Abortion - Right or Wrong

[KingDesra]

Well here's a big topic, here's my view...

After a the egg is fertilized then and it actually starts the process of forming that's a human life. This is when a baby gets aborted usually, I find it as a way of murdering an innocent life. No one should have a choice in this, solution would be simple, don't want a baby? don't have sex before your time otherwise you should face up to your consquences.
I don't see how its not obvious that when the process of pregenancy starts that's a baby in there being formed to a full state. There should be no reason at all for killing it, its a life that no one should take. Some mothers may be young but that is still no reason to kill the baby to preserve another life, that baby didn't do anything. It may be hard this is true but put that baby up for adoption if you have to.
But for those people who seem that they have no self control should learn it, practice Abstinence. People may not like that but studies all show this is the number 1 way of stopping stds and unwanted pregenacies. This is aside from being a christian but being a human being. I hear people associate this only with religious beliefs but its not. But let's hear other views, I end with this, abortionists are murderers and its an abomination against human life and to God. I find it appalling that people who have sex and happen to get a baby choose to destroy it for the simple purpose of having more sex... Its dishonorable, evil, and inhumane.
Abstinence is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Abstinence also protects people against STDs.

[wilting]

Whether or not Abortion is 'good' or 'bad' isn't the same question as whether or not it should be legal, or in what circumstances.

Teaching abstitence clearly doesn't work. It's in people's nature to get busy. Education about protection makes a lot more sense.

[KingDesra]

its about the morality about it that's why I said right or wrong, but there has been many people who have practiced abstience so its not impossible making it a good thing to teach. Why should people be allowed to do the crime without doing time? lol so to speak. They should have to deal with consquences of their actions or they will never learn.

[The White Knight]

Whether or not Abortion is 'good' or 'bad' isn't the same question as whether or not it should be legal, or in what circumstances.

Teaching abstitence clearly doesn't work. It's in people's nature to get busy. Education about protection makes a lot more sense.

You hit the nail on the head.

Often people who are against abortion portray those who are for as sexually obsessed hippies. This could not be further from the truth. Of course unwanted pregnancies should be avoided (promotion of contraceptives are in this case far more effective than abstinence, I'd think), of course something's gone wrong when abortion is needed. I personally think there can be a debate on the circumstances of legal abortion. Abortion in se though should best be legalised - if only because it can avoid huge personal dramas. Legalisation also means control.

[Dayman]

It's a really gray area, but I think abortion, out of necessity, should be legal. It's just something that needs to be legal. Now, I have a problem with this

After a the egg is fertilized then and it actually starts the process of forming that's a human life.

Ok, yes, it's alive. That much is true. But I say that abortions should be legal up till the baby becomes self-aware, and truly sentient. When it's a 3 week old glob of cells, that's a bunch of human cells, yes, but it is not a person. A person being a self-aware, sentient being that has rights. Do I agree with late term abortions, after the baby is formed, moving around, aware that it's in the womb? No. While its still a clump of cells and still not fully formed? Than yes, it's not a person.

The "don't have sex argument" is only used by people 1) who are trying to control youth 2) haven't had sex.

I end with this, abortionists are murderers and its an abomination against human life and to God.

It isn't murder. Unless it's a 3rd trimester abortion, in my opinion.

I find it appalling that people who have sex and happen to get a baby choose to destroy it for the simple purpose of having more sex... Its dishonorable, evil, and inhumane.

The people I know who got abortions wasn't so they could "have more sex". It was so they didn't ruin their lives.

Finally, I'd like to point out that before Roe v Wade people still got abortions. They went to a doctor, paid the money, and had it done. If Roe v Wade is overturned it abortions will still happen, because there are people out there that are in no way shape or form capable of raising a healthy and happy child. And that's a lot more important to me. Either a child can be raised with potential, or it shouldn't even make it past a week.

[Gary88]

abstinance is unatural and completely unworkable. if a teenager has the will power to not have sex fine but you can't teach people to be abstinant.

as for a foetus or embryo, why is the milisecond the sperm reaches the egg the vital point, you still just have a sperm and an egg. when that cell multiplies, is a group of 4 cells more human than 2 or less so than 16?

an embryo is indeed a human embryo but it is not a human, i think people should take responsibility and use protection to not end up needing an abortion but it happens for many reasons and when it does i don't see why people should be in a situation where "oh sorry it fertalised you have to deal with this now". i believe a woman has a right to an abortion until the foetus develops human characteristics (anotomy sentience etc) currently in british law this is (iirc) 23/24 weeks though evidence may suggest that babies are fully developed earlier than this. if that is the case i think we should look in to reducing that time frame, however it could be the case that some embryos develop faster in which case we have to take the position that we set an time limit and thats it, in which case unless all embryos are fully developed before that time period it should remain as is.

i certainly feel that in almost all cases late term abortion is wrong.

[KingDesra]

abstinance is unatural and completely unworkable. if a teenager has the will power to not have sex fine but you can't teach people to be abstinant.

as for a foetus or embryo, why is the milisecond the sperm reaches the egg the vital point, you still just have a sperm and an egg. when that cell multiplies, is a group of 4 cells more human than 2 or less so than 16?

an embryo is indeed a human embryo but it is not a human, i think people should take responsibility and use protection to not end up needing an abortion but it happens for many reasons and when it does i don't see why people should be in a situation where "oh sorry it fertalised you have to deal with this now". i believe a woman has a right to an abortion until the foetus develops human characteristics (anotomy sentience etc) currently in british law this is (iirc) 23/24 weeks though evidence may suggest that babies are fully developed earlier than this. if that is the case i think we should look in to reducing that time frame, however it could be the case that some embryos develop faster in which case we have to take the position that we set an time limit and thats it, in which case unless all embryos are fully developed before that time period it should remain as is.

i certainly feel that in almost all cases late term abortion is wrong.

lol he actually said its unnatural and unworkable? hmm explain me then lol If its not human then what are we before we are born? That don't make sense at all, that's been a lie since abortion came on the scene. You can indeed teach people to be abstinent because many people have done it. Its called commitment lol guys may not talk about that often but its something a man/woman commits to till they find the right person. Unless your a complete animal and have no control over your emotions then your excused but humans aren't lol and if its so right to have sex with everyone stds shouldn't even be existing if that was natural. Its no one's right to take a life, that's an unborn living being inside the mother. Why should it die just because people choose to have sex even if they didn't its not its fault now is it

[KingDesra]

Here's something from kid's health:


What Is It?

Abstinence is not having sex. A person who decides to practice abstinence has decided not to have sex.
How Does It Work?

If two people don't have sex, then sperm can't fertilize an egg and there's no possibility of a pregnancy. Some forms of birth control depend on barriers that prevent the sperm from reaching the egg (such as condoms or diaphragms). Others interfere with the menstrual cycle (as birth control pills do). With abstinence, no barriers or pills are necessary because the person is not having sex.
You don't have to be a virgin to practice abstinence. Sometimes people who have been having sex decide not to continue having sex. Even if a person has been having sex, he or she can still choose abstinence to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
How Well Does It Work?

Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Although many birth control methods can have high rates of success if used properly, they can fail occasionally. Practicing abstinence ensures that a girl will not become pregnant because there is no opportunity for sperm to fertilize an egg.
Protection Against STDs

Abstinence protects people against STDs. Some STDs spread through oral-genital sex, anal sex, or even intimate skin-to-skin contact without actual penetration (genital warts and herpes can be spread this way). So only avoiding all types of intimate genital contact can prevent STDs. Avoiding all types of intimate genital contact — including anal and oral sex — is complete abstinence.
Only complete and consistent abstinence can totally prevent pregnancy and protect against STDs. Because a person does not have any type of intimate sexual contact when he or she practices complete abstinence, there is no risk of passing on a sexually transmitted infection.
Consistent abstinence means that someone practices abstinence all the time. Having sex even once means that the person risks getting an infection.
Abstinence does not prevent AIDS and hepatitis B infections that come from nonsexual activities like using contaminated needles for doing drugs, tattooing, or taking steroids.
How Do You Do It?

Not having sex may seem easy because it's not doing anything. But peer pressure and things you see on TV and in the movies can make the decision to practice abstinence more difficult.
If it seems like everybody else is having sex, some people may feel they have to do it, too, just to be accepted. Don't let kidding or pressure from friends, a girlfriend, a boyfriend, or even the media push you into something that's not right for you. The truth is that most teens are not having sex.
A couple can still have a relationship without having sex. If you've made a decision not to have sex, it's an important personal choice and the people who care about you should respect that.
You may have questions about making this choice or about other methods of birth control. Your doctor or nurse — or an adult you trust, such as a parent, teacher, or counselor — can help provide some answers.
Reviewed by: Larissa Hirsch, MD
Date reviewed: February 2007
Originally reviewed by: George A. Macones, MD

[Zenith Darksea]

I agree that, if you're going to have sex, you should use a condom and you should be encouraged to use a condom. Abstinence is the best form of birth control/STD protection etc, and I happen to think that it should be promoted. However, condoms ought to be promoted and made available as well. Abstinence is an issue of personal choice, and for those who don't partake of it, they ought to use proper protection.

Abortion, on the other hand, is in my view unacceptable. If it is a case of not wanting the child, then it can at least be adopted. Adoption is perfectly reasonable and respectable. The bottom line is that the unborn child is still a human with human prospects like all the rest of us, and I don't think that, to avoid a large inconvenience to a mother, an unborn child should have to experience the supreme inconvenience of being killed. Only in instances where a woman's life is threatened should abortion be an acceptable choice.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I thinks it is wrong. This needs a poll though

[Gary88]

Abortion, on the other hand, is in my view unacceptable. If it is a case of not wanting the child, then it can at least be adopted. Adoption is perfectly reasonable and respectable. The bottom line is that the unborn child is still a human with human prospects like all the rest of us, and I don't think that, to avoid a large inconvenience to a mother, an unborn child should have to experience the supreme inconvenience of being killed. Only in instances where a woman's life is threatened should abortion be an acceptable choice.

you are attributing a future to a being that in no way even resembles life (i.e an early stage embryo) which is as much a living thing with hopes and fears (and the possibility of being 'inconvinienced') as my liver or some blood cells. one may as well mourn the millions of sperm and eggs that don't make it as they are all possible life, yes at some point a foetus is undisputably human life but for a long time they are not.

[Dayman]

Desra, it's natural for humans to have sex. It's in our genetics, it's how we are. It's one of the most important psychological needs.

Oh, and abortion has been around for a long time.

edit: Desra, did you read at all my post? About how it isn't a person until a certain point? Did you make this topic to preach or to discuss? Because if you won't discuss, I'm out of here, I don't need to be told what I should think.

[KingDesra]

I haven't started preaching, but here's the thing, I never said it wasn't natural to have sex. I said its not natural to have sex with everyone you find to be attractive, if so we wouldn't have as many stds as we do today. Look man I am 18 bout to turn 19 in a few months, my horomones been ravaging the south side for a long time, but yet I know how to control myself. For people its different reasons, my own reason is because I respect the fact that woman are precious and I am not going to share myself with every hot chick I see only with the one that I truely love and care about, someone I know I ain't gonna leave or who ain't gonna leave me afterward. So no its not impossible and for that last part about no one to do it with? I find that impossible lol But, that's what imma say about it go ahead with the opinions. And you know that condoms aren't 100% right?

[Dayman]

I haven't started preaching, but here's the thing, I never said it wasn't natural to have sex. I said its not natural to have sex with everyone you find to be attractive, if so we wouldn't have as many stds as we do today.

STDs don't grow in number because of promiscuity. They spread through it, but there aren't "more' than there was in the past (except for AID, I guess).

[Gary88]

lol he actually said its unnatural and unworkable?

if you think its possible to take a group of 16-18 year old teenagers ravaged by hormones constantly being told by their bodies to **** anything that moves (and desperately wanting to do so) and make them abstinant please be my guest. its completely wrong (and so common in such things) to view it as polar opposites, you either don't have sex till mariage or you sleep with every girl you ever meet. i myself am not abstinant yet have only had sex with one woman, i know many people in the same boat or those who have only had sex with a few girls who they have been dating. many young men especially are in a situation where they want to have sex but don't have anybody to do it with.

another misconception is that if you aren't abstinant you will get STIs, completely untrue, anyone sensible enough to use a condom could have sex with thousands of woman and not catch an STI.

Its no one's right to take a life, that's an unborn living being inside the mother. Why should it die just because people choose to have sex even if they didn't its not its fault now is it

my point being what is 'it', if it is a fully developed 'baby' then yes i believe its wrong to have an abortion in all but the most extreme cases but if its an undeveloped embryo then 'it' is next to nothing, we can talk about its potential till the cows come home but thats all it is potential and for me until potential becomes reality i will side with the rights of the living breathing human being that embryo resides in.

Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Although many birth control methods can have high rates of success if used properly, they can fail occasionally. Practicing abstinence ensures that a girl will not become pregnant because there is no opportunity for sperm to fertilize an egg.
Protection Against STDs

my god do they actually teach this stuff to kids, thats like saying "not drinking is 100% effective in preventing drink driving"

[Gary88]

I said its not natural to have sex with everyone you find to be attractive, if so we wouldn't have as many stds as we do today.

what? completely unrelated, you may as well say 'its unatural to breathe otherwise we wouldn't have so many colds'. humans are 'designed' to want to mate with people, now we are civilised enough to use precautions so we don't have lots of unwanted children and thats what we should be teaching kids, to be responsible and use contraceptives and to take sex seriously and think about who they are doing it with.

[Zenith Darksea]

you are attributing a future to a being that in no way even resembles life (i.e an early stage embryo) which is as much a living thing with hopes and fears (and the possibility of being 'inconvinienced') as my liver or some blood cells.

There is a key difference though - the embryo will become a fully-fledged human if we do not interfere with it. Just because it is not yet capable of acknowledging its situation does not mean that it does not have a future that it is being denied.

[KingDesra]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_n16059662

don't think there's a huge rise in STds? check this out this is only one article of millions on the huge rise of this.

[Gary88]

There is a key difference though - the embryo will become a fully-fledged human if we do not interfere with it. Just because it is not yet capable of acknowledging its situation does not mean that it does not have a future that it is being denied.

well thats an assumption in itself, an egg could be fertalised but not attach to the uterus (sp) wall, many pregnancies end in miscarige and without the intereference of modern medicine many more 'babies' would die before and after birth. my main point is that until that potential human becomes an actual human why should it have preference over the mother? believe me i can really understand your views but obviously i do not share them.

[Gary88]

don't think there's a huge rise in STds? check this out this is only one article of millions on the huge rise of this.

all the more reason to educate people about safe sex. if you teach a class of kids to be abstinant and nothing about safe sex every time a child in that class decides to no longer be abstinant they are at risk because they don't know how to protect themselves.