Young Writers Society

Home » Forums » Community » Serious Discussion and Debate

Abortions

Post a reply

Abortion

For It
52
26%
Against It
89
44%
It Depends
60
30%
 
Total votes : 201


User avatar
56 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 1650
Reviews: 56
Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:05 am
View Likes
Napier says...



I'd probably never do it myself, mainly because I'm not the sort of person to put myself in a position like that.
But I think it's ultimately the couples choice, and if they decide to have an abortion, then it's fine.
“It is the tale, not he who tells it.”
― Stephen King

“If you don't have time to read, you don't have the time (or the tools) to write. Simple as that.”
― Stephen King

Formerly BadlyDrawnLightning




User avatar
54 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 2389
Reviews: 54
Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:13 am
View Likes
apple96 says...



For me whether abortion is right or not always depends on the situation. For example if doctors can tell that the baby would have a serious medical condition which means that its life would be shortened to 20-30 years at the most I think that abortion would be acceptable. Or if the mother could potentioally be harmed from carrying the baby.

In almost all other situations I would say that abortion is wrong. I would say that adoption is a much better idea as many couples are unable to have children and infertility treatments can be too expensive for some people.

- apple96
'Are you saying Ni to that old woman?'
'Yes'
'Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history'




User avatar
95 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 5190
Reviews: 95
Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:06 am
View Likes
noninjaspresent says...



I don't know if this has already been said because I'm too lazy to read through all 42 pages, but I think the options should be different because only really messed up people would be for abortion (in the terms of the first option being perceived as 'I'm for abortion, everyone go kill their unborn children!') Really, the main debate is between pro-choice and pro-life, not pro-abortion and pro-life. The side of people who aren't against abortion (excluding really messed up people) are for having the choice there. Those people want the option there - safe and legal.
Also, I don't know if it has been mentioned, but foster care and adoption aren't always that viable of an option for the child's sake. There are more kids waiting to be adopted and waiting for foster care than most people know. And then again, not all foster homes and adoptive parents are good to their adoptive/foster children even with all the steps put in place to prevent that sort of thing.
Noni does Napo
NaPoWriMo 2014
"Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts." - Arnold Bennet

AnnieJaePayne
The Three Ninjateers
Being awesome since Jan 2012.




User avatar
135 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 1607
Reviews: 135
Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:27 am
stargazer9927 says...



I am very passionate about a subject like this, so forgive me.

I don't care what scientists say. A baby is a living thing the moment it's concieved and to say it can be aborted within the first six weeks is just horrible, because it's a living thing. It has a heartbeat and even finger nails!

Not all of us were perfectly planned and had a destiny since the day we were born, but that doesn't make us any less important than someone who was planned and we all have something to accomplish. I say this because I wasn't conceieved in the best of circumstances but I wasn't aborted and I fully believe there's something here for me to accomplish, along with every other baby that is conceived.

Here's the thing about "the woman's rights." Yes, it is a right to abort a child, but whose rights exactly? It just doesn't seem fair to me a woman is told she has the right to abort her baby but the baby doesn't have any rights at all, because apparently it's not a living thing yet. When you abort a baby there's two people's rights to think about, not just the womens. So how is it just her rights?

Rape is horrible, and I would never want to go through it, and in all honesty I wouldn't shun a women for aborting a baby if she were raped, but I would think very highly of her if she kept it and I would know she was a good women. I know I wouldn't abort my baby if I were raped. I wouldn't have to keep it though. And I don't feel any sympathy for someone who doesn't have the money or accidently got pregnant. The baby should come first before anything.
Let's eat mom.
Let's eat, mom.
Good grammar saves lives :D




User avatar
95 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 5190
Reviews: 95
Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:41 am
noninjaspresent says...



Just to let you know, this line pretty much invalidates your argument
I don't care what scientists say.
In the terms of the baby's possible future, what about the mothers? What if the mother dies in childbirth while the baby survives? What if the mother was a scientist only days away from curing cancer and no-one else has access to her work but the baby because of her will, but the baby doesn't care about cancer and destroys the work in a drunk/high rage after murdering someone and stealing a car before s/he gets caught? Also, you can't say you won't abort the baby because something like rape can change someone's opinion of things drastically.
Noni does Napo
NaPoWriMo 2014
"Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts." - Arnold Bennet

AnnieJaePayne
The Three Ninjateers
Being awesome since Jan 2012.




User avatar
1072 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 77025
Reviews: 1072
Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:29 pm
View Likes
Kyllorac says...



What if the mother was a scientist only days away from curing cancer and no-one else has access to her work but the baby because of her will, but the baby doesn't care about cancer and destroys the work in a drunk/high rage after murdering someone and stealing a car before s/he gets caught?

That scenario right there, specifically the bolded part, is so implausible in this day and age, it's practically impossible. Research requires funding, materials, equipment, and a place to conduct the experiments at/in, and in order to receive such, you need to document every stage, process, and result of the experiment and share that documentation with who-/whatever funded the experiment and supplied the materials/equipment/facility.

Unless the mother managed to fund, supply, equip, and secure the proper facilities for herself entirely on her own, which is very unlikely considering the restrictions on various materials required for such research and how prohibitively expensive even outdated pieces of equipment are, and how most facilities are custom-built to accommodate experimentation, then that scenario just won't happen.

There's also the matter of how following the logic above leads to the conclusion that all unborn children should be aborted because they have the potential to be extremely destructive.

I don't care what scientists say. A baby is a living thing the moment it's concieved and to say it can be aborted within the first six weeks is just horrible, because it's a living thing.

No truly objective biologist would or could claim that a zygote is not alive or genetically human. Whether a zygote qualifies as "human" and deserves all the rights attributed to already born humans is an ethical/moral question and is the main point of debate behind abortion; not whether or not a zygote is alive.

Science cannot answer ethical or moral questions; all it can do is provide objective facts that we then base ethics and morals upon.

And I use zygote in place of other stages of development because the zygote is the absolute earliest stage at which the developing child can be considered a unique and separate organism.
Screwing with gender since 1995.


There are no chickens in Hyrule.




User avatar
3676 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 32
Reviews: 3676
Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:20 am
View Likes
Snoink says...



It's biologically alive, yes. I think most scientists would agree with that. I think the question comes with when does it officially have humanity. And I don't think any scientist can really answer that question. You cannot scientifically determine whether something has humanity or not.

And, maybe it's just me, but I don't really feel comfortable about forming beliefs based on outrageous suppositions. Those suppositions may become true, of course. You can argue that you should save children because they might become geniuses and help save humanity. But you can also argue that you should kill children because they might become mass-murderers and oppress humanity. Both are possible, both have happened in real cases. But, the likelihood is that those instances will probably not happen.

What probably will happen is that this human in the womb will grow up, become an adult, contribute a typical amount to society, help some people, hurt some people. Then this person will die, leaving behind a mediocre contribution to society and will be forgotten in a couple of generations. That's more typical, no? I know that's the path I am taking now, lol.

I think the most realistic way of looking at this debate, actually, is looking at yourself. If you had not been born at all, would that have been any problem? Would society have missed you? Is there anything to you that is essential for humanity? Do you serve a purpose beyond just living? Because, more than likely, you're a pretty typical specimen of humanity. You're probably not a genius and you're hopefully not a mass-murderer. So, looking at yourself and what you've accomplished in life would be the best means to show whether the fetus, if allowed to continue living, would live a good life.

If you do not serve any purpose to humanity at all for existing, then the baby cannot possibly hope to serve any purpose to humanity for existing, and I think abortion can be easily justified. After all, if you live and there is no point to living, why not? It's not like the fetus would actually know what it's missing or regret not being able to fall in love or laugh at a stupid joke or eat ants, just for the hell of it.

If, on the other hand, you think that you are important in some way, I think you have to look harder at the issue. There are two questions here that are very critical in determining whether abortion is right or wrong. First off would be, how can one define humanity? The next one is how much should one human suffer from another human.

The first one is interesting because it deals with what makes a person. I know that, in Ancient Rome, a person wasn't considered to be fully human until about six years old. Children that were six and younger were killed by their parents with little consequence. In any case, it was never like the infanticide trials that were seen in medieval times. This is because they weren't really considered to be people until they were able to develop reason of some sort. This happens when you're about six.

Obviously, not everybody wanted to kill their children or infants. Not everybody wants to have an abortion, for instance. In fact, even on this thread, you'll see people who will say, "Oh, I'll never have an abortion, but I support the women who would choose to have an abortion." Same thing there, except it was for children. Nowadays, if a three-year-old were killed by his mom, there would be an outcry. But, back then, it was seen as something which could be justifiable, if you had the right circumstances. So, if you have limits on when humans can be counted as people, you should realize that these limits can and do change throughout history. So, you should really think about the limit that our society has imposed. (I think it's about three months when people start to get nervous and, in the United States, you can abort until the sixth month of term. I've put pictures of the fetuses in the spoiler, if you're curious!)

Spoiler! :
Three months:

Image

Six months:

Image


The second question is also interesting because it's the dilemma that is really commonly cited here... the hardship of the mother (for lack of a better word). Basically, how much suffering should one take before it is allowable to destroy what is, essentially, another human who is causing the suffering? This is the same question that is asked when deciding whether it is reasonable to go into war (though, in this case, it is a question of a group of humans vs. another group of humans, clearly) and the same question that is asked to determine whether a criminal should be convicted with the death penalty. This is also the question that faces the parents (for lack of a better word) when they try to decide whether to abort or not to abort.

Consider that some people in this debate have said that they are against abortions except in circumstances of rape victims. In this case, they would see this issue, not as a "What is human?" light, because obviously they see both the fetus and the mother with equal weight since they would be against any other abortion. But, rather, it's because they see the mother as suffering far more beyond what she can be expected to bear by another human... in this case the fetus. Also, similar to this, there are many people who would say that abortions shouldn't be allowed except when they pose a threat to the mother birthing the child so that the mother may die. In this case, the fetus is seen as something which would cause far greater suffering than should be allowed.

Anyway, this doesn't really seem to be flip-flopping as much as it seems to be addressing another question entirely... how much is one allowed to suffer? So, people who might be for abortions can be disgusted that the parents aborted a child because the child was a girl when they wanted a boy for their first child. This is seen as a shame because this seems to be an abuse of the choice. Whereas, the same people might be fine that a couple would abort a fetus because they couldn't afford the child. After all, the child existing would cause for more suffering than what would be considered to be good... if you consider that being poor is unallowable suffering. Other people would disagree, I am sure. It would be interesting to see whether someone from an impoverished family would rather be dead than live.

ANYWAY. If I may... can I redirect your discussion?

Fetuses, zygotes, babies, children... they're all biologically human. So, when I say "human" I mean in the strict biological sense. Let's be scientifically oriented here, eh?

When does a human gain humanity? Or, if you'd like, when does a human become a person? Exact timelines would be helpful here. :)

How much should one be allowed to suffer from another human so that the destruction of that human is considered to be preferable? Basically, how much should the parent/s suffer from the fetus before aborting the fetus?
Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est.

"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly." ~ Richard Bach

Moth and Myth <- My comic! :D




User avatar
56 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 11665
Reviews: 56
Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:43 am
View Likes
Attolia says...



I've completely changed my opinions regarding abortion over the course of the last year or so. Within the context that I'm still for them. I used to think they're morally wrong and all that jazz and that I wouldn't ever personally get one but that for free society's sake they should be legal. That's changed. If I got pregnant today, I'd get an abortion. I don't care if it's selfish, I don't believe it's Government's decision. (satirical capitalization of government)

I was talking with my friends about it, though, and my friend brought up a good point that whatever our views are on it now, it would be a completely different situation if we were ever faced with the actual decision. You'd never really know until you're there. Which I doubt any of us have been, so while it's fine to have opinions, it's not really our place to judge. I believe I'd get an abortion and not have too wrenching qualms about it, but hey, maybe if I did get pregnant I'd change my mind and birth the future kid.

And sorry to pull this annoying card, but males, this subject is way different for you. You guys can never really know what it'd be like to make that choice. As much as you can theoretically close your eyes and "place" yourself in their position, no. You're too far removed from ever being there. I can vouch for that from experience because my like, feelings on this subject for me personally changes a lot in correlation to my chances of becoming pregnant. I used to believe I'd never get an abortion, no matter what. But the more real that chance becomes, I'll find myself thinking, "well, yeah... I'd probably get an abortion." I have plans for myself and seeing my friends have kids, I'd neverrr submit myself to that responsibility. I'd effing die if I had to be that responsible for a human life and like, cut my freedom like they have. (Four of my friends have had kids since high school. FOUR. We're only nineteen. And here's where you all say "that's why there's adoption!" Well, I dunno, it doesn't seem like that'd happen.) I'm young and enjoy being irresponsible and having no commitments. This is my time to make stupid decisions and live life. And I did use to be super idealistic and like, "I'd never get an abortion. That's so wrong. That's for bad people." Well, here's to growing up, living life, and changing your opinions.

*here I direct you to my posts on the old abortions thread if you wish to discuss principle/legality of why government should allow them (which I have uber strong principles on which haven't changed), not all these fun fun feelings and opinions

And Snoink, sorry not to fully reply to your post, but for me, I don't care the reasons people have for abortion (aka if fiscal reasons are better than if they're aborting it bc it's a girl); I don't believe it's my place to get into which reasons are right or wrong. And as to humanity, that's too difficult a question to really get into. A few days after I have sex, whatever the thing is then (just a few cells?), no, I don't believe that's a human or that it's wrong to prevent that from developing. If the thing is fully developed, yeah, it might be wrong to get rid of that. But I support abortions because at the end of the day, as you also insinuate, the humanity question is one that never really be answered and that everyone is going to have different opinions on. (Unlike other moral issues like rape and murder, which can be agreed upon.) So I don't believe it's Big Government's place to decide that question for us. I believe we should all be allowed to decide it on our own. If you believe humanity begins right away, then you can birth the thing. If you don't, you don't have to. But here is where differing opinions of government can lead to different, equally respectable opinions. If you believe in a fatherly, big brother type government that takes care of its own and decides morals for its people, then I could see why you believe in outlawing abortion. That's just not my cup of tea. But nor do I believe it is the type of government for the United States; I believe more in a small government that enables self-reliance and free choice.
Last edited by Attolia on Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
well you'll work harder
with a gun in your back!
for a bowl of rice a day




User avatar
3676 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 32
Reviews: 3676
Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:12 am
Snoink says...



I'm young and enjoy being irresponsible and having no commitments. This is my time to make stupid decisions and live life.


This idea really fascinated me! Why is it your time to make stupid decisions? And why must living life mean that you have to make stupid decisions? When you grow older and have to make smart decisions, does this mean that you will cease living life?

Just curious!
Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est.

"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly." ~ Richard Bach

Moth and Myth <- My comic! :D




User avatar
56 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 11665
Reviews: 56
Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:21 am
View Likes
Attolia says...



This idea really fascinated me! Why is it your time to make stupid decisions? And why must living life mean that you have to make stupid decisions? When you grow older and have to make smart decisions, does this mean that you will cease living life?

Just curious!


(Just edited my post to reply to your post before I saw this, by the way :). )

Okay, here's my thinking. It's my time to make stupid decisions because in a couple of years I will be on the career, relationship, children track. Once in that life, I couldn't fly to South America on a whim and work on organic farms to afford living there for an unspecified about of time. These few youthful years of my life I have no real responsibility to anyone but myself, and I plan to utilize them to 1) enjoy myself 2) learn more about myself 3) learn more about the world and its workings by having experiences out of my comfort zone. I don't want to cut this time short as my friends with kids have done. They can't go fly to South America and work on organic farms anymore spur of the moment; they have people tied to them and dependent on them.
Last edited by Attolia on Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
well you'll work harder
with a gun in your back!
for a bowl of rice a day




User avatar
187 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 110
Reviews: 187
Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:38 am
View Likes
ChocoCookie says...



Hi there! Cookie here. ;)
Okay, so I'm a girl too and I guess girls know most of these things than guys but it's not like they don't know anything :)

By the way, under 8 kids don't get pregnant. Most people get their periods by the time of 11 or 12. Or even 9 or 10. I got mine at 13. Anyway, let's move on...

Abortions, you ask? Well, I'm Against It because you see, when you have another life your body, you're killing it at whatever age you are. Some girls get raped and all but some crazy people who go to these clubs and get drunk and all, are ready to take in whatever happens. So, they go around hanging with boys and intend to get pregnant. THAT time you panic, but why? You put yourself into this. I mean, you're bringing in a new life to Earth. Sure enough, your parents are going to be FURIOUS and also a bit happy on the inside. I know because, what parent aren't wishing their children not to become a mother? :)

I've had lots examples like Abortions. My friend was a corrupted girl and she used to go to parks and beaches and get drunk. :S Initially one day, she fainted and wouldn't wake up. Then, we all took her to the hospital and the doctor was like "She's pregnant." Her family and everyone else, started questioning me because I was with her too, but just far away from the party we were in before she fainted. But her mother was a bit surprised, she kept on saying "My daughter's going to be a mother! :D " . Weird, I know. But then, my friend took a really bad decision. Abortion. I couldn't say anything because it was none of my business. I did try explaining but she was way too scared, so I left it.

I think killing a life is a crime. Whatever age it is. You mustn't do that. :?
That's why girls were born. To bring in life. Not kill. >.< Every girl has to understand that.

Cheers,
Cookie. <3'
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.


New to YWS? We'll help you out! <3'




User avatar
3676 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 32
Reviews: 3676
Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:35 pm
View Likes
Snoink says...



Ooooh, yeah. The swooning. It's a common sign.

Also, ChocoCookie... I don't think anybody really wants to be raped, and I don't think it's quite fair to the rape victims to say that they were asking for it. Sometimes, they can put themselves in risky positions, it's true, but sometimes they don't and they are raped anyway. We have (in my neighborhood) a hardcore pedophile who has been convicted of molesting children. He used to lure them in and do what he did there. A couple of my friends have been raped in the more conventional manner. One was raped by her father, in fact. Most were raped by people that they thought they knew and trusted... until the rape happened. One was raped by a complete stranger. None of them wanted to be raped. It just happened, and they are still struggling with the consequences, even though it's been years. It's very damaging.

I was never raped myself, but my former boss did do some rather inappropriate things (like, for example, once he led me into a soundproof room and said, "Nobody can hear you if you scream" and he also liked hugging when we were alone, and that sort of thing) and it's still hard to think about it. I didn't want it to happen, and I eventually told someone about it, but I was only sixteen at the time and I wasn't really sure whether this behavior was allowable or not. Now I know it isn't, but back then? It was my first job. And, the things that did happen still creep me out.

Now, I am not saying at all that abortion should be allowed for rape victims, mind you. If you are in favor of banning abortions for any woman who asks for it, I think that's a legitimate stance that you can take. In fact, that's the stance that I would take (ouch, the Roman Catholic side comes out, lol). But, I think it's really important to understand what that actually means, because otherwise we can overlook a whole bunch of emotionally scarred women and dehumanize them by saying that they "deserve what they got." The view that rape victims deserve what they get is dishonest. Most rape victims in the United States are raped by people that they thought they knew and trusted. This includes family and close friends. There are also those who get raped by strangers. This is especially true for those who have lived through wars or conflicts... some of the tales that are told by the refugees are absolutely hair-raising because of this. There are other women who put themselves in vulnerable situations and then are raped. But, the women don't put themselves in those vulnerable situations to get raped at all. And it's very important to understand this. They are victims for a reason and they should be treated with kindness and respect.

Anyway, Attoila... maybe the idea that those "stupid" decisions are only stupid in your sphere in life? Going to an organic farm in South American doesn't sound stupid at all. It sounds like quite an adventure! Also, why must one settle down and grow old and have children? I mean, it sounds like a good life. Both sound like good lives to me, actually. Neither of them sounds stupid.

Anyway, I am just saying this because it seems like you're trapping yourself in the conventions that you've grown up with, and I'm not sure that this is the way to go.
Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est.

"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly." ~ Richard Bach

Moth and Myth <- My comic! :D




User avatar
185 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 1096
Reviews: 185
Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:03 pm
View Likes
inkwell says...



Snoink, I admire your above efforts. In all of these debate-like threads we should try to shed prejudice and conventions. That being said, I have a challenge for you. I, not unreasonably, figure that your position has Biblical grounding. Have you ever read this passage of the bible?

According to which, fetuses are not living things, or people. Rather they are property.

Exodus 21:22-24
New International Version (NIV)
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Full disclaimer: I am pro-choice.
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." — Einstein




User avatar
245 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 15200
Reviews: 245
Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:05 pm
View Likes
creativityrules says...



Hello there, everybody! Rose here. So you guys might think I'm a jerk when I done with this, but this forum is for people to give their opinions, and that's what I'm going to do. As I have strong Christian beliefs, I will use excerpts from the King James Version Bible.

Abortion is murder in every sense of the word. The following is from Jeremiah 1:4 and 5.

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."


This verse specifically states that God knew us before he formed us in the womb. That means that we are people even before we are conceived, and hence we are people before we are born. Abortion is indeed murder.

Another Bible reference referring to abortion can be found in Psalm 139.

For You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother’s womb.


This verse states that God covered David in his mother's womb. It doesn't say that God covered a clump of cells or a fetus, does it? No. It says it covered him, meaning David. David was a person in his mother's womb, just as everybody else is when they are in their mother's womb.

A common argument made by many people who have pro-choice viewpoints is that fetuses are simply clumps of cells and not yet human beings. What are human beings? Are we not clumps of cells? By describing fetuses in this way, it is simply strengthening the argument that abortion is murder.

Let's come at this from another side. I personally know mothers who have miscarried. Even though some of the children were only weeks old, the mothers experienced intense feelings of grief and loss. They were like this because they lost a child, a child that was living and had stopped being alive. They did not become attached to lifeless cells. They became attached to their child, their living son or daughter.

Lastly (and this is where some of you might become angry at me), a child is a child, no matter how it was conceived. It is still a living being who deserves a chance at life, even if it isn't convenient to its mother. To kill a child is murder, plain and simple.

You might think I'm insensitive and that I don't sympathize with mothers whose children weren't, shall we say, planned. But let me ask you this. If mothers aren't willing to endure hardships for their children (and the children are indeed theirs) so that the children may live, what is worth enduring hardships for? What is more important than your own child that you would decide to kill it? Is anything more worth hardships than your own child, your own flesh and blood?

That's how I feel. I won't change my opinion. I feel like this is something worth standing up for, and that if I tried to sugarcoat how I felt, I would be betraying my beliefs. If I offended any of you, so be it.
“...it's better to feel the ache inside me like demons scratching at my heart than it is to feel numb the way a dead body feels when you touch it."

-Brian James




User avatar
56 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 11665
Reviews: 56
Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:12 am
View Likes
Attolia says...



While I fully respect religion and personal beliefs, I really don't believe you can use the bible to debate politics because we don't live in theocracies. The debate is what is government is or is not entitled to do. In democracies governments do not dictate all morals. The best pro-life arguments have basis in what government is or is not obligated to do to protect its citizens, not when or not a women is being immoral. The other path gets too sticky. Abortion is morally bad by religious standards so thus we can't allow them. Adultery is bad by religious standards - thus should government jail everyone who has sex outside of marriage? There are many good pro-life arguments, but ones based in religion get very sticky because we do have separation of church and state.

I have a question I'm genuinely curious about for those of you who are pro-life.
Do you believe we should outlaw Plan B - the day after pill? The egg has already been fertilized at that point - thus God has proven he wants that egg to develop into a human. Who are we to mess with God's plans? You can't stop that egg from developing once God has shown he planned for you to a baby. If he didn't want you to have a baby, no eggs would have been fertilized. So is Plan B a form of abortion? Should we thus outlaw it?

And then, what about other forms of birth control? I'm pretty sure most people who practice orthodox religions don't believe in them. They are inhibiting God's natural plans. He wants that egg to be fertilized - he wants you to have a baby - and you are stopping him with your daily pill or your condom. If you hadn't used birth control, you would have had a baby. Who are you to go against what He wants? You would have made new life. What are women for if not to bring life into this world? If they don't want to have babies, then they don't have to have sex. After all, that's why you don't have sex outside of marriage, because He might give you a baby then, but it wouldn't have a family. (And, obviously, because sex is an act of love which you shouldn't perform unless you're committed to someone.) If you are married, why would you ever be on birth control? You are stopping God's plans for you. You could bring new life into this world. That's what sex is for. If you don't want to bring in new life, you don't have to have it.

Why would people ever be on birth control? That is going against God's natural will for you and your possible future babies.



Do you guys see my point? Abortion isn't okay because God decided for a baby! You wouldn't be pregnant if he hadn't. Then why is Plan B okay? Why is birth control okay? Why are you messing with his will at all? That's why religion gets too sticky when you bring it into this argument.
well you'll work harder
with a gun in your back!
for a bowl of rice a day