-
Is abortion wrong? Can it be definitely right or wrong? Pro-abortionist: is there anytime when it could be considered wrong? Anti-abortionist: is there any situatin where you would think is was appropriate?
What are you thoughts on this very controversial topic? -
Pro-abortionist: is there anytime when it could be considered wrong?
Of course it can be considered wrong; if a mother wants an abortion because, perhaps, the baby will be deformed. At the end of the day, there is one less life in the human race.
More importantly though, a mother should be able to have one in the case of rape, incest, and other undoubtedly, unmistakably, ungodly atrocities. This is of course, not controversial, as Strom Thurmond contended, but it is a start.
In terms of politics, the entire debate (if it can be called that) is nothing but Atwater-Rovean scare tactics. I personally can't get very serious about a debate on murdering babies while men, women and children are being murdered in Sudan or Lebanon.
I would very much appreciate it if someone were to tell me if there were any faith-based charities that gave low-income women, who under their support would put up her child for adoption, gave women a real choice in the matter of whether she will lose any chance of a normal life afterward. It would restore my faith in the Christian right, in America, if there were such organizations that convince these women's families to accept her despite her faults; if there were such organizations that made a real economic alternative to an abortion, rather than what exists at present.
David Brooks has written that the issue is nothing more than a litmus to the forces in democratic America to polarize the populace, and, as I see it, discourage compromise and therewith democracy itself. -
-
What wisdom. I see the error of our hypocritical ways.
-
-
As much as I disagree with you on the rights to have an abortion, you have a valled point as to the seeming justification of other murderus acts such as war, Im not sure how to adress this except to say that I find myself in quite a quandry,given that under no cirumstance do I think abortion is right, and at the same time realise that,under certain circumstance war is both inevitible and justfied. I think perhaps the answer lies in the fact that, just as there are bullies, in the schoolyard, that make life miserable for everyone else to there own benifit, so are there in the countries and governments, and they should not be alowed to operate in that manner....stoped at any cost. Idealy people should live in peace, but that peace cannot be dictated, I think the best we can do ,is to conclude that war can be a nessesity, and the best we can hope to achieve is to be morraly on the right side. As long as that is different to different people, war will exist, I do not think this makes murder morral, I do think it makes it enevitible, At least when dealing with adults , theyt have some chance of having earned the price they must pay, with the unborn child, it is the mother who decides if this child has so wronged her, that she needs to make war with it.
-
Point is tho Dwn the child hasn't a choice, the mother made that choice and she should face up to it instead of passing the buck.
-
Thats pretty much what I said, I was adressing it in a maner which was in responce to auxiliars' statemnt more on the poll then on this post.
-
-
My invocation, lasting under a dozen words, was not about war at large, but at the Christians in Lebanon and the Christians in the Sudan who are being suppressed by circumstance and by force. A true Christian nation would be outraged, and faith based groups everywhere would be preaching, protesting and praying everyday that Darfur find peace.
Also, who says that the mother is passing the buck? Nobody wants abortion, on the left or the right. It is a horribly disgusting and inhuman operation, I think all of us can agree here, though some parties here would not attest to this. The point is that the choice should exist. The decision should be free to decide that one is not fit to parent a child, especially after abandonment by all those who would abandon a young woman on the grounds of her abortion, and to have a second chance to find the right environment to bring new life into the world. I hardly think that even the soulless can think on the subject without disgust or fear, but the choice must exist. And if it doesn't, there need to be groups out there to help these women through their hardship, particularly through faith and familial support.
-
-
Agreed. A choice should be available in extreme circumstances, such as pregnacy after rape. Support and education are a necessity before and after conception. For me personally I am still pro-life so feel abortion is too easily allowed.
-
Abortion is Right
Limited resources in the world, spare another child if you can't spare the rod. -
Cant kill something thats not alive yet
We all know that humans are created in the womb of a female, and born, and therefore alive.
And we also know that abortion is when the unborn baby is taken out of the womb surgecly.
The baby isnt born, most likely not even alive, yet.
You cant kill something that not even alive yet.
-
-
It IS killing and it IS alive. I didn't think there was anyone disputing that. But something being alive is not the same as a human life, and killing something is not the same as murder. Think of squashing a bug.
Pro-life arguments acknowledge that it is alive (although dependendent), just that it is not truly human yet--at least not much more than a sperm cell is human.
Saying "before it is born" is pretty subjective, and arguing that because it isn't born yet means it isn't alive is very odd. Even pro-lifers realize that baby's can live on their own when delivered early or during a c-section. Do you really think that up until seconds before a 9-month pregnancy pushes out the baby, it's a lifeless non-human?
-
-
Im generally pro-life but I do realize in certain medical and other situations having a baby would be bad. If the baby is going to kill you then thats a decision you need to make. You die, they live. They die, You live. Id die if I had to make that decision anyway. Not the point. I believe some people use abortion as birth control.A "I had sex, got pregnant so now Im screwed" kinda thing.
-
I completely agree with that. In fact Ive said it a billion times but theres circumstances that need to be thought of.
-
-
And your thoughts are? No abortion anyway? I wouldnt get an abortion if I was raped but someone else might like to. The killing me thing would have to be a big thought process. Why if the girl is really young? She still had sex.
-
-
How exactly do you know what they are seeking? Need I remind you that many girls would get married at very young ages and have children and be fine. I understand the rape thing, I just cant imagine doing that to a child.
-
-
One on young girls having sex? because its still kinda related to the topic at hand.
-
-
Consider it done.
-
-
-
-
-
..............
You all continue to argue this issue with the notion of the child not having a choice. A feotus is not a child, it is a collection of cells, it is no more a human thaqn an acorn is an oak tree.
Abortion is legal, moral, and infinatly more convenient than carrying an unwanted child to term.
The anti abortion movement is simply a cleverly disguised effort to convert every one into following christian dogma and no more. -
-
I for one am not a christian and my belief on this has nothing to do with faith whatsoever. A collection of cells has the potential to be a human, a child, a bug, an oak tree. Kill the potential kill the child. Its not right and they could carry the child and put it up for adoption. They should think about the pregnancy parking spots or something. Though pregnancy sucks Im sure people can find an upside. Some just dont wanna do it so they kill it. I dont wanna do alot of things and I cant kill them.
-
Absolute crap I was against abortion before recognising my faith.
What excuse have you now for the disgust i feel towards murdered young. Responsibility is easy for some to hide from. On their heads it rests.
-
-
By wearing a condom you also kill the potential
-
-
Millions
of "potentials" don't make it in their venture to fertilise the egg. It is no more a tragedy than dying within a condom. -
-
Exactly, good point
-
-
Killing the potential that way is a preventative measure. They didnt want to get pregnant or were aware that they could so they were attempting to prevent it. Killing an already fertilized egg is different.
-
-
You're missing the point. The sperm and the egg are less than a cm a part. Practically paper-thin rubber is the space between them. Even if there was no condom and sperm just MISSED or TOUCHED the egg but didn't go in. It has potential. But then a bit of a shift in gravity or pump in blood flow changed the movement of her insides things didn't work out. That microscopic distance is the difference between casual loss of everyday potential and MURDERING A BABY?
The EXACT MOMENT the sperm wiggles its way in the egg is the same they're a human? Even though it looks identical to before only now one's inside? What if you get it AS it's wiggling in, but it's not there yet? Just barely pushing on in? Is that "good potential" or "bad potential"? "Preventative" or "murder"? What if as it's working its way in some spermicide splashes on it and it dies? Was that a miscarriage, murder, manslaughter, or nothing? -
-
Honestly I didnt quite grasp half of that. If the egg didnt get fertilized for whatever reason it was natural. There was a natural reason to it. Killing it would not be natural. Taking nature into ones hands never turns out good.
-
-
But hands
are also nature. -
-
I didnt mean that literally. Abortion is far from natural. How can there be something natural about taking a pill to cause a miscarriage, cutting up the baby, sucking the baby out, and disposing it? Nothing is natural about abortion.
-
-
Nothing is natural about condoms either. Or pasteurization. When did we decide natural is good and unnatural is bad?
The abortion you're describing is far along in the pregnancy. The abortion I think that should be allowed are the earlier forms, where the sperm has just entered the egg and resembles a sperm and egg and then a mix of very simple cells that are not human yet. -
-
Ok, I gotta give you that one but at least then they are aware of the consequences. You drink unpasteurized milk...you might get sick. Dont use a condom you might get knocked up. Why dont you think its human? Maybe a better question is how do we define something as being human or inhuman.
-
-
Eggsactly
Yes, please define human. -
At what moment does a child become an adolescent? An adolescent an adult? Day become night? A fun, blissful, seemingly sincere romance become "in love"?
There are distinct differences between these things. You could easily contrast the two, and sometimes the simplest way to define them is to do just that. Yet it is mostly impossible to pinpoint the exact moment where they morph. But you are still safe in saying "It's nighttime." or "You've reached adolescence." -
-
It being nighttime is usually fairly obvious and all the child/adolescence changes Ive seen, and Ive seen many, are fairly easy as well but thats because Im around kids all the time. Was that a round about way of saying you cant define human? It seems to me that you kind of agreed by saying that you cannot pinpoint that transition exactly which could be at any point. Even when the sperm first says hi to the egg.
-
-
HHmm I thought that too
-
If it's so simple, tell me the exact moment it becomes night and the exact moment a child becomes an adolescent and an adolescent becomes an adult. Yes, it is "fairly obvious" to tell the difference between night and day and so on, AS I STATED, but you can't say when. Someone in another country doesn't ask you "Is it still daytime over there?" and you go "Yeah. WAIT! Sorry, it just turned into night." You don't see it happen, yet there is a "fairly obvious" (and fairly condescending for someone who didn't read what I clearly wrote) difference.
-
-
I think if you ask a weatherman you have the night time thing covered and as for adolescents Im gonna give you the answer I think your looking for by saying it depends on the kid. I remember my change. I feel like Ive been introduced to adult like situations thus making me adult before maybe I was ready but thats beside the point. It depends on the kid and their situation. Ive seen people have to grow up and I can pinpoint those exact moments.
-
-
Wow you replied fast. I hit send by accident and edited in the rest of my response.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The feotus has chosen it's parents,
so therefore an aborted one chose the scenario of being aborted by choosing the mathematical combination of the two personalities involved. -
-
What!!!???
ha ha grant I know we've been here before but would you enlighten me please. Is this to do with random choice by swimming sperm mate lol
If so is the sperm aware of it future brief existance? I think not -
-
A sperm isn't a human.
-
-
Ok not sure why we needed that clearing up but I'll go with you.
So you say the foetus chooses, at which stage of development does the foetus choose and if its already forming inside the mother how did it choose. Are you admiting to a spiritual connection. That maybe the spirit enters a foetus at some point during pregnancy. If so when you reckon?
If we choose our parents (and I have been open to this idea in the past) then part of us knows what will happen in our lives. Finding out why we are here would then be inside our very self the answer already known. An alluring idea although slightly off putting. If we knew why we are here what would we truly need to learn. If we do not choose but are placed by anothers hand our lives are a journey, an excerise in learning and spiritual growth. Given life by a parent who nutures and guides us throughout our lives. Not simply work and eat and sleep but to ponder lives worth and how to improve our connections as mere humans. If all this could be so why would you choose to be aborted?
-
-
Good point (".") apple,
A sperm IS conciousness. A human, as defined by the brain, is a seperate entity from consciousness. -
We don't know why we are here only because we can't remember. If we could we would be enlightened. I am not suggesting that the feotus chooses it's parents directly, but through experience of a previous existance of which it will likely REPEAT unless it learns to remember. If one looks at the NO-THING experience of between lifetimes (death) then to be able to REMEMBER this nothing may well be the experience of enlightenment. If one truly remembers, for instance, a happy experience then in the remembering you are actually experiencing such an experience NOW. Another example; when you remember how it felt at the news of a friends death then you actually feel, therefore experience now, that sadness again. If we come from the light and then re-enter the light then, in reality, we are light. If we can REMEMBER the experience of this light (during this lifetime) then we must become AWARE that we and all are LIGHT (en-LIGHT-enment). It is ALL about remembering.
-
-
-
-
-
"If one truly remembers, for instance, a happy experience then in the remembering you are actually experiencing such an experience NOW. "
Can you call memory experience, yes we may feel certain physical emotional responses but these are not the actual experience in real time, just recollections of past.
"If we come from the light and then re-enter the light then, in reality, we are light."
ok we could come from light and re-enter light, not clear as to why we would BE light. hhhmmm is it like this ..if we come from sadness and we re-enter sadness we are sadness? If so i agree the emotion is described the same way but the experience will most likely be completely different depending on the causes of sadness or even the time between actual event and remembering. -
No,
memory itself is not experience, but the FEELING one experiences when one remembers is. "Real time"? The only REAL time is now. And whatever one feels NOW is the only reality whether from a recollection or otherwise. In reality WE ARE LIGHT (our TRUE selves). In regards to sadness it is an emotion and ,therefore, a deluded self. We don't "come from" and "re-enter" a non-reality that is an emotion. Emotions are things. What we come from and re-enter is NO-THING. There is no "difference" ("different depending on the causes blah, blah") in LIGHT , because difference implies relativenesss which cannot be real. Relativity is only in the world of things (e.g,good is only good when related to bad, without relativity there is no good and bad). The THINGS that are our emotional reactivity to experiences. There is EXPERIENCE (real) and then there is each of our relative responses to EXPERIENCE (un-real), because in defining "each" implies we are SEPERATE. In reality we are not seperate. In LIGHT we are one. One enlightened being for which, one day, we will be AWARE of.
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
Forums /
Controversial /
| |
|
|
ForumsSign up for FREEA free allpoetry.com account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free! 
Already a member?Advertising Supported |
|
Logout
Help
Terms of Use
Contact Us
Content Complaint
Our other sites: Poetry, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Stories, Quotations. © Social Design | |
Adding your reply:
Energizer Bunny
Dec 2 1:02 PM 2006
Reply