Abortion

[Cole]

Ohhh that's a polemic subject hehe, hence why I think it should be discussed!
I will post my input about it later, after having read some replies about it.

[Mister Sandman]

Since when is it right to take a life of an innocent being?

[Cole]

Since when is it right to take a life of an innocent being?

If that person will in some, cases rise in a poor environment, face poverty, more likely become a thug for some reasons, and ends by killing/robbing and who knows what thing someone else. More people there will be in such families, less the chances of "succeding" by children will decrease, not everyone can afford (by money) growth of several children, afterall. And also educate them properly. Why not "sacrify" a "person" before it becomes really human than that this person suffers for his/her life and causes troubles or damages to population on a more or less big amount? One theory among many, appliable only on poorest cases.
Another one being, if it's forbidden, people will keep doing it, as they don't want this child (protection doesn't always work so sometimes unwanted babies come in, and then there's the problem that there was a try to prevent it but it failed= not fault of concerned people). I'll refer to prohibition as alternate example there. People still do it, but quality is terrible (unqualified people do it, so the risks increase, confirmed both for abortion and prohibition), risks of infertility and death increase (for abortion only).
Finally, the risks can be there for the mother. Why would we sacrifice mother's life or health for something that cannot yet be compared to a true human? Let's be logical, "real" humans prevail!
It's like saying that a caterpillar *is* a butterfly. It's not one, yet.

Why would we forbid it to people who need to do it just because a part of population doesn't want it? Afterall, it's something containing fatality, unlike gay marriage, as it's not something being "decided" to be planned/done.

That wasn't my "real" input, just something to throw by reading this post after coming back from uni

[David Bliss]

Science can not explain if there is a right time to have an abortion. Every person has a view on abortion and what they think is right. Abortion has been used for 100s of years and will be continued to be used. Their will never be a law that outlaws abortion.

[Cole]

Science can not explain if there is a right time to have an abortion. Every person has a view on abortion and what they think is right. Abortion has been used for 100s of years and will be continued to be used. Their will never be a law that outlaws abortion.

There was laws, and oh god it has been an utter failure, like prohibition. In my country, during 50s, 20,000+ women died by doing "illegal abortion", and over 200,000 became unable to have children in the future (lost fertility in other words).
You can say it's wrong, like alcohol, that it is unacceptable and goes against humanity, but in the end, forbidding it will cause more troubles than allowing it, for obvious reasons.
Oh and don't come with drugs examples, we all know the "pros" are nothing compared to the "cons", as even a little consuming of those can have terrible effects on health, unlike alcohol.

Sure abortion shouldn't be done because "oh I didn't protect myself at all and I get a child I didn't want"...there, it's your fault, and you assume consequences! If it's accidental and was totally unexpected and despite fact you took right things to avoid it, or if it can cause problems to your health etc...then why on earth forbid it?
Not make it be easy to do like descaling of the teeth of course..

[bigcakes]

Since when is it right to take a life of an innocent being?

If that person will in some, cases rise in a poor environment, face poverty, more likely become a thug for some reasons, and ends by killing/robbing and who knows what thing someone else. More people there will be in such families, less the chances of "succeding" by children will decrease, not everyone can afford (by money) growth of several children, afterall. And also educate them properly. Why not "sacrify" a "person" before it becomes really human than that this person suffers for his/her life and causes troubles or damages to population on a more or less big amount? One theory among many, appliable only on poorest cases.
Another one being, if it's forbidden, people will keep doing it, as they don't want this child (protection doesn't always work so sometimes unwanted babies come in, and then there's the problem that there was a try to prevent it but it failed= not fault of concerned people). I'll refer to prohibition as alternate example there. People still do it, but quality is terrible (unqualified people do it, so the risks increase, confirmed both for abortion and prohibition), risks of infertility and death increase (for abortion only).
Finally, the risks can be there for the mother. Why would we sacrifice mother's life or health for something that cannot yet be compared to a true human? Let's be logical, "real" humans prevail!
It's like saying that a caterpillar *is* a butterfly. It's not one, yet.

Why would we forbid it to people who need to do it just because a part of population doesn't want it? Afterall, it's something containing fatality, unlike gay marriage, as it's not something being "decided" to be planned/done.

That wasn't my "real" input, just something to throw by reading this post after coming back from uni

We can't be sure the said "person" would become a thug or what they are raised with, they can become the most respected person around. Good families can sometimes raise "thugs" or bad children too. It depends on choices they make in their life and so I think everyone should be given a chance to live even if you believe they will lead a bad life. If a family can't afford to take care of a child they can always give it up for adoption. The adoption process (in my country) is very thorough and there are always good families looking for kids because they can't have any of their own. I'm sure most mothers would rather try to have their baby rather than kill it even if it may cause harm to themselves. just my input on the matter.
kbye
john

[Demeisen]

i vote yes, medical. also in cases of rape id definitely agree with abortions, if requested by the victim.

but having an abortion as a form of contraception isnt cool in my view. if someone is old enough to have sex, they should be old enough to manage a baby. if not then dont put out.

[Rudy Peña]

I voted Yes.

[Fear Of The Duck]

In my country, during 50s, 20,000+ women died by doing "illegal abortion",

well.. they should have faced a death penalty for murder anyways...

how about we kill pops, just in case his theories cause social and civilizational damage?

[Cole]

In my country, during 50s, 20,000+ women died by doing "illegal abortion",

well.. they should have faced a death penalty for murder anyways...

how about we kill pops, just in case his theories cause social and civilizational damage?

Death penalty for murder? What did you smoke?
Probably the same that push you murdering temptation on last part of your post.

[Fear Of The Duck]

brilliant!! so pops here is laughing at me when i say ppl who committed a murder should be killed while he himself is defending a stance that ppl should be killed because they might possibly in some far-off future become a thug for some reasons, and ends by killing/robbing.

lol. just lol.

pops, ya don't like fascist and ya've just presented fascist way of thinking.

just in case your poor logical abilities didn't notice: the second part of my post was just applying YOUR point of view to YOURSELF.



for the record: voted yes, for medical reasons, the medical reasons being the highly probabble danger for a woman's life.

[Cole]

brilliant!! so pops here is laughing at me when i say ppl who committed a murder should be killed while he himself is defending a stance that ppl should be killed because they might possibly in some far-off future become a thug for some reasons, and ends by killing/robbing.

lol. just lol.

pops, ya don't like fascist and ya've just presented fascist way of thinking.

just in case your poor logical abilities didn't notice: the second part of my post was just applying YOUR point of view to YOURSELF.



for the record: voted yes, for medical reasons, the medical reasons being the highly probabble danger for a woman's life.

Oh...fail!
It's not a murder for sake lol, those little beings can't be considered as human beings on first weeks.
People who supported abortion were left wing and centrist people, quite fascist indeed.
And as far as I know, if contraception is used as it should be...what I did say wouldn't even have to happen lolz. What I did say applied for those families with already several children and absence of father raising on hostile environment, where growing up existing children is already quite a fight, where contraception failed. So...it's not like it concerns much people. And anyway, it's up to mother to do so, noone else has to decide for mother, it's her child afterall.

My point of view to myself? I don't think i stated kill everyone who doesn't think the same as some almighty unique point of view. Please, link me there where I said it.

Once again, I NEVER said we should kill people (children there) for potential badness in future, N-E-V-E-R!
And also once again, it's mother's call as I said, so instead of saying I have some dark projects of mass murdering (lmao!!!)...have a look at which circumstances are needed for it to happen.
Because it's quite obvious all of that happens IF contraception *failed*.

[Fear Of The Duck]

Once again, I NEVER said we should kill people (children there) for potential badness in future, N-E-V-E-R!

orly?

Since when is it right to take a life of an innocent being?

If that person will in some, cases rise in a poor environment, face poverty, more likely become a thug for some reasons, and ends by killing/robbing

yar poor liar, ya know.

[Cole]

Once again, I NEVER said we should kill people (children there) for potential badness in future, N-E-V-E-R!

orly?

Since when is it right to take a life of an innocent being?

If that person will in some, cases rise in a poor environment, face poverty, more likely become a thug for some reasons, and ends by killing/robbing

yar poor liar, ya know.

Fail.
Putting things out of context failure alert!
So before accusing people to be liars...make sure to check the right things k?

As I said indeed, I never said we should kill people for future actions.

I really "like" when others pretend to know MORE what you said, than yourself do. Like if they did live on your mind or something lol

I didn't think I had to explain EVERY single sentence I post on those forums to avoid such things, but oh well if I have to..

[Fear Of The Duck]

one more thing:

.... for something that cannot yet be compared to a true human?

what makes you sure that, for instance, you are a true human? were you true human, lets say, 10 yeras ago? i can find a reference point that would classify you 10 years agoi as "not true human yet" thus making killing you perfectly legal.

*powers up his time machine*