Should the government stop abortions?

frankiesmithra24 · 05-1-2007, 10:54 PM

I don't think the government should stop abortions because of teens not using protection. I'm not saying its a bad thing that they are doing it and I'm not saying its a good thing. The thing I'm trying to say is that the government should think about what's right for the people. If women are getting pregant and don't want the child then they should set the child up for adoption, but if the mother is a young teenage woman then the teen should use the abortion.

slipstrike0159 · 05-1-2007, 11:07 PM

Abortions are completely unethical in my opinion, they destroy life before it has the chance to develop into a useful being in society. You never know what that baby could turn out to be. Also, I think it is very unjust that a teenager, or anyone for that matter, could have unprotected sex and have abortions as a fallback. Its horrible to be able to say, well if things go wrong we could have an abortion. It takes away the concept of getting consequences for your actions. If they consider themselves two consenting beings with common sense and still choose to participate in such an act then i think its too d#($ bad if she gets pregnant cause it was their choice and they have to deal with the consequences.

ledwix · 05-1-2007, 11:15 PM

I agree with slipstrike. Teens who believe they are fit enough to have sex should be able to deal with any unfolding consequences. Pregnancies are final, in my opinion, once a human entity has the ability to feel pain. I don't know exactly when that is, but it is a few weeks after the conception. Once this can be felt, the entity has taken on the characteristics of a human being, one with amazing potential. Even though it probably won't reach its incredible potential, it still must be given the right to survive. Although it seems that a girl should have the right to decide whether or not she should bear a child, that decision can be made before having unprotected sex. I am in opposition of most abortions, barring the ones that involve the destruction of only a few cells.

Kilroy_x · 05-1-2007, 11:18 PM

Both previous posts have a lot wrong with them, but I'm more inclined to agree with ledwix than slipstrike. Potential is no argument against abortion, drawing a line at when a fetus is a human being does allow an argument against abortion. Most people's emotional constitution gets in the way of trying to make such determinations, however.

**Squeek** · 05-1-2007, 11:20 PM

Congratulations to the anti-abortion users for neglecting the most important aspect of all abortions.

Rape babies.

Why do you think women had abortions in the first place? Surely you don't think every woman out there who wants an abortion made a mistake with her boyfriend and wants to cover it up, right?

LLaMaSaUceYup · 05-1-2007, 11:22 PM

Well imagine if a girl gets rape?

Where would this lead?

I'm a little stuck on this topic, but I agree more with not having abortions.

slipstrike0159 · 05-1-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeek

Congratulations to the anti-abortion users for neglecting the most important aspect of all abortions.

Rape babies.

Why do you think women had abortions in the first place? Surely you don't think every woman out there who wants an abortion made a mistake with her boyfriend and wants to cover it up, right?

Well sure there should be some special exception put in place for such a tragedy but even then it should be taken care of immediately or otherwise it was her decision to put it off in which consequences should be endured.

Kilroy_x · 05-1-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeek & LLaMaSaUceYup

Rape

This is at the root of fewer abortions than you might think. Despite this, my opinion is that women who are raped are more than entitled, along with all other women, to get an abortion up until the point the fetus develops the cognitive ability neccessary for self-awareness. This is more than enough time for them to determine whether or not they are pregnent and get an abortion.

**devonin** · 05-1-2007, 11:46 PM

The point (insofar as my ethics professors and the various people I've read on the subject have determined) at which a fetus has developed a sufficient nervous system to feel pain is roughly three months. I, like many ethicists, tend to want to draw the line of moral consideration generally, at the point in which some entity is capable of registering and reacting to sensory inputs such as pain.

How this translates to my view on abortion is this:

For the first two months (I said three above, but since there's a 2-week buffer in development in which you could err, I'll be conservative) any woman should have the universal right to an abortion for any reason. Anything from "I was raped" to "Oops" is fine by me. The thing inside of her does not yet classify in my mind as morally significant at all, and so an abortion has no moral or emotional issues for me whatsoever.

After two months, I feel that a woman should only be able to have an abortion if it is determined either that a) the fetus is disabled in some severe way that being brought to term would either cause its death, or that it would have such a stunted standard of life that it is a mercy to end it sooner rather than later or b) that carrying the fetus to term would put the mother's life in severe danger.

Two months is plenty of time for you to reflect soberly on your options and make a decision. Sometimes it is in fact an accident. A good friend of mine was told by doctors that she would be unable to concieve, had protected sex anyway for STD protection purposes, and still got pregnant. She decided to keep her baby, and she's freakin adorable, but I'd have supported the friend just as much if she'd elected to have an abortion.

Kilroy_x · 05-1-2007, 11:52 PM

If pain alone is the only criteria which makes killing wrong, how do you accomodate for the killing of animals? What about human beings who can't feel pain?

**devonin** · 05-2-2007, 12:02 AM

Well, I used pain because it was the relevant example to the situation. The ability to feel pain comes part-and-parcel with the entire "cognitive ability neccessary for self-awareness" package that you mentioned in your post.

As for my application of that to animals: Bear in mind, considering something morally significant doesn't mean that I consider it -equally- significant to all other things.

Philosophically, something being 'morally significant' simply means that you ought to -consider- it in your decision making. When I'm deciding whether or not to chop down a tree, our current knowledge of trees suggests that it is not self-aware, so I don't need to consider the tree in my -moral- calculations. It's just not a choice that touches on morality at all.

Killing a cow to eat it however, does potentially become a moral decision, because the cow is self-aware, it can feel pain, and will desire to not feel pain. So it must be -considered-

However, since there is no evidence to prove that cows are of a level of self-awareness to (and this is the usual yardstick) form an opinion about its future, and where it would like to be in the future, and take actions towards those ends, cows are morally significant enough that we ought to decide to raise them in a good environment, and slaughter them humanely, but not of equal significance to humans that we ought not to kill it for food at all.

GuidoHunter · 05-2-2007, 04:07 AM

I think the government has the responsibility to protect innocent lives. As such, I believe abortions should be illegal for the entire nation.

Squeek, some anti-abortionists don't bother to single out "rape babies" because they're not any different than "oops babies". Regardless of how it's conceived, it's still a living human child, and as such should not be murdered.

No exception for children of rape whatsoever.

I believe that some terminology should be set in place to differentiate between outright abortions and processes required to save the life of the mother that also happen to kill the child as an unfortunate side effect (think radiation treatment), though.

But yeah, the federal government protects my right to life, so it should protect the lives of unborn children just as much.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Catastrophe75 · 05-2-2007, 04:38 AM

Abortion is a population check. There is still an argument that the world is currently well overpopulated. At this current time abortion gets rid of unwanted babies that are not needed in society. I whole heartedly agree that this is a rather draconian view on the matter however I feel we've gone far to liberal especially in the United Kingdom on such matters. I cannot vouch nor say my opinion on how the United States is going. Theres just not enough room or natural resources to cope with the population.

Answering specifically to your question should Governments stop abortions. Completely not, opinions and views on abortion should be dictated by society. You have the choice to have an abortion as well as the choice to not have an abortion. Congress if I am not mistaken theres clearly a higher percentage of males than females. Is it right to let males have such a large overall opinion on abortion when females are usually the ones that advocate it?

GuidoHunter · 05-2-2007, 05:06 AM

Oh, please. Population control is only considered when resources are strained. Last I checked, grocery shopping in the US or Britain wasn't too hard. Our populations are easily sustainable.

Abortion's still a form of population control with indigenous tribes of small South Pacific Islands, where their land simply can't support enough food for another child. War is also population control, there. We're certainly more civilized over here to have to even consider that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catastrophe75

Completely not, opinions and views on abortion should be dictated by society.

So if society says that it's okay for people of [insert your race here] to be slaughtered like pigs just because they're of that decent, it should be okay? Hi, I'm from the United States. We crawled out of the dark ages of social justice forty years ago, and lemme tell you, going back should NOT be advocated, no matter how much society wants it.

In the exact same way, government should stand for certain things such as the equality of man and the protection of life.

Quote:

You have the choice to have an abortion as well as the choice to not have an abortion.

The child doesn't, though.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Pippin667 · 05-2-2007, 08:26 AM

I thing the goverment can govern the rights and regulations around us, but not inside us. I see it hard for a person to say people cant do anything they want with there bodys. If people want to kill things living inside there body, they can, because that is there country not the goverments. Also i beileve a child isnt acually alive untill its out of the women (mediforical sense)

Catastrophe75 · 05-2-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Oh, please. Population control is only considered when resources are strained. Last I checked, grocery shopping in the US or Britain wasn't too hard. Our populations are easily sustainable.

Abortion's still a form of population control with indigenous tribes of small South Pacific Islands, where their land simply can't support enough food for another child. War is also population control, there. We're certainly more civilized over here to have to even consider that.

Fair point i'd have to agree to a certain extent. Despite their being far to many people on this planet most of it is not infact down to western civilisation directly.Though you could argue that indirectly we strain many developing countries to meet the ends of our lives by making them work for the less than a dollar a day and families needing to support themselves must have multiple children to sustain themselves.

However it remains the fact that population has got out of hand. With ever increasing food demands and resources rapidly running out. Sensibility needs to play a role that we can't continue the way they live our lives. It boils down to whether you would like a comfatable live for humans in the next hundred years or a baron one for the children ever after.

Though abortion may play a small percentage of that in terms of numbers it still makes a large impact. Do we "need" those humans and the simple answer is we don't. Their is a sense of morality that says that the child should have the right to live and in all honest it should. However the human race has only itself to blame to having the inability to accomadate most of these aborted children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

So if society says that it's okay for people of [insert your race here] to be slaughtered like pigs just because they're of that decent, it should be okay? Hi, I'm from the United States. We crawled out of the dark ages of social justice forty years ago, and lemme tell you, going back should NOT be advocated, no matter how much society wants it.

In the exact same way, government should stand for certain things such as the equality of man and the protection of life.

Though I understand elected government is there to make decisions on behalf of us. I'm stating that society still dictates what's acceptable. For example, a larger percentage of children do not respect their elders today than in comparison with a century ago. Now regardless of the reasons why this may have been, this was the case. If a majority of society feels that abortion is wrong and unjustified then things will change. They can elect a new government which will in time appoint new judges in the supreme court which then can interperet what the constitution says whether it be pro life or for abortion. Whether or not judicial activism is right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

The child doesn't, though.

Very true it doesn't. I dislike the idea that abortion is used widely as a form of contraception rather than its intended purpose to a great extent. If a mother can't support the child, she was raped, incest etc. There are varying degrees on what's acceptable however a mother should have the right to whether that child lives to a certain point.

The question is what's that point, at what time can you say it's unjustifyable.
Considering by my logic of population control that possibly disabilitated babies shouldn't be allowed to enter society. Lets just say I haven't truely made up my mind yet considering it's such a complex issue and I doubt I will anytime soon.

Thanks for the points.

**stretchypanda** · 05-2-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

Well sure there should be some special exception put in place for such a tragedy but even then it should be taken care of immediately or otherwise it was her decision to put it off in which consequences should be endured.

I am pretty sure this wins Ignorant Statement of the Century.

Being raped is humiliating. No one jumps up immediately after the rapist is gone and announces, "Well, I've been raped, I guess I'd better get myself to the hospital for an uncomfortable, invasive procedure that will only prolong my humiliation." Probably more than thousands of rapes go unreported because the assault the woman has just endured is so humiliating she'd really rather just crawl in a hole and die than let anyone know what just happened to her. So if that woman just takes a shower and tries to put her life back together on her own, and then a few weeks later realizes she hasn't had a period, she's just stuck with this little "parting gift"?

And what of the situation of date rape? At a seminar I attended, the speaker told a story of getting way too drunk and allowing some boy to take her home, and then not remembering anything beyond that until the next morning when he left. She wasn't even sure they'd had sex until she discovered she was pregnant. You can't exactly terminate a pregnancy you don't know about.

**flipsta_lombax** · 05-2-2007, 10:40 AM

I'm pro-choice, but with strict limits.

I don't think that government should stop abortions, but I feel that there should be a limit at what age the baby gets aborted, like before the development stage. I give it 5-6 weeks, around the climax of the embryotic stage. Then after those six weeks, it should be illegal.

In my opinion, this may help give any women: raped, accidental, or just plain inconsiderate of their sexual activities, to have a choice at aborting their 'embryo'. I mean, if they take more than 1 and a half months to know and decide about their baby, then they have issues.

Everyone views abortion differently. Some consider that life isn't as important to them, while others believe that when a sperm and an egg conjoins, it is considered as life and has emotional values, and shouldn't be messed with.

For me to consider something much as life, it has to have a heart beating. 6 weeks for me is almost pushing it, because the baby will have a heart after the 7th.

This is a hard subject to contemplate...

**Squeek** · 05-2-2007, 10:46 AM

It's pretty obvious that I don't really care. I don't see what the huge issue is. Oh noes, killing unborn children you don't want. So, it's better to have them born and live a life full of neglect and malnutrition than to just let them die. That totally makes sense.

Guido, I want to meet these people who think aborting even rape babies is wrong. I doubt any of them are women.

**flipsta_lombax** · 05-2-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeek

It's pretty obvious that I don't really care. I don't see what the huge issue is. Oh noes, killing unborn children you don't want. So, it's better to have them born and live a life full of neglect and malnutrition than to just let them die. That totally makes sense.

Guido, I want to meet these people who think aborting even rape babies is wrong. I doubt any of them are women.

Religious or has strong moral value?

I would suspect that with people with strong pro-life opinions.

05-1-2007, 10:54 PM	#1
frankiesmithra24 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Suffern, NY Age: 33 Posts: 27	Should the government stop abortions? I don't think the government should stop abortions because of teens not using protection. I'm not saying its a bad thing that they are doing it and I'm not saying its a good thing. The thing I'm trying to say is that the government should think about what's right for the people. If women are getting pregant and don't want the child then they should set the child up for adoption, but if the mother is a young teenage woman then the teen should use the abortion.

05-1-2007, 11:07 PM	#2
slipstrike0159 FFR Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: In the shadows behind you with my assassin's blade waiting to strike Posts: 568	Re: Should the government stop abortions? Abortions are completely unethical in my opinion, they destroy life before it has the chance to develop into a useful being in society. You never know what that baby could turn out to be. Also, I think it is very unjust that a teenager, or anyone for that matter, could have unprotected sex and have abortions as a fallback. Its horrible to be able to say, well if things go wrong we could have an abortion. It takes away the concept of getting consequences for your actions. If they consider themselves two consenting beings with common sense and still choose to participate in such an act then i think its too d#($ bad if she gets pregnant cause it was their choice and they have to deal with the consequences. __________________ Last edited by slipstrike0159; 05-1-2007 at 11:09 PM..

05-1-2007, 11:15 PM	#3
ledwix Giant Pi Operator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: California Age: 33 Posts: 2,878	Re: Should the government stop abortions? I agree with slipstrike. Teens who believe they are fit enough to have sex should be able to deal with any unfolding consequences. Pregnancies are final, in my opinion, once a human entity has the ability to feel pain. I don't know exactly when that is, but it is a few weeks after the conception. Once this can be felt, the entity has taken on the characteristics of a human being, one with amazing potential. Even though it probably won't reach its incredible potential, it still must be given the right to survive. Although it seems that a girl should have the right to decide whether or not she should bear a child, that decision can be made before having unprotected sex. I am in opposition of most abortions, barring the ones that involve the destruction of only a few cells.

05-1-2007, 11:18 PM	#4
Kilroy_x Little Chief Hare Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Colorado Age: 35 Posts: 783	Re: Should the government stop abortions? Both previous posts have a lot wrong with them, but I'm more inclined to agree with ledwix than slipstrike. Potential is no argument against abortion, drawing a line at when a fetus is a human being does allow an argument against abortion. Most people's emotional constitution gets in the way of trying to make such determinations, however.

05-1-2007, 11:20 PM	#5
Squeek let it snow~ Join Date: Jan 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 14,444	Re: Should the government stop abortions? Congratulations to the anti-abortion users for neglecting the most important aspect of all abortions. Rape babies. Why do you think women had abortions in the first place? Surely you don't think every woman out there who wants an abortion made a mistake with her boyfriend and wants to cover it up, right?

05-1-2007, 11:22 PM	#6
LLaMaSaUceYup FFR Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Phoenix, Arizona. Age: 31 Posts: 3,759	Re: Should the government stop abortions? Well imagine if a girl gets rape? Where would this lead? I'm a little stuck on this topic, but I agree more with not having abortions.

05-1-2007, 11:46 PM	#9
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: Should the government stop abortions? The point (insofar as my ethics professors and the various people I've read on the subject have determined) at which a fetus has developed a sufficient nervous system to feel pain is roughly three months. I, like many ethicists, tend to want to draw the line of moral consideration generally, at the point in which some entity is capable of registering and reacting to sensory inputs such as pain. How this translates to my view on abortion is this: For the first two months (I said three above, but since there's a 2-week buffer in development in which you could err, I'll be conservative) any woman should have the universal right to an abortion for any reason. Anything from "I was raped" to "Oops" is fine by me. The thing inside of her does not yet classify in my mind as morally significant at all, and so an abortion has no moral or emotional issues for me whatsoever. After two months, I feel that a woman should only be able to have an abortion if it is determined either that a) the fetus is disabled in some severe way that being brought to term would either cause its death, or that it would have such a stunted standard of life that it is a mercy to end it sooner rather than later or b) that carrying the fetus to term would put the mother's life in severe danger. Two months is plenty of time for you to reflect soberly on your options and make a decision. Sometimes it is in fact an accident. A good friend of mine was told by doctors that she would be unable to concieve, had protected sex anyway for STD protection purposes, and still got pregnant. She decided to keep her baby, and she's freakin adorable, but I'd have supported the friend just as much if she'd elected to have an abortion.

05-1-2007, 11:52 PM	#10
Kilroy_x Little Chief Hare Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Colorado Age: 35 Posts: 783	Re: Should the government stop abortions? If pain alone is the only criteria which makes killing wrong, how do you accomodate for the killing of animals? What about human beings who can't feel pain?

05-2-2007, 12:02 AM	#11
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: Should the government stop abortions? Well, I used pain because it was the relevant example to the situation. The ability to feel pain comes part-and-parcel with the entire "cognitive ability neccessary for self-awareness" package that you mentioned in your post. As for my application of that to animals: Bear in mind, considering something morally significant doesn't mean that I consider it -equally- significant to all other things. Philosophically, something being 'morally significant' simply means that you ought to -consider- it in your decision making. When I'm deciding whether or not to chop down a tree, our current knowledge of trees suggests that it is not self-aware, so I don't need to consider the tree in my -moral- calculations. It's just not a choice that touches on morality at all. Killing a cow to eat it however, does potentially become a moral decision, because the cow is self-aware, it can feel pain, and will desire to not feel pain. So it must be -considered- However, since there is no evidence to prove that cows are of a level of self-awareness to (and this is the usual yardstick) form an opinion about its future, and where it would like to be in the future, and take actions towards those ends, cows are morally significant enough that we ought to decide to raise them in a good environment, and slaughter them humanely, but not of equal significance to humans that we ought not to kill it for food at all.

05-2-2007, 04:38 AM	#13
Catastrophe75 FFR Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Age: 34 Posts: 3	Re: Should the government stop abortions? Abortion is a population check. There is still an argument that the world is currently well overpopulated. At this current time abortion gets rid of unwanted babies that are not needed in society. I whole heartedly agree that this is a rather draconian view on the matter however I feel we've gone far to liberal especially in the United Kingdom on such matters. I cannot vouch nor say my opinion on how the United States is going. Theres just not enough room or natural resources to cope with the population. Answering specifically to your question should Governments stop abortions. Completely not, opinions and views on abortion should be dictated by society. You have the choice to have an abortion as well as the choice to not have an abortion. Congress if I am not mistaken theres clearly a higher percentage of males than females. Is it right to let males have such a large overall opinion on abortion when females are usually the ones that advocate it?

05-2-2007, 08:26 AM	#15
Pippin667 FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Burbank IL Age: 35 Posts: 604	Re: Should the government stop abortions? I thing the goverment can govern the rights and regulations around us, but not inside us. I see it hard for a person to say people cant do anything they want with there bodys. If people want to kill things living inside there body, they can, because that is there country not the goverments. Also i beileve a child isnt acually alive untill its out of the women (mediforical sense)

05-2-2007, 10:40 AM	#18
flipsta_lombax Lombax Connoisseur Join Date: May 2006 Location: Virginia Age: 34 Posts: 2,556	Re: Should the government stop abortions? I'm pro-choice, but with strict limits. I don't think that government should stop abortions, but I feel that there should be a limit at what age the baby gets aborted, like before the development stage. I give it 5-6 weeks, around the climax of the embryotic stage. Then after those six weeks, it should be illegal. In my opinion, this may help give any women: raped, accidental, or just plain inconsiderate of their sexual activities, to have a choice at aborting their 'embryo'. I mean, if they take more than 1 and a half months to know and decide about their baby, then they have issues. Everyone views abortion differently. Some consider that life isn't as important to them, while others believe that when a sperm and an egg conjoins, it is considered as life and has emotional values, and shouldn't be messed with. For me to consider something much as life, it has to have a heart beating. 6 weeks for me is almost pushing it, because the baby will have a heart after the 7th. This is a hard subject to contemplate... __________________ Best FGO: Time To Eye{3-0-0-0} Best SCORE: Husigi Usagi Milk Tei {16-1-2-8}

05-2-2007, 10:46 AM	#19
Squeek let it snow~ Join Date: Jan 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 14,444	Re: Should the government stop abortions? It's pretty obvious that I don't really care. I don't see what the huge issue is. Oh noes, killing unborn children you don't want. So, it's better to have them born and live a life full of neglect and malnutrition than to just let them die. That totally makes sense. Guido, I want to meet these people who think aborting even rape babies is wrong. I doubt any of them are women.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)