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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

We can only hope!!

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

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!

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

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).

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.