<p>But by not allowing abortion you would be giving the fetus more rights than any living human being has. No one has the right to live off another. And the fetus has no rights. Its not born, its not a person. When it is born it immediately has rights, but until then no. Its my body and I have control over and I can say what is inside of it and what cannot be. Not all pregnancies are caused by irresponsibilty. And by having an abortion I am taking responsibility for a choice I made.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sperm does not apply at all - it has no brain waves
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wasn't aware, for example, that in the early stages of the embryo, it has brain waves (whatever those are). Or a brain for that matter. Do you accept abortion before the embryo/fetus has anything resembling the brain?</p>
<p>
[quote]
why should we take away one life because another was irresponsible and not careful?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, it's not if you are willing to call this a life, you can also call sperm living as well. They also can't help being created.</p>
<p>That's why this whole where does "life" begin gets really complicated. Where do you draw the line. Some say conception. Well conception isn't one magical moment where suddenly a life is created. Its not instantaneous.</p>
<p>most connections in the brain begin forming after birth.
I think it's like...8 or 10 weeks that you are able to make decisions (however small) of your own free will. So yeah..according to my above logic, killing the child up to that point is justified, but I think drawing the line for abortion to just before birth is more reasonable. 1. it's distinct/ easily measured. and 2. there's a clear difference between a fetus and a newborn. once you're born, you can begin to learn from your surroundings; they immediately start the process of assimilation into society. I think, because of that, any action taken ought to then be in the best interest of the child - it's very similar to the way you would view a pet dog.</p>
<p>so yeah...killing a child after birth is justified in certain circumstances; that is, euthanasia, initiated by the parents for >serious< mental or physical defects is justified.</p>
<p>American society is viewed in terms of rights, not in terms of morality. People have the right to be immoral as long as it doesn't violate another's right. I argue that people don't have full natural rights (ie life, liberty, property) until they can make decisions of their own free will (because without autonomy, rights are useless). Clearly the issue of what rights can be violated under what circumstances is not cut and dry, but I think that gives a decent enough benchmark.</p>
<p>(yeah sure...you can believe i'm an immoral person if you want...)</p>
<p>before u attack me i'm pretty neutral but i find this kind of a hypocrisy of how some americans say morality is not important in like issues such as abortion and suddenly when dealing with Good-Samaritan laws and issues like David Cash, who saw his friend restrain a seven year-old girl in a bathroom and left before the friend raped and killed her but did nothing, want to legislate morality into laws such as requiring a witness of a murder to report the murder. I think good samaritan laws should NOT be legislated b/c it is hard to define witness. A witness can be really broad including the person who saw the friend go into the girls' bathroom to David Cash. Also from a rights POV, it's someone's right not to report it, not that i would do it. Cash deserves moral criticism but did nothing wrong from a legal POV. Anyways, i found some people really hypocritical on this. They were also like "people shouldn't get to emotional about these things" when they were talking about a girl so emotionally against abortion and Voila! Talk about David Cash and they get all emotional. When i said "Have you considered the social and economical effects of a Good-Samaritan?" they were like "i don't care." and just changed the topic. lol</p>
<p>The points of view on here obviously vary on a basis of political ideology and personal values.</p>
<p>"American society is viewed in terms of rights, not in terms of morality."</p>
<p>Hardly. Not these days, not a hundred years ago, not since the founding. As much as we'd love them to be mutually exclusive, they aren't.</p>
<p>The question is whose morals to follow. They are quite subjective.</p>
<p>bad wording on my part. American government is viewed in terms of rights.
the government was founded on the idea of limiting control as much as possible - letting people choose for themselves (obviously, that doesn't play out in reality most of the time, but it's the theoretical ideal).</p>
<p>imiracle - i agree about good samaritan laws.</p>
<p>Indeed, they are, Scarletleavy...</p>
<p>i agree that it is completely impossible to separate church and state, anywhere but especially in the US. our nation was founded on puritanism, which is why people find us to be prudes compare to europe. the constitution was almost definitely written by religious men - i doubt there were too atheists in government in the 1700s if any.
yea, government may have been founded on the ideas of limiting control, but it never took into account when people have the ability to choose for themselves, or what defines a fetus, etc. we cant just allow people to pick or choose when their baby deserves to live or not. if we do that, its guaranteed to lead to a lot more crap than is going on right now. contraceptives led to abortions, because the sanctity of sex was taken way outside the normal standards of marriage and having to own up to their actions. these abortions have led to the ability to choose if a baby is 'defected' or mentally handicapped enough to be killed, especially in the netherlands. dont you think that the ability to decide how or when a baby should be killed will eventually lead to people wanting to kill their kids because they're not athletic enough or they dont have the right color of hair, etc? its gonna happen, guaranteed - someone will try to justify killing their kids cause they werent what they wanted. having a mentally handicapped baby is probably no one's dream, but its still a life - its still your kid? how can you begin to decide when someone deserves to die or not?
oh and as for the whole - so are you ok with abortion if the baby doesnt have anything resembling the brain? well the brain begins to form at week 3 of conception, and most women wouldnt have even noticed that they're pregnant yet, let alone would they be having an abortion at that time so that argument is false.
and how does it not being born not give it rights scarletleavy? its still a human. im not giving it more rights - im merely giving it the right to life - and thats no more than anyone else gets. just because its small, why should it get less rights? and you're taking responsibility by having an abortion? yea right - so you're saying that if someone kills another human being because they got a job and he didnt, that he's taking 'responsibility' for his life and thats just fine and dandy? no your just trying to claim responsibility when you're really just taking the easy way out of the consequences of having sex.</p>
<p>It does not have rights because it is not a separate entity, it is fully dependent on something else, the equivalent of a parasite. By giving it your "right to live" you are giving it more rights than any born person has. You are giving it the right to use another's body against their will. Yes I am taking responsibility. It is not taking the easy way out. It is a choice. There is a difference between aborting a fetus and killing a human being. A big difference. So let's not confuse the two. </p>
<p>People are not picking or choosing whether their baby lives or dies. They are choosing whether or not to continue their pregnancy. It is not a baby yet. And that "baby" as you like to call it is infringing on their rights to freedom. It doesn't matter if it is a result of choice. I have control over my body. Not you and not your morals.</p>
<p>what gives you the right to control that baby though? no where, unless somewhere in the german constitution does it allow you kill someone, and i know it doesnt give that right in the us constitution. and what exactly is the difference between killing a human being and aborting a baby? i'd like to know, cause as far as im concerned there isnt one.
and as for the 'fetus' as you call the baby, being fully dependent on someone else, arent all babies? they just go about it differently. and i wont even get into those with mentally handicaps - they too would probably perish if they had no one to be dependent on. no baby would be able to survive if you just left it somewhere, with no one to take care of it. for that matter, most little kids, would be pretty screwed if you just left them somewhere. they too are dependent, almost like, what did you call it, a parasite? so you too once were a 'parasite' - we all were according to you - so im guessing that you, like ladyinred, think that people should be able to kill their children whenever, if they're too dependent and if they just dont want them anymore. so i will also ask you the same thing - should a parent be able to kill their kid whenever, if they find them to be parasitic, which continues well after their birth? no matter the age? and if you dont agree with this, but you maintain your stance on being able to take a fetuses life, you're a hypocrite. if you agree that we should be able to kill anyone if they are incapable of being completely independent you're a murderer. either way you lose, and you're in the wrong. so are you still sure of your beliefs?
plus i find you to be awfully selfish - you couldnt even give of yourself for a mere 9 months to save someones life? you only care about yourself? and your body? wow, i'd hate to be a prospective friend of yours, not to mention your spouse if you ever get married....</p>
<p>
[quote]
i'd like to know, cause as far as im concerned there isnt one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're also not concerned when it comes to other's fetuses (yes, it's not a baby until it is born.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
that people should be able to kill their children whenever
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice try. You can argue till the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an extremely clear difference between a fetus and a baby. It's pretty pointless to talk to you until you understand that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so are you still sure of your beliefs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. Calling us names doesn't really inspire me to change any beliefs. It mainly makes you look bad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you couldnt even give of yourself for a mere 9 months to save someones life?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Easy to say. I'd like to see you in that position. Have you ever considered, for example, volunteering at a local hospital for a "mere" nine months? When you have done that, then come back and post this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
wow, i'd hate to be a prospective friend of yours, not to mention your spouse if you ever get married....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Same to you.</p>
<p>Just a random question... have any of you (or someone you know) actually been in the crisis pregnancy situation? I guarantee that anything you may say about abortion goes completely out the window in that case...</p>
<p>there r always exceptions lol. that's why people make an exception to when the mother is in danger so back to the real issue.</p>
<p>I'm appalled that anyone here is refering to the blastula/fetus as a person. It has absolutely no cell differentiation, no sensation of pain as it has no brain, no feelings, no thoughts, no way of surviving independently. As scarletleavy (and Carl Sagan) said, it is the equivalent of a parasite. </p>
<p>consgrafelope, how many people do you know wish to raise a child who has a disease such as Tay-Sachs? I would rather abort the fetus rather than let it develop into a child and watch it mentally and physically degrade in a few years and then die.</p>
<p>1)yea i am too concerned about other people fetuses - if i wasnt why would i spend my time arguing to save their lives
2)whats the difference between a fetus and a newborn? you all keep saying that but there isnt one and if there is you have yet to state it. are you saying that theres a radical change from when the baby (the fetus) is 10 minutes from being born and the exact moment its born? no - and theres no proof otherwise - oh and as for the pointless talking to me until i understand, the exact same thing can be said to you
3)i dont know about everyone else, but how does the statement 'so are you still sure of your beliefs?' calling you a name? its merely chalenging you - there is no name calling in that statement whatsoever, and if there is implied or otherwise, i sure would like to know what that name is
4)i can honestly say i know what id do in that situation - but i can also tell you that that situation probly aint gonna happen cause im not into the whole sex whenever type of behavior - oh and what does working at a hospital have to do with anything? frankly if you think nine months is too long of a sacrifice for your child, how can you ever plan to have a child or raise a child of your own
5)and why would you hate to be my friend? cause of my beliefs - thats sort of rude. frankly i could care less if your jewish or buddha, i care more about your personality - and i cant stand selfish people</p>
<p>to answer you rainbow kirby - yea i do know a person who's been in that situation, and thats why i feel so strongly the way i do. and i've met plenty of women who have gone through abortions or have decided against it. i've also met a woman whose mom was on the verge of getting an abortion - and who cant thank her mom enough for choosing life. in addition to all this, i've been to 3 or 4 talks by former abortion doctors who were converted due to their realization that the babies they were tearing apart were more than fetuses. so yea i dont think my opinion on this will ever change. i unlike it seems some of you, am extrememly well versed and educated on this topic.
finally to you moldau, i know for a fact that you did not just say that a fetus has no brain, no sensation of pain...have you not read anything? the brain begins to develop at 3 weeks...40 days brain waves and nervous system...and by week 12 the baby can definitely feel pain...and as has been shown by numerous doctors, it can sense danger. and once again i'll say that little kids cant live independently either...should we be able to kill them whenever if we find them to be too parasitic? too dependent? and some people with mental handicaps cant live independently either...if they are costing their family or the state too much money, lets just kill them, right? even if you dont mean that, thats exactly what you mean..
and once again in all honestly i know a bunch of people who would care for any child, disability of not. one couple i know had a baby born without a brainstem. sure the child will never live a normal life, but at least it will live. i just feel bad for all of you who obviously know no one who is so self giving that they'd do anything and everything for their children and other children. i guess im just more fortunate in that sense than you are</p>
<p><<what exactly="" is="" the="" difference="" between="" killing="" a="" human="" being="" and="" aborting="" baby?="">></what></p>
<p>Aborting a fetus is the equivalent of receiving a medical treatment, that is what it is. It is the removing of unwanted contents of the uterus. It doesn't matter if in 9 months it "might" become a baby, barring some problems. The difference is the fetus has no rights. It is a dependent entity completely dependent on another for survival, inside that person's body. A baby is bprn and has rights, upon birth rights are immediately transferred. That is the difference. It doesn't matter if it is still dependent. The main difference is it has rights. </p>
<p>I am sure of my beliefs, because I don't find it murder. I do not suport infant euthanasia though. That is something I would consider murder. Would I have an abortion? Probably not. I'm not doing any kind of activity that would lead to it, so... But I think the choice NEEDS to be there. And just because you and your morals think its wrong doesn't matter to me. Keep your morals out of my uterus.</p>
<p>there are many things that doctors do that is 'receiving medical treatment'. it doesnt mean its valid whatsoever, or should be legal for that matter. some doctors do off euthanasia, some offer marijuana for pain, some prescribe steroids to people who they know dont need them...and even if you do call it medical treatment, most cases its completely unnecessary, and abortion is rarely used as a way to save the mother, other than save her from the repercussions of having sex, aka the baby. plastic surgery is also completely unnecessary unless to repair injuries like burns etc...while im not saying we should outlaw plastic surgery for all the women out there who want bigger boobs, i wouldnt ever call getting a new face cause you dont like yours now medical treatment. whats the condition? same with abortion...its not medical treatment. pregnancy isnt an affliction, its a result of sex. therefore how do you 'treat' something like that?
and where does it ever say that a fetus has no rights? no where ive ever read...so you must think that if a man kills his 8 and 1/2 month pregnant wife, only because she's pregnant, that under no circumstances should it be two counts of murder? cause a lot of state governments have chosen to protect that fetus's life in that case, why not in the case of abortion? a doctor pulling a fetus limb by limb isnt similar?
the choice will always be there, legal or not. just like the choice to murder someone is always there. so you always have that choice, but that choice is always going to infringe on that fetus's rights - cause i still have yet to find a place where it says that rights are given immediately at birth.</p>