Abortion is evil? WHY?

So you can't tell me why life is precious?

 

One only has to read the comments in this forum where a number of pro-lifers have stated that women who get abortions are "sluts" or "trash" and that it is not their problem once it is born to see the fact of the matter.

Nice misrepresentation, care to quote where I mention Bush or any other administration for that fact.

 

And the hypocrisy just keeps on flowing, no doubt because you really care.

 

How many Oprahs are there for how many thousands that that end up being show, drug addicts or felons?

 

I said that "It may be the greater evil to
let a child be born into extreme poverty or drug/alcohol/sexual abuse."
Simply making a comparison. Not a judgement call.
It is the "Right to Life" people that have decided they know what's best for all.
They claim to have concern for a fetus.
But only if that fetus lives up to certain of their requirements.

If the fetus is gay, then it must be genetically modified before birth.
If genetically prone to addiction, that too must be fixed.
For some of the "Righties" color or nationality may still be an issue.

You claim that fetuses are "people".
And it is quite obvious what you "Righties" think of "People".
If a person is poor, unemployed, it's their own fault.
If a person gets sick has no insurance, it's their problem.
If they are working three part time jobs, and their kids get in trouble
they are irresponsible "People".
If their is "evil" in this world, you will surely find it in your mirror.

 

Is it evil, yes it is, yes it is man.

 

Simple response for a species to survive you can kill off the future replacements of the species, that is why animals of all kinds in nature are generally wired not to eat each other and there is an instinct to protect the unborn and young in some way. Its the loss of a resource its the same reason wasting edible food is evil or murder is evil.

Now its necessary to save the mothers life and I would work on research to get a viable artificial womb so any child and any state of gestation could be grown apart from the mother or in lieu of using a mother. Then you can largely eliminate abortion.

 

I'm assuming you mean can't, the fact remains that the number of births is still enough to continue the race, this year to date (UK time 18.43) over 105 million births worldwide - http://www.worldometers.info/

Abortions worldwide - to date (uk time 18:43) just over 30 million - http://www.numberofabortions.com/

I'd agree that in general most animals protect their born young, the same cannot be said for the unborn, and even in some cases the born are not protected they are killed and eaten by the mother .. perhaps that would be a better option then, after all we are animals.

A far quicker way to a least reduce abortions is to use what we already have to reduce unintended pregnancy and therefore abortions, which is why I find strange that some pro-lifers stand against comprehensive sex education and contraception. So far these are the ONLY methods proven to reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions

 

What a delightfully intelligently reasoned statement.

 

You should try to watch Animal Planet a bit more and by the way, human population is not decreasing in the least. It there is a problem it will be overpopulation.

 

I have a way to resolve this issue of abortion once and for all. This will make pro choicers turn pro-lifers too.

Anyone who reads this post please respond to the following poll question with yes or no answer.

Since we can't get an opinion poll of fetuses in the womb we'll get the next best thing, people who are reading this post who used to be fetuses.

Poll question:

All those who wish to be aborted say YES.

All opposed say NO.

 

Now we're getting somewhere!!

The ability to respond to your poll requires that the fetus
has the capacity to decide what is in his/her best interest.
If the fetus in fact has that ability to choose,
then why do you pro-lifers want to take away
their God given rights.

 

Your question is irrelevant to my post however if you wanna play....Would you get a gun, put it to your head and pull the trigger? Most folks would not and I bet you wouldn't either. Why? Because your life is PRECIOUS to you. If your life is PRECIOUS to you then you are a psychopath IF you believe the lives of OTHERS are not PRECIOUS to them.

 

I don't know but I believe everyone has the potential. Apparently you somehow know a soon-to-be human being's potential while they are in the womb.

 

You misread the intent of the poll. Try again.

 

I am pro-life based on science and a little morality. Many abortions are a medical procedure with a result similar to non-random mating. Incest is non-random mating. What humans have done to wolves in our domestication of them, which has led to many breeds that would not survive without human intervention, is non-random mating. Choosing which genes you want and which ones you don't, based on scientific detection of "abnormalities" is non-random mating. I'm not sure we know enough to be certain as to which "deformities" we should be attempting to abort in regard to some unseen natural use for those deformities thousands of years down the road. Because of this, I conclude abortion based on a cognitive decision that uses current science to determine some feature that is considered "unwanted" in the fetus, may not be beneficial in the long run to the survival of the human race. In addition, I have suspicions that in areas where the procedure is easiest to obtain, there are negative social effects, most likely resulting from the option of abortion affecting sexual behavior and choices, and the family structure of these communities.

The morality comes into play in that I have concluded that the abortion procedure cannot be made available to all humans on the planet. I fear that we could be negatively affecting our evolution in a similar way that we did with wolves, if we allowed individual choice to determine which genes we wanted. Everyone can't do it, that's why it's morally wrong for one to do it themselves. It has nothing to do with religion, as I don't even have one. And nothing to do with fetuses' rights. The procedure should be used only when necessary, as in cases of rape, incest, or life and/or health of the mother. But if the procedure is promoted as an option for everyone, then you will have the negative social effects you see today on the family structures of areas where abortion is easiest to obtain, and actually promoted. And if the procedure is allowed as some sort of selection device to be used by all individuals on the planet, then I think we may be in trouble.

 

So I can drive to my local hospital and unplug all the life support machines on anyone in a coma? According to your standards on when it is right to kill, as long as there can be no desire to be alive detected, then it is ok to kill. I disagree, you might want to elaborate a little more than "desire to be alive".

 

First of all, I am polling people who used to be fetuses to include you. Secondly, I really have no idea what you mean by "pro-lifers want to take away their God given rights", when it is we that want to protect their right to life. Your argument makes no sense.

Lastly, you failed to answer the poll question yes or no. Which is it?

 

You know I don't think any of them are going to answer yes so they must all be pro-life. Like my sig says:

 

Ahhh, the "standard of cognitive function" is the basis of your position. You believe that a "fetus" is unable to think, and is therefore unworthy of life. First of all, you have NO CLUE whether that unborn child can think or not. We ARE certain, however, that even much younger unborn can feel pain! Many would argue that dogs and cats are incapable of cognitive function. Ok if I torture your dog or cat to death? Others would argue that many of our mentally ill are incapable of cognitive thought. Perhaps we should suck out their incapable brains with an electric vacuum? If we follow your theory of allowing "cognitive function" to be the basis for "worthiness to life", I assume it would be YOU who would decide who does and who doesn't have "Cognitive function"? If not, you should perhaps worry that someone would find YOU incapable of cognitive function! Your argument may not be evil, but it's certainly unethical.... and VERY dangerous!

 

Uh yes, we do have a clue. There is absolutely no Scientific evidence that a fetus has any cognitive brain waves while developing in utero.

 

Urm, we do actually, I'd suggest actually doing some research before making such an inane comment.

Like how much "younger", we know that a fetus cannot feel pain before a minimum of 21 weeks, unless you can provide something scientific to dispute that (& please not the same debunked theory by Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sunny" Anand who doesn't even have an qualifications in the subject matter)

You certainly can't torture them after they are born, however while still in the womb is there any law to stop you having them aborted?

Problem with this inane comparison is that those people in comas did have cognitive function prior to the coma, a fetus does not prior to 24 weeks.

 

Thank you for reply. But my argument makes as much sense as yours.

I said that..."The ability to respond to your poll requires that the fetus
has the capacity to decide what is in his/her best interest.
If the fetus in fact has that ability to choose,
then why do you pro-lifers want to take away
their God given rights."

If you Pro-Lifers insist that a fetus has a God given right to be born
then that same fetus has a God given right to choose not to be born.
Who are you to decide what is best for that fetus?
Unless you are the parent or God himself, you don't have that right.

What's the real issue with you anti-abortion people?
You could care less about those same children after they're born.
So what's your real motive for pointing fingers?
Makes you feel morally superior maybe?
Didn't your Jesus say "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone"

In answer to your question, I would gladly have chosen not to be born.
Why would any logical being choose to be born in such a ridiculous society as this one?

 

Essentially yes.

Yes, we do. At the very least you must admit, you can't think without a brain.

Correct, but that does not indicate higher mental capacity.

Who is this many?

If we needed the resources sure, or the carers of that person felt it no longer worth any benefit to them to keep the individual alive

No it would be the general consensus f the community based on scientific knowledge and factual evidence, which we have plenty if.

I don't see how.

How is t unethical and please explain the danger I see no evidence for either assertion.

 

Well no because thy had a preexisting interest and desire to be alive and may recover from the coma.

Essentially yes, with a few practical exceptions and limitations as notes above.

Well I guess I'm summarizing a number of cognitive functions such as an ability to feel pain, recognize oneself as a distinct and separate entity, have a sense if past present and future etc. A lot of animals possess these qualities, where a fetus does not. It can feel pain so it does have an 'interest' if it can be called, in not feeling pain, but that's why I advocate the use drugs to prevent pain during abortion for the fetus.