Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problem with Legalized Abortion
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 286 of 293 (445440)
01-02-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by macaroniandcheese
01-02-2008 11:51 AM


a two-month-old doesn't need it's mother's body. so, no, it's life doesn't trump her decisions, because it has no bearing on them.
Sure it does. It needs her body to bring it food, change diapers...etc. If she doesn't want to move her body to do those things the baby suffers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-02-2008 11:51 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-02-2008 12:52 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 287 of 293 (445441)
01-02-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by LinearAq
01-02-2008 12:43 PM


no, it needs someone to bring it food, change it's diapers, keep it warm... it does not need it's mother.
however, a fetus needs it's mother to provide it nourishment and a safe environment. it utterly depends on it's mother. in the mean time, she is sacrificing her health to do this. always.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2008 12:43 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 293 (445443)
01-02-2008 1:34 PM


A Quick Question
I would like to ask: What makes a tiny little clump of cells equivalent to a human?

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2008 1:41 PM Jon has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 289 of 293 (445446)
01-02-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Jon
01-02-2008 1:34 PM


Re: A Quick Question
I would like to ask: What makes a tiny little clump of cells equivalent to a human?
Time within the proper environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Jon, posted 01-02-2008 1:34 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-02-2008 2:13 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 290 of 293 (445450)
01-02-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by LinearAq
01-02-2008 1:41 PM


Re: A Quick Question
in other words, they're not, but sometime in the future they might be, just as the cat may or may not be dead. or the rabbit, i guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2008 1:41 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 291 of 293 (445527)
01-02-2008 6:44 PM


End of Thread in Nine Posts
Only 9 posts left until End of Thread.
It is a good time to start winding down and presenting summaries, conclusions, or final comments.
Thanks for debating, carry on.
Magic Wand
E

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 292 of 293 (445722)
01-03-2008 3:37 PM


summation
in sum, the problem with legalized abortion is that there are certain individuals in the world with restrictive ideas of right and wrong and rather than follow their own moral compass, they want to make sure that everyone else follows it.
there's no scientific proof that even a living person has a soul, much less a developing fetus.
people don't take any issue when animals are aborted while their mothers are being spayed, so why should they take issue when human fetuses are aborted?
and finally. a woman is a whole, living person with a definite will and definite rights, capable of demonstrating her hopes, fears, needs, and concerns. all of these must be considered ahead of a "potential" life.
finally, it seems the default position is that babies should be brought into the world. i think the default ought to be that babies shouldn't be brought into the world without specific consideration to who will care for them, who will provide for them, will they be able to go to school, will they be safe, will they be healthy, will they contribute to the world or tax it. if children are produced to ensure the survival of the human species, i really don't think we have any need to be concerned. if children are produced to be loved and cared for, then they should only be produced when that will definitely be the case. if people do have souls, even the catholic church has decided "innocent" babies go straight to heaven. but, how can you believe in original heritable sin and believe that babies are innocent?

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 293 of 293 (445943)
01-04-2008 2:34 PM


The problem with legalized abortion is that there are certain individuals in the world with selfish ideas of right and wrong and they want to make sure that everyone else supports those ideas regardless of the extent to which it discards the rights of others.
Laws defining cruelty to animals restrict activities of some people who have a different moral outlook than PETA. However, those laws are still enforced and people are required to abide by them; to follow that restrictive moral code.
The position of anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a human person. That person does not deserve to die because someone feels "put out" by their existence. Certainly there are times when one person's rights must be subjugated to the rights of another, but is "inconvenience" a valid reason? This is a position that is not likely to change easily.
A birthed person has definite rights and a fetus does not. That is a matter of law, not an indication of what is inherent or what is not. A change in the law could change the rights of individuals.
Being able to express your desires, will and needs is not a precursor to having rights, else infants and invalids would have none.
We should take procreation seriously and have children when we choose to do so. However, I see this as an argument to support widespread application of contraception education and availability, not abortion.
Anti-abortion activists cite two issues: The high numbers of abortions that are occurring and the fact that abortion is killing a child. In the face of the high odds against having abortion completely criminalized, they have opted for legislation that could lower the numbers of abortions. To this end they have adopted means that are manipulative and even duplicitous. If they are willing to skirt and even cross a Biblically established moral line, by lying to control women's behaviors, then why not skirt another Biblically established moral line by supporting something that MAY make sinning more likely but minimizes abortions?
It is this very selective breaking of their own moral code that throws into the question the truth of the claims by their leaders that their only goal is to stop the killing of babies.
Is abortion the killing of a "person"? I believe that in the gestation of a human, some point is reached where that clump of cells becomes a person. That fuzzy line is difficult to place, but it is unimportant. The key not making abortion illegal, but instead to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Whatever policies or education that can make that happen should be supported by both sides of this debate.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024