Discuss if abortion is okay or not.
A lot of people get abortions, a lot of people look down to it. But sometimes I think people are just not ready to have a baby. Especially when they are 16-18.
I for one, am pro with abortion. I haven't had a kid yet, but I know it would probably the most amazing experience in my life. Although, I think people need to be ready financially and mentally to have a child.
I totally agree, There is no need to lock a teenager who made a mistake, for their whole life.
No... Just no...
[QUOTE=benjojo;32393691]I totally agree, There is no need to lock a teenager who made a mistake, for their whole life.[/QUOTE]16 and pregnant just looks like hell. Even though it's MTV shit, seeing it as an eye witness during high school years just looks as painful.
Pro-choice here. I understand how abortion can be considered unethical, but one must take into consideration the mental and physical effects of say, rape. I also firmly believe that teenage years are not the time to have a child; although it's very much true that abortion shouldn't be a lightly taken choice, or be used as birth control. Definitely not a casual decision to make.
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32393687]Although, I think people need to be ready financially and mentally to have a child.[/QUOTE]
They should also be responsible and prepared for any consequences that might happen they have sex.
[QUOTE=JumJum;32393814]They should also be responsible and prepared for any consequences that might happen they have sex.[/QUOTE]
I consider this argument to be kind of useless. That's a totally impossible concept to enforce. Kids are going to have sex, it's not our job to dictate when they're ready for it. That's like saying you have to take a maturity exam before you can have sex.
Only if it is before a certain time. like before 18 days, or a month.
Otherwise no...
I think abortion is a good idea. Seeing as the scenarios where abortion is most likely to happen are with teen-mums and when a developing child has been diagnosed with Downs syndrome and the like, an abortion would benefit:
A) The teen mother who wouldn't have the responsibility of the child, where the child may be neglected or unwanted (due to a number of different reasons). Also, in a strange way, it could also benefit the child, who would otherwise be facing the prospects of a poor childhood and life in general (though of course there are exceptions).
B) The mother of the child diagnosed with, let’s say, Type I Diabetes or Downs syndrome; that would not have to face the possible stress and hardship of raising the child. Another benefit of this (I think) is that the gene(s) for Downs syndrome or Type I Diabetes would become less numerous in the gene pool, reducing the risk of the next generation having the gene(s) for the disease.
I agree with the second but not the first. There is always adoption, which in cases like this, is a win win.
[QUOTE=Aetna;32393839]I consider this argument to be kind of useless. That's a totally impossible concept to enforce. Kids are going to have sex, it's not our job to dictate when they're ready for it. That's like saying you have to take a maturity exam before you can have sex.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Also, accidents do happen and we won't be able to get away from stupid people who will not be able to think about stuff like that before it is too late.
I'm for abortion, but I don't know any reason why they can't put the child up for adoption instead.
Although I've no stakes in abortion matters or even the process of birth so if anyone knows any reasons I would like to hear them.
[QUOTE=JumJum;32393814]They should also be responsible and prepared for any consequences that might happen they have sex.[/QUOTE]
Pretty damn easy to say when you're a guy.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
Anyways, I'm pro abortion. I love dead babies.
I am against it, I don't understand why you can't just put a child up for adoption.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394136]I am against it, I don't understand why you can't just put a child up for adoption.[/QUOTE]
Because 9 months of nausea and an insanely painful birth isn't very pleasant.
I don't agree with a lot of how the pro-choice argument is framed. I don't think a zygote is human but a baby that's days away from delivery certainly is, and there's no easy answers in between the two. It's a morally murky area--anywhere you draw the line is going to be arbitrary.
That said, I don't think it should be outlawed, both because it's way unfair to women and because it won't work--people will just have sketchy illegal abortions that can result in pretty horrible injuries or death.
Abortions should be legal but we should redouble our investment in sex education and contraceptives so that we can avoid it as much as possible.
[url=http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm]Peter Singer has one of the best responses to the abortion debate, in my opinion.[/url]
If I had something living inside me for 9 months that I'd then have to spend the rest of my life looking after, I fail to see why anyone should have the liberty to stop me from killing a lifeform devoid of any desires or deep thoughts when it's ultimately in my best interests. Anti-Abortion arguments are largely based on silly assumptions like the existence of souls or the sanctity of life. They're philosophically invalid.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394136]I am against it, I don't understand why you can't just put a child up for adoption.[/QUOTE]
Well, you do realize giving birth and living trough the 9 months isn't just to simple and easy for a girl,especially if the one pregnant is young and in school or something like that.
Also other people wouldn't really treat you the same way after you get pregnant and stuff.
In the end it should just be up to the parent, since she is the one deciding what will she be doing for her child and her own life.
I agree with it, because teenage girls are better off without a baby until they feel as if they are actually ready to have one.
[QUOTE=TH89;32394160]I don't agree with a lot of how the pro-choice argument is framed. I don't think a zygote is human but a baby that's days away from delivery certainly is, and there's no easy answers in between the two. It's a morally murky area--anywhere you draw the line is going to be arbitrary.[/QUOTE]
This is why pro-choice arguments shouldn't even bother appealing to the status of unborn babies. It doesn't matter if they're human beings or lifeforms or have souls or people - all of these are arbitrary names. Moral decisions should be based on the perceived consequences of actions based on the fulfillment of current desires, not arbitrary titles we give to a bundle of cells when it's convenient.
keep in mind if you get rid of abortions you have shit like my family with five fucking kids. (three, THREE of us are god damn accidents, myself included.)
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394178][url=http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm]Peter Singer has one of the best responses to the abortion debate, in my opinion.[/url]
If I had something living inside me for 9 months that I'd then have to spend the rest of my life looking after, I fail to see why anyone should have the liberty to stop me from killing a life form devoid of any desires or deep thoughts when it's ultimately in my best interests. Anti-Abortion arguments are largely based on silly assumptions like the existence of souls or the sanctity of life. They're philosophically invalid.[/QUOTE]
I think it's silly to include philosophy in an anti-abortion argument in the first place. Of course for a great deal of time we have looked to philosophers for answers in all kinds of things. But the fact of the matter is that philosophy has been unable to keep up with the rapid developments in science, and has become somewhat superfluous.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32394159]Because 9 months of nausea and an insanely painful birth isn't very pleasant.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but giving something a chance at life overshadows that. I really don't understand, how that, social stigma against the mother, and other such things gives you the right to not allow someone to live.
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32394279]I think it's silly to include philosophy in an anti-abortion argument in the first place. Of course for a great deal of time we have looked to philosophers for answers in all kinds of things. But the fact of the matter is that philosophy has been unable to keep up with the rapid developments in science, and has become somewhat superfluous.[/QUOTE]
Are you really trying to argue that morality isn't an item of philosophy? Do you even understand what an appeal to philosophy is? Philosophy just boils down to arguing rationally. By saying anti-abortion arguments are 'philosophically invalid' I am literally just saying they don't follow deductive reasoning.
How do you suppose morality would work, according to science? It just wouldn't. Science is about observable phenomena, it's nothing to do with ethics purely in the nature of what it is.
It's murder.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394354]I don't know about you, but giving something a chance at life overshadows that. I really don't understand, how that, social stigma against the mother, and other such things gives you the right to not allow someone to live.[/QUOTE]
Because the mother's right to make her own decisions overrides a tiny bundle of cells with barely any - if any at all - cognitive ability.
If you're arguing we should always act in the best interests of new lifeforms, you'd be arguing every menstrual cycle was morally wrong. Which I'm supposing you'd disagree with.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32394377]It's murder.[/QUOTE]
Prove to me, using sound, valid deductive reasoning, that murder is wrong.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32394377]It's murder.[/QUOTE]
It's not murder, it's like killing a tree, to an extent.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394398]If you're arguing we should always act in the best interests of new lifeforms, you'd be arguing every menstrual cycle was morally wrong. Which I'm supposing you'd disagree with.
[/QUOTE]
I would also like to point out how we all are murderers by constantly masturbating and killing all that sperm and not even giving them a chance to grow.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394398]Because the mother's right to make her own decisions overrides a tiny bundle of cells with barely any - if any at all - cognitive ability.
If you're arguing we should always act in the best interests of new lifeforms, you'd be arguing every menstrual cycle was morally wrong. Which I'm supposing you'd disagree with.[/QUOTE]
The menstrual cycle doesn't kill unborn and developing fetuses. Also yes, I do believe we should act in the best interests of new lifeforms, because I believe they have a right to exist and simply live a life in however way they chose. Does it really matter what it is though, a tiny bundle of cells or what, it is developing into a human being.
It's better for the woman to lead a normal life rather than both the child and mother to end up begging on the street or the mother being forced to prostitution to at least feed the child.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
