Should abortion be legal?

Should abortion be legal?

  • No - it is against God's will

    Votes: 7 10.8%
  • No - it is murder

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • No - it is against the unborn child's rights

    Votes: 7 10.8%
  • Yes - but only if the mother's life is in danger

    Votes: 10 15.4%
  • Yes- but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger

    Votes: 9 13.8%
  • Yes - in cases of rape

    Votes: 15 23.1%
  • Yes - if the mother is underage

    Votes: 11 16.9%
  • Yes - as long as it's early

    Votes: 22 33.8%
  • Yes - it's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world

    Votes: 21 32.3%
  • Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice

    Votes: 25 38.5%
  • Yes - it's just another form of contraception

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • Total voters
    65
It isn't something that I would wish for, but the life of a down syndrome child, to whom I know would want their life should not have their existence hinged upon my wishes. At least I would take care of the down syndrome child, doing my best to take on Marcus Aurelius' philosophy, ?gAccept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart.?h
 
Last edited:
I personally don't have anything against abortions.
In saying that it is still not a nice thing. I'm only young so yet to experience fatherhood in any sense.

The only people who think abortions are a good idea are those who are already born
 
I picked:
Yes - it's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world
Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice
I think if abortion was illegal, women would just go back to the old coat hanger trick. If it must be done, I'd rather they have it done in a doctor's office.
 
Religon shouldn't interfere with law.

The natural rights is all up to definition of when "life" starts.

I don't agree with abortion if the baby has already created a CNS, however if the mothers life is at risk, I would rather have the mother whom life IMO is more important, survive than the baby, who even at birth could still die.
 
Thats an interesting point rev, but void, because to be aborted, the potential to become human-life is gone, how can it not want to be aborted if it already has been, and was never self aware enough to remotely understand the concept let alone make a decision.



Simply: Its totaly the decision of the individual involved if they want an abortion or not, religion smaligion, its meaningless, modern society works like this: you dont have to abort unwanted pregnancies if your religion tells you to, however you have no say whatsoever over what another individual completely unrelated to you wants.

The alternative is another world war, where the forces of secularity and science totaly nuke the s*** out of the religious sects, and stands over the charred smoking remains of civilization to begin again un-interupted.

At least the way it works now, everyone gets to live their life their way within the accepted norms and laws of general secular society.

That secular society respects your right to religion, respect our right to abortion, and you can continue to pray to god, if not, then...war, death, horrible mess, ruins everyones day, and no more religion.

Not a threat, dont get me wrong, im not wanting war or anything, but, thats the only other solution i see, all im seeing lately is religion banging heads with religion, or against secularism, and if religious folk dont start being more respectful of everyone elses rights, its going to end in a war, and i feel religion would be the loser in this conflict....how many vets who have seen their buddies head blown off believe in god, or like him?, exactly.
 
This is kind of off topic perhaps, but I was wondering how does anyone feel about the use of RU-486? It's a medicaded way to have an abortion without going through the surgical process.
 
Nurizeko, I know that the fetus' potential is gone after an abortion, and that whatever views it might have had is also gone. But we can without much, if any doubt know that fetus would not want to have the mother drink during pregnancy, and would condemn the mother for having done so when it is old enough to have a say. We can also know that a fetus would also want it's life.

I would say it is very wrong to drink during pregnancy. But even at that, a child like myself who was affected by drinking during pregnancy would still value life. So if it immoral to affect a fetus' future life by drinking, how much more immoral is it to negate it? I would say a lot more.

BTW, I do not belong to any religion, so that entire religion spiel doesn't speak to all pro-lifers.

Does anyone understand my logic, or even agree with it?
 
Ma Cherie said:
This is kind of off topic perhaps, but I was wondering how does anyone feel about the use of RU-486? It's a medicaded way to have an abortion without going through the surgical process.

RU-486 is horrible. :sick:
 
Revenant said:
Nurizeko, I know that the fetus' potential is gone after an abortion, and that whatever views it might have had is also gone. But we can without much, if any doubt know that fetus would not want to have the mother drink during pregnancy, and would condemn the mother for having done so when it is old enough to have a say. We can also know that a fetus would also want it's life.
I would say it is very wrong to drink during pregnancy. But even at that, a child like myself who was affected by drinking during pregnancy would still value life. So if it immoral to affect a fetus' future life by drinking, how much more immoral is it to negate it? I would say a lot more.
BTW, I do not belong to any religion, so that entire religion spiel doesn't speak to all pro-lifers.
Does anyone understand my logic, or even agree with it?

Maybe, i dont, sorry, but its the same as saying something like "but this lump of clay is precious because it can be formed into fine pottery and then burried in the earth for a long time so its really rare and stuff."

A fetus may have the potential to become a fully formed sentient and (hopefully) intelligent person, but at the present it is just a a fetus, a lump or rough form of cells, it neither breaths or feeds for itself or thinks or in anyway acts independent of the woman its growing in.

If the prospective mother wishes an abortion, it is her legal right to it, i dont know how more easily to explain it, i respect the pro-life point of view, but if people cant respect the live and let live system of society the west has, then we might aswell return to stone-age barbarism (though the stone-age probably didnt have any pro-lifers or animal lovers and stuff...).
 
Ma Cherie said:
This is kind of off topic perhaps, but I was wondering how does anyone feel about the use of RU-486? It's a medicaded way to have an abortion without going through the surgical process.
I had never heard of it, so I found this info. It doesn't sound too bad, kind of similar to the morning after pill. Although I would never have an abortion anyway (except for life-threatening reasons), I certainly wouldn't choose this method, as you would see the embryo. Reading that bit really upset me - especially at six weeks when it already has eyes, apparently.
 
in my opinion, abortion should never be legal unless it is a rape case/the mother's life is in danger. as for 'better than bringing an unwanted child into the world', if no person in your family will love the baby, there is always another family wanting to adopt a child. it's sad denying it life just because of the mother's selfish needs. i don't have anything against them, but..it's just not right to me
 
Tsuyoiko said:
I had never heard of it, so I found this info. It doesn't sound too bad, kind of similar to the morning after pill. Although I would never have an abortion anyway (except for life-threatening reasons), I certainly wouldn't choose this method, as you would see the embryo. Reading that bit really upset me - especially at six weeks when it already has eyes, apparently.


RU-486 isn't like the "moring after pill". Thanks for that information by the way.:cool: It's a misconception to call it a "morning after pill" because it's taken in doses instead of just taking one pill. Besides, it's commonly used as a contraceptive, and there seems to be a misconception about the use of it. While RU-486 is used to abort the fetus non-surgically, the "moring after pill" is used to prevent pregnacy.
 
Ma Cherie said:
It's a misconception to call it a "morning after pill" because it's taken in doses instead of just taking one pill. Besides, it's commonly used as a contraceptive, and there seems to be a misconception about the use of it. While RU-486 is used to abort the fetus non-surgically, the "moring after pill" is used to prevent pregnacy.
Sorry for not being clearer - when I said it was 'kind of like the morning after pill', I meant in the sense that it is a pill you take usually at home without any medical supervision, with effects that are similar (though more severe) to the morning after pill.
 
If both mother and father of the unborn child agree on abortion it should be legal.
If only the mother can be contacted the mother should make the decision.
If the health of the mother is threatened in any way the the child should be a decision made by the doktors.
But if the mother of the unborn child was just beeing uncarefull ,while having sex and there is no reason for abortion if you ask me unles she is under age.
 
If a woman wants to practise an abortion it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. She'll do it anyways and in most cases without leaving proofs of it.
 
A woman needs to have freedom over her body. It's a natural right. Yes, abortion should be legal within reasonable parameters, but it must not be treated as a form of birth control.
 
Only in case of rape and in case the mother's life is in danger. But not a woman who wants to have fun and irresponibly gets pregnant. It's not a game.
 
Heavens, and here was me thinking that it would take two people to have fun and get irresponsibly pregnant.
 
Mother creates life, mother takes life, and it doesn't get more natural than that.

If mother or parents chose to terminate combination of their genes, let's be it. Most likely showing that their DNA combination is a failure. Doesn't get more Darwinian, isn't it?

But on other hand if we consider that parents DNA combination is a human being regardless of its state of development, shape, and life experience, then we have to admit that abortion is a murder of a human being.
We need a definition of human being with emphasis on what age it receives human rights protection. Is it when parents genes combine, or at 3 months? Maybe at birth, or age 18?

Hey, this is timeless issue that exists as long a as human kind. It can only be regulated by law, but the outcome will never be satisfactory, morally justified, philosophically put to rest, never.

Yes, it's a murder, but mother should have legal rights to do that.
 

This thread has been viewed 69628 times.

Back
Top