Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
It's a Terrible Situation Posted: 07-22-04 00:50am
I can't condemn people for making
decisions such as these. Anyone who
condemns the person is not thinking with a
compassionate heart. To pretend it is not
a tempting and difficult decision would be
silly. However, I still feel abortion is
completely unneccessary if the baby is
going to die anyway. And if the person is
going to live with complications, I feel
that is better than no life. And
depending on how early the diagnosis comes
out, how reliable are they? Sometimes
it's a possible diagnosis, not a
definitive one. It would be a shame for a
couple to abort simply because there is a
chance for some serious illness or
defect.
I condemn the act of abortion resolutely
though on principle. It is either ok or
not. The facts are facts. It is a living
human being at it's own stage of life,
birth is not where life begins unless
science has taught us nothing. Obviously
if the baby would definitely die anyway,
than abortion wouldn't change much, so why
is it necessary? And if the baby would
survive, why would you kill a human being?
And many abortions take place to
perfectly healthy babies... Can anyone
condone that? If so, why? Just for the
mother's convenience?
|
purple333
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Dec 2003 Posts: 1420 Location: Sydney
Posted: 07-22-04 06:12am
Why should any woman (or the father of the
child) go through almost an entire
pregnancy or whatever is left of it
knowing that their child will die either
before, during or shortly after birth when
their grief & pain & that of their
child can be ended sooner. Anyone who
expects another human being to endure such
unnecessary pain is themselves inhuman, in
the same way as hitler. A person who
chooses to endure such pain themselves -
well that is their own choice.
As to not aborting the life of a child who
due to serious complications will have no
life - no quality of life - well you would
never allow a "dumb" animal to live
without quality of life so why in god's
name would you do it to a human baby??
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Posted: 07-23-04 15:43pm
I'm more concerned with terminating a
healthy pregnancy (thus killing a healthy
human being). I just don't see how
aborting an unhealthy pregnancy is
necessary, yes it may relieve some grief,
but if they wanted the child then there
will still be grief after the abortion.
And that doesn't justify why abortion
should be legal in general.
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-23-04 16:07pm
Actually it does justify one of the
reasons that abortion needs to remain
legal. Especially if carrying the baby
full-term or giving birth can cause death.
That choice needs to be up to the woman
who is carrying that child. And no one
has any right to say anything about it or
condemn her for her decision or to make
that decision for her.
You don't know what any situation is like
until you are in it yourself.
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Posted: 07-23-04 23:16pm
And how many abortions are performed not
because the baby is sick or deformed some
how, or not because the mother could
potentially die from it? And what would
be wrong with carrying the baby as long as
possible and then having a cesarean
section to deliver the premature baby and
at least give it a chance for survival as
opposed to automatically killing it? With
today's technology we save severe
prematurely born babies all the time.
Too many abortions are done as a matter of
convenience or other selfish reasons. And
yes, to kill another human being (at any
stage of development, which starts before
and continues well after birth) for your
own convenience is selfish.
I think most abortions are not a good
choice. I'm not saying there aren't any
reasons that may be valid, but they would
be very few. And i'm not pretending it's
an easy decision, when given the option in
a relatively difficult situation, where
abortion is most likely the "easiest" way
to deal with an unplanned or unwanted
pregnancy. But that doesn't make it
right. And the right to choose justifies
no action, let alone abortion. If an
action is justified, it must be for other
reasons than simply the inherent right to
choose we all have.
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-24-04 14:55pm
In some instances you are right.
But there are situations where it isn't so
cut and dry. There are people who get
pregnant and the pregnancy is actually
killing them. If they were to continue
carrying the child they will die. If a
woman is in that situation she has every
right to an abortion. Especially if the
baby isn't even going to make it.
Yeah, I know people say, "well, how can
you be sure? Maybe you both would make
it? God has a reason for everything and
just let god handle it."
well, the way I see that, and this is just
my opinion, is that god did handle it.
God allowed the doctor's to see these
complications and gave you the chance to
live. It is still your right to choose,
and you may make the wrong choice, but god
tests us all of the time. If you choose
wrong (which we all do) it does not mean
you are inevitably going to hell.
But, enough about the religious
aspect...The fact is that in today's
technology doctor's are able to test the
fetus for diseases/disorders. Doctor's
can tell when something is killing you,
and the fetus for that matter. So, it is
up to the woman in this situation to
decide what she is going to do.
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Posted: 07-24-04 17:08pm
Yea, I can't argue much against an
abortion if the pregnancy is truly killing
the woman, but I would assume those are
rare cases, relative to how many
non-lethal pregnancies occur.
I wouldn't describe myself a "religious"
person persay, but I am spiritual.
Sometimes I get a little tweaked when
people say stuff like "god has a reason
for everything and just let god handle
it." not that there may be some truth to
it, but it's so vague, it could work in
any direction. So there is very little
room for that stuff in debates. And I
hate when people diminish the abortion (or
any other) argument to simply a religious
one. As if there is no other aspect to
them or they can't be debated based on
logic and reason alone.
Abortion is not cut and dry because
individual cases must be given their own
consideration. But, anyone must concede,
some reasons are better than others for
abortion, and not all abortions that take
place are justified. And if you take the
generic concept of abortion, it must be
considered wrong w/o any of those
scenarios that might justify it. So I
feel abortion, just like any form of
killing, can only be justified for
specific reasons, like self defense,
etc... Is that not reasonable or
somewhat logical? As much as I hate the
idea of abortion, I do not think we can or
should completely ban it, but I would like
to reduce them as much as possible through
education (all forms), legal regulation
(nothing too extreme, but similar to how
gov't regulates many other things, esp if
you want it covered by health care, then
it must be subjected to regulation,
whatever that may entail), and the
prevention of unwanted pregnancies in the
first place.
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-24-04 19:10pm
I was not trying to argue the religious
part of this or to say that is what I
thought. I was simply stating what I
always hear when I say something about the
doctors saying the woman and child will
not make it. Some people, a lot of
people, always say what I listed above.
In a perfect world there would not be
unwanted pregnancies, but the hard truth
is that there is...It would be wonderful
if there was not, but can you imagine how
overpopulated we would be if there was not
abortion? I am not saying that abortion
is okay because of overpopulation, but can
you imagine?
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Posted: 07-24-04 21:45pm
I know that wasn't your point of view, but
since you brought it up I had to get that
off my chest. Those people bug me just
as much as they might you.
First of all, we're in no danger of
overpopulation, and the birthrate should
be aprox 2.2 children per family (it
varies with different societies) to
replace the current populaton. And we
may not have a sufficient younger work
force to take care of the aging baby
boomer generation, which either way is
going to cause strains and problems on
health care and social security that we
must deal with.
I don't think we are dealing with an
overpopulation crisis by any means, unless
it's because everyone wants to come here
(to america). Who's to say we're not
having/going to have an underpopulation
crisis as a result of all these abortions.
And either way, is abortion justified for
means of controlling the population size,
is that the real reason some politicians
support it?
|
purple333
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Dec 2003 Posts: 1420 Location: Sydney
Posted: 07-25-04 00:33am
While I understand the concept of national
pride - there is a whole world out here -
other than america - & many countries
have massive overpopulation problems &
starvation - so we are actually facing an
overpopulation crisis despite issues in
developed nations re baby boomers &
too few employed to support the aging
populations.
however none of that is actually relevant
to the topic here which is fast becoming a
debate
rather than a discussion relevant to this
forum so I suspect a moderator may move it
from here if it continues.
|
PattyV
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 1103 Location: Chicago area
Posted: 07-25-04 08:39am
We can only hope!!
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 07-25-04 16:21pm
How could or would anyone "hate" so much
this word should be taken out of the
dictionary to me and not be used, this
word just eats you up inside, just
thinking of the word can really stress you
out and saying it is worse to me.
Can't is another word that is sooooooooo
negative, wimpy and whiny!
I feel people that do not believe in
abortion or do not understand why should
work around the babies that are born with
the dt's, half of their internal body
parts missing and their are some internal
body parts that we are unable to replace,
this is why I am pro-choice, I see this.
Some of these babies that we have to
take out of these homes that the babies
end up dying because they are not fed, not
clean, but the mother and father are
eating well, dressed well and they get
their drug and alchohol fixes and then
they would understand more! I do agree
with you that their are too many abortions
that are not totally necessary but then
again sometimes their are not enough
abortions, just my opinion!
And then you talk about supporting the
baby-boomers, watch it, we are still
supporting people on welfare and a lot of
people that just don't want to work and
social security and disabled so don't
count us out yet! And, yes, a fetus that
is diagnosed with cf, the mother should
definitely have the right to abort, have
you ever worked or been around cf
patients?
It is not a human being at first, it is a
fetus, oh no, here we go again!
Sincerely,
sandy
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-25-04 16:55pm
If you read my above post where I
commented on overpopulation, I
specifically stated that I was not saying
abortion should have anything to do with
it. All I said was imagine if all of
these aborted fetuses had been born.
And, yes, it is a problem believe it or
not.
Also, this is in the abortion debate
forum. It was separated from the
original post which is still in the
abortion forum. Just so that you all
know!
|
PattyV
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 1103 Location: Chicago area
Posted: 07-25-04 19:07pm
Beautifully said,sandy!!!!If someone has
not seen these sad,unfortunate
children,they cannot comprehend what a
life of hell they have before them.These
are the people who will grow up (if they
live!)and never have a decent shot at
life.They are starting behind the eight
ball and have difficulty making remedial
progress in school,holding jobs and
delayed social skills.So,who wants to
adopt these kids??Not nearly enough
people.They linger in an overburdened
state system and never know a better
life.At eighteen,they are released into
society completly unprepared for life.Just
what do you think they are best suited
for?Would most people hire them??And so
the vicious circle of drugs and crime
continues.Don't tell me I don't know
this.I have worked in healthcare 23 years
and my husband is a cop,so I am well aware
from both ends of the spectrum.Patty
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Sandy: It Is Not a Human Being At First, It Is a Fetus... Posted: 07-25-04 20:06pm
Human fetuses are human beings. It is
human, it starts as such and is never born
otherwise. It is a being, it exists and
is alive. That is the key to the
argument, life. A human corpse is not a
human being because while it still exists,
it is not alive. A human fetus is alive.
And the act of abortion kills it. So why
wouldn't a fetus be a human being? And if
it isn't a human being, at what point in
time does it become one? And after that,
don't we need justification in order to
condone killing another human being?
(anyone, please reply directly to this and
answer the questions)
i'm not saying completely ban abortion,
but I am saying give unborn humans some
protection. Any act that intentionally
and directly kills another human being
should be justified, especially when
considering legality. I'm not claiming
100% of abortions are unjustified, but I
am claiming that not 100% of abortions
that take place are justified.
Sounds like sandy hates the word hate (and
can't), how ironic... And sandy "can't"
live, as she exists now, forever. I
"can't" sleep if I want to be awake.
Sandy, why "can't" someone feel hostility
or animosity towards something, or dislike
or detest or have distaste for something?
Both words are quite useful, I think we
should keep them.
Minor responses:
this thread has already been moved to
abortion debate, I originally started
posting in the regular abortion section I
found first, but then stopped when I
realized there was a separate debate
area.
And yes, I concede, overpopulation can
be/is a problem. However, that issue is
not a justification for abortion, which
shouldn't even be considered a justified
solution (for a number of problems).
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-26-04 00:57am
A fetus is not a human being. A fetus is
only alive because it lives off of the
mother. It cannot live on its own and is
not fully developed and therefore is not a
human being. It becomes human when it
can survive on its own. And a human
corpse is a human being. That is just
silly. Just because it is dead does not
mean that it wasn't/isn't human. A fetus
is a fetus. A human fetus, yes, but not
a human being.
There is nothing wrong with sandy voicing
her opinion on certain words and it is
quite immature to purposely use them
repeatedly in a post directed towards her.
Let's have some respect here.
I already clarified that this post is in
the abortion debate forum, and I also
already clarified that I was not stating
that overpopulation is "justifiable"
reason for abortion, so please quit
repeating what has already been resolved.
|
purple333
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Dec 2003 Posts: 1420 Location: Sydney
I Am Human - Ooopppsss!!! Posted: 07-26-04 02:46am
Sorry when I posted earlier I thought this
was still in the abortion forum - I am
only human & we do make mistakes!!
Personally I agree with "line" that as
soon as conception has occurred the foetus
is a human being but I
am also pro-choice. The problem with
regulation is that people & situations
just do not all fit into nice neat little
regulated boxes & a situation which
one person/religion/culture/family etc
finds ok, is an anathema to another. I
would like to see all women who are
considering having an abortion counselled
before & after but beyond that - no -
regulation while it might help in some
cases would be devastating in others - a
girl raped whose family would disown her
for being raped (yes it does happen even
in supposedly civilised countries) needs
the privacy of being able to have an
abortion without any government
interference & there are many othr
instances where the "protection" of
privace is necessary.
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Posted: 07-26-04 03:37am
I never said a corpse was a human being, I
said it wasn't, because it is no longer
living. It is still a human corpse, but
it has no more life. And I consider a
fetus to be a human being because it is
alive, and it is of human nature, that's
where I derive my logic from in calling a
fetus a human being, you obviously seem to
disagree, I just want to make sure you see
where I am coming from, i'm not just
saying it to try and support my opinion, I
have a reasoning for it. And even if it
is a human being, then we don't have to
ban all abortions, because yes there are
reasons to kill other human beings, but
don't be afraid to call it what it is in
fear it will contradict your views, it
shouldn't.
We are born with the cord still attached
to the mother, if that has anything to do
with anything. A human being after birth
is only alive because it lives off the
atmosphere and the natural resources of
"mother" earth. Can a born baby "live on
its own" and when is a human being after
birth ever "fully developed" ?? So does
that living organism only become human in
your eyes when it is "born" ? And that
somehow allows it to survive on it's
own?
And how come if a person already born
cannot survive on it's own, it isn't legal
to kill them without justification under
law?
I think it somewhat immature to be against
words that have good purpose. Of course
it is mature to be against the improper
use of words. I was just trying to make a
point, I felt it silly to say we should
remove the word from the
dictionary/language, if we were to take
her comments seriously, but again, just my
opinion. And if it's ok for her to voice
her's than it's ok for me to voice mine,
and sorry if it lacked respect, that's not
what I inteded, but much satire lacks
"respect."
when I say regulation, a standard guidline
of counseling/education (very brief given
the circumstance of course) required
before an abortion would satisfy my
request. Meaning, a women should be told
all her options for the abortion, and all
her options on carrying the baby to term.
How she could put them up for adoption,
aid/assistance she could get from the
state or social support groups/charities
of some kind. And even if the woman ends
up choosing abortion, than hopefully this
would prevent her from ever feeling
guilty, because even tho some women don't,
some women do. And I don't want that,
because does it really do any good?
But I don't get this, why can a girl under
18 get an abortion without parental
consent, but she cannot legally get her
ears pierced without parental consent? A
minor cannot even receive certain
emergency care without parental consent!
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-28-04 02:13am
You are wrong. It is legal to "kill" a
human being that cannot survive on its
own. Thus, taking someone off of life
support. Happens all of the time.
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Posted: 08-01-04 17:49pm
Born babies cannot continue to survive on
their own without others care. Thank
you. It is not legal to kill them. You
are wrong too.
Taking people off of life support is
justified when they have lost most or all
of their brain function or other vital
organ function. That is what causes them
to die. They are not being killed
directly, their death is a result of not
being able to function/live without
extraordinary means.
Abortion kills directly, no quotations
needed.
You say I am wrong, but did not respond to
any of my other points.
Pre-born humans have potential, human
'vegetables' do not.
however none of that is actually relevant
to the topic here which is fast becoming a
debate 
rather than a discussion relevant to this
forum so I suspect a moderator may move it
from here if it continues. 
