(September 7, 2014 at 6:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

Yep, that about sums up the "pro-lifers". (the majority, at least)

Despite being pro-choice, i think that yes, abortion might be morally" wrong nonetheless, we're trully "ending" a future possible life, but at what point exactly we define life, and at what point exactly we define human life, and how many of these children will actually have a decent life? The definition of human life is actually more subjective than many are led to think.
But on the other way around, to demand a woman to undergo an accidental pregnancy and that won't be able to provide a decent "future" to their children is also morally wrong, forcing both mother and children to misery, and "rejected" children usually have a hard time even to find an "adoption" for them, many end up growing on orphanates where they're abused by "superiors" and many end up engaging in criminal life early on. I've seen that countless times, i can tell that the greatest majority of "criminals" end up being rejected/negleted children.

Then there's the usefulness of population control, and i'm serious about this. Overpopulation will trully lead to wars for resources eventually, if not also extintion afterwards. So i mean, wouldn't this "abortion" of a "not-yet" human fetus end up being the lesser morally wrong choice?

I'm sure the decision to abort is often fraught with moral self-condemnation. And yet there are any number of circumstances where it may well be the least bad choice available. We leave moral decisions to the individual in so many circumstances. Why should a woman bear all the burden of an accidental pregnancy? Fair or not, she does literally bear the result. It seems only fair to also entrust her with the decision of whether or not to abort.

To me getting an abortion may be morally wrong after a certain amount of development for the fetus. It is greatly unfortunate that a mother can't abort her fetus at these stages, but then again, she had several months to make the decision before hand. As far as abortion goes before that, I am strongly supportive of abortion. I think if a mother is not old enough or financially or emotionally ready to have a child for whatever reason then they should be allowed to abort their baby. No sense in dumping the baby on their mother if they aren't old enough, no sense in caring for a child when you don't want to, no sense in having a baby if you can't feed it or pay for it's diapers.

Approximately 300 to 400 eggs will be ovulated during a woman's reproductive lifetime. If she doesn't do everyting in her powers to bring those to terms, she is a murderess?!??

(September 17, 2014 at 3:04 pm)little_monkey Wrote: Approximately 300 to 400 eggs will be ovulated during a woman's reproductive lifetime. If she doesn't do everyting in her powers to bring those to terms, she is a murderess?!??

And I think that masturbation, for men, is mass murder. All those potential lives being wasted.

Oh, the huge manitee

(September 17, 2014 at 3:17 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(September 17, 2014 at 3:04 pm)little_monkey Wrote: Approximately 300 to 400 eggs will be ovulated during a woman's reproductive lifetime. If she doesn't do everyting in her powers to bring those to terms, she is a murderess?!??

And I think that masturbation, for men, is mass murder. All those potential lives being wasted.

Oh, the huge manitee

Well then shit, call me The Dick Hitler.

(September 17, 2014 at 3:19 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(September 17, 2014 at 3:17 pm)Beccs Wrote: And I think that masturbation, for men, is mass murder. All those potential lives being wasted.

Oh, the huge manitee

Well then shit, call me The Dick Hitler.

Are you willing to change your name to that?

(September 7, 2014 at 7:48 am)Madness20 Wrote: Despite being pro-choice, i think that yes, abortion might be morally" wrong nonetheless, we're trully "ending" a future possible life, but at what point exactly we define life, and at what point exactly we define human life, and how many of these children will actually have a decent life? The definition of human life is actually more subjective than many are led to think.
But on the other way around, to demand a woman to undergo an accidental pregnancy and that won't be able to provide a decent "future" to their children is also morally wrong, forcing both mother and children to misery, and "rejected" children usually have a hard time even to find an "adoption" for them, many end up growing on orphanates where they're abused by "superiors" and many end up engaging in criminal life early on. I've seen that countless times, i can tell that the greatest majority of "criminals" end up being rejected/negleted children.

Then there's the usefulness of population control, and i'm serious about this. Overpopulation will trully lead to wars for resources eventually, if not also extintion afterwards. So i mean, wouldn't this "abortion" of a "not-yet" human fetus end up being the lesser morally wrong choice?

I have a fundamental arguement with this position, because it defines for another what is a life worth living. If preventing misery as you say is so important, then why stop at destruction prior to birth, why not after?Why not kill anyone whom you deem is having a "miserable" life?
Your only recourse to this is that the fetus is not yet a human - but then we must define what IS human and deserves human rights?
Some people try to get around this concept by bringing up personal autonomy (of the mother) that trumps any rights the fetus EVEN if it/he/she is human. For example, I am not required to give you my kidney to save your life (my personal autonomy) even if I could live perfectly well with one kidney. My counter of course is what if I already agreed to give you my kidney and now you would die without it? Do I have a moral accountability (not a legal one) to you?
I based my moral argument against abortion in this world view. For those of you who believe that the fetus is NOT a human then the natural follow up is WHAT IS, or what is required to be human?

For the vast majority of you arguing over perception rather than reality and directing it at me - I HAVE NEVER ONCE STATED THAT I WANTED TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL. I HAVE NEVER ONCE TRIED TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE. I HAVE stated why I feel abortion is IMMORAL (NOT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL)

For those of you who believe that "all pro-lifers" disregard the mother, I certainly do not, but I do believe that she has made a willing choice (obviously does not apply if she did not make a willing choice - rape either statutory or physical) to engage in a behavior that could lead to pregnancy and there fore has a moral obligation to complete that pregnancy. (Tired of restating the same arguments sojust go back and read them). The key part of all this is CHOICE. Life without sex would suck, but so too would life without cars, however if you choose to drive a car and cause a situation that damages another then you are responsible whether you wanted to be or not. Don't want that risk? Don't drive.

Quote:I just want to clarify that this is not my assumption. This is an allowance I am making for you to be able to make your argument based on this assumption.

This is why you can't ever give them an inch, Losty.