator would be put to death as well. (Exod. 21:22-25)
    As for when the soul first enters the embryo: "As you do not know when the spirit first comes into the child, so you do not know the work of
    God who makes everything." (Eccles. 11:15)

    I'm actually a promoter of infanticide and suicide as well,
    but... those aren't included in the topic of this thread.

    on a side note;
    I was born and raised in a sex cult called the children of gawd...
    they took a fundamentalist stance on abortion though they
    endorsed free sex...
    to cut a long story short,
    my sister was impregnated while staying in a commune in S. CA
    and her natural instincts led her to do situps until she achieved
    a miscarriage... even if a clinic isn't available, abortion is a viable
    option for many girls.
  10. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member

    Of approximately 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States in 1988, 3.6 million were unintended and therefore subject to dangerous consequences. 1.6 million of those unwanted pregnancies resulted in abortion. In Britain, more than 160,000 legal abortions, or terminations of pregnancy, were carried out each year during this same period of time. The Family Planning Association in Russia says that there are more than 3 million abortions performed each year, more than double the number of births. In France, there are almost one million abortions each year, equal to the number of births. This means that over five million pregnancies were aborted in the Western world alone each year, and if the births of those children would not have been prevented, it is very likely that many of those infants would have been victims of infanticidal rage.

    Morally right or wrong - a case of murder or manifestation of a woman's right to choose - the fact remains that the frequent use of abortion has eased the necessity for killing an infant after its birth
  11. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member

    a good reason to start handing out free abortions...
    two gutsuckings for the price of one maybe?

    The characterization of the type of parent that is likely to kill their child has changed little over the years. As far back as the middle ages, the children of the poor "Were by far the most common victims of the parental negligence and despair." Today, infanticide is still most commonly seen in areas of severe poverty.

    And just as infanticide was described as a crime that was committed by the mother in medieval times, such a likelihood remains true today. Although men are more likely to murder in general, statistical review of prosecutions show that infanticide is usually committed by the mother. When mothers killed their children, however, the victim was usually a newborn baby or younger infant. Some research shows that for murders of children over the age of one year in the United States, white fathers were the perpetrators 10% more often than white mothers, and black fathers 50% more than black mothers.

    Other risk factors can include young maternal age, low level of education and employment, and signs of psychopathology, such as alcoholism, drug abuse or other criminal behavior. The most common method of killing children over the ages has been head trauma, strangulation and drowning. Most of the murders today are committed with the use of the mother's hands, either by strangulation or physical punishment.
  12. Bells Staff Member

    So you don't think that a woman should have any rights to her body? She has a right to say no to sex, but she does not have a right to decide what happens to her body afterwards? Hug, it is obvious that you are very young and have yet to live life in the real world. Without legalised abortions, women would still find ways to abort their children. In the olden days, these included throwing themselves down the stairs, implementing the use of coat hangers, injecting dangerous chemicals into their uterus, etc. By legalising abortions, women can now safely decide what happens to their bodies. If you do not think abortion is right, then don't have one. But do not deny women the right to decide.

    You have stated in this thread that if you were raped at your tender age of 16, that you'd have the child and then simply get rid of it via other means which I find quite silly since you obviously have true no idea what you would really do if you were ever unfortunate enough to be in such a situation.. it's easy to say it now but when faced with it, you could find that you'd do the total opposite... Anywho.... 'Who cares about the children' indeed! You're quite happy to deny a woman the rights to abort a foetus, but you'd happily get rid of it after it was born. The hypocrisy is quite astouding. However that is your choice to do so and that is the whole moral of this argument... Choice. However, what if someone were to tell you that you were not allowed to place the child for adoption, but that you must care and nurture that child even though it were the result of a rape. Would you not feel some sense of hatred towards that baby? So why do you think that a woman should be forced to put her body through the trauma of pregnancy because you think it's right?

    Accidents happen. Condoms do break and the pill is not 100% effective. Rapes also happen and not all rapists will willingly put on a condom.. even if you ask them nicely

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Even if the guy has had a vasectomy, the tubes can still re-connect and the sperm can still fertilise the eggs. You see hug, millions of women are still prepared, but not everything always goes to plan.

    Yes people do need to be responsible. But as I said above, no matter how responsible a woman might be, accidents do happen as do rapes. Hence why there is legalised abortions so that women can responsibly and safely abort the foetus'.

    Ok little girl. Here's a science lesson. The foetus does not become a child until after it is born. It cannot survive outside of the mothers womb. What a woman decides to do with her body and the products of her body is really none of your business. Just as you claim you'd not abort and then throw it out to an agency after it's born is your business and your business only.

    How sweet. You only think that a child has no rights if the mothers life is in danger because that's what happened to your father.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Do you not see the hypocrisy of your argument? So only women who are sick during their pregnancy should be allowed to abort their child? Only these women should have any form of right to decide what happens to their body?

    But didn't you say that it should only be a choice if the mother's health is at stake?

    And until the children go to the parents, they are either placed in foster care facing possible abuse by strangers or they are placed in an institution. My.. how loving and caring is that.

    As a female, you should not be cheering Bhudda on.. believe me.

    No.. you simply think that it's better to throw the child away in the hope that society will pay and care for it. You think you should have the right to give your child away? But you're against abortion?

    So since you hold such a pro-life stance (except that you think it's ok to abort if the mother's health is at stake), I take it you also protest just as vehemently against the death penalty?

    If that were the case, then each woman who miscarried would also be classified as murderers.

    The ironic thing is that he thinks that anything unnatural is harmful to human kind yet he still uses a computer that is built from unnatural components such as plastic (which he claims himself is unnatural and damaging to the environment) and the use of which demands the availability of electricity which in many societies is only available through the use of burning coal... thereby polluting the environment..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Because another sentient, conscious human being is involved in the rape, and has not consented to it. Thus, raping somebody is infringing on the rights of a full legal person.


    It is different because a woman is an adult, fully functioning human being with hopes and dreams and conscious thoughts. A month-old foetus is not.

    I hope you can answer this one for yourself by this point.

    I've already answered your first question. As for the second, I never said it would not be wrong to kill me in the womb. We're not talking about a blanket right to abort at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. Or are we? Do you think an abortion at 3 weeks is equivalent to an abortion at 8 months?
  14. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    Good point Nysse. If I were rapped, yes I'd keep the child just as my cousin did. And She doesn't regret having the child at all. She still thinks of him as her son. Not the rapists son.
    But yes, I can understand totally why somone wouldn't want to keep the child, and would feel revolted. Your right, someone shouldn't have to go threw with that.
    I do realize that America probably is never going to stop having abortions. So, at least, I think people should be more strick about it. I hate that there are so many babies dieing.
  15. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    That's totally totally true. That's what I was saying about how is it different from killing an unborn baby and a baby? There both your baby. You worded it better though.
  16. Nysse God is dead Registered Senior Member

    How exactly?
    There are more significant humans dying in larger numbers everyday. Why not focus on them instead? They are the ones with something to lose. They are the ones with lives, awareness, feelings, memories, hopes and dreams. Wouldn’t you rather do something to help them?
  17. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member


    Not to attack you or anything, but what??? More 'significant humans'? Isn't all human life worthy? Isn't that what all of this is about? How do I not care about people dieing? I'd like to help everyone, of course. The thing about abortion is that no one is there to defend the unborn child. I do care about the 'more significant humans' :bugeye: as well.

    "How exactly?"
    Well I understand that many people like that we have the right to have an abortion. I understand that I'm only one voice, and that I can't change how everyone else thinks. I understand all of that. But if it were up too me, I wouldn't have abortion. Of course most people aren't crazy about abortion, but I really don't like it.

    I think every life has a potential. I cringe when people say that the unborn child isn't anything. I believe that life starts at conception and I always believe that it's wrong to take away an innocent life.

    I have opposed abortion always, execpt in cases where the women could die giving birth to the child. Why is that any different some may ask. Well if the monther dies giving birth to the child the child will probably have a high chance of dieing as well. It's been one comes out alive, then have two dead.
  18. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    Whoa, what? You don't support condoms? Do you think that it's previaling human life that shouldn't be well....prevailed? So sex is strickly for making babies? Or are you more of a fan of the rythem method?
  19. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member


    I think you might have meant prevented...

    Buddha is more a fan of buggery than of the rythm method.
  20. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member

    As for when the soul first enters the embryo: "As you do not know when the spirit first comes into the child, so you do not know the work of
    God who makes everything." (Eccles. 11:15)
  21. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member

    that is... if you're a subscriber to the gawd theory...
  22. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    ha ha, no I'm sure prevailing life makes sense. Perventing life sounds better though.
  23. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    Yeah. What are you saying though?

Share This Page