[Lia K]

I am actually quite surprised we never debated this, it's often one of the first topics to be debated!!

So, should it be illegal?

Come on people debate!!!

[Devin T]

As I have said before, I am against moral absolutes. I believe that procedures (ie. death penalty, stealing) that are "bad" in most cases can still be valid in certain situations.
Thus, the "rule" of not killing need not apply everywhere.
For abortion issue, it is ridiculous to make a teenage girl have a rapist's child. It is not beneficial to society to have unwanted children.

[Charlotte N]

I was wondering when this topic was going to come up.

I think it all comes down to this: Is a baby considered living when it's concieved? Born? or somewhere in between.

Basically, all options when dealing with unwanted pregnancies have problems. A few teens (I'm using teens as an example, not because I believe they're the only ones who get abortions) can raise the kid in a good, safe, loving enviroment. Other, while they still love the kid, just can't afford or are not mature enough to raise the child, so is it better to have an abortion or to give the child a bad life.
Adoption? It works out often, but waiting lists are long plus theres the fact that the genetic mother will have to go through the pregnancy. Not exactly a big sacrifice compared to raising the child, but still. Probibly giving the baby up for adoption is the most civil or mature thing to do.
Abortion is the third option. When does the baby become a baby? Is it at the exact moment of fertilization? Basically, at that moment there is DNA. Not much else. If you took a strand of hair, or a drop of blood from someone you would have their DNA, not their soul, and thus makes having DNA different from having a soul. Does the fertilized egg have a soul yet? or only DNA?

Personally, I believe that there should be the option to have an abortion. Would I have one? erg... probibly not, but since I haven't been in that situation I can't really judge the desicion of someone in that position, or really know what I would do. Devin is getting somewhere with the rape issue, even though I think in most situations emergancy contraceptive is available and so there is no real need to become pregnant in the first place.

(forgive the spelling )

[Devin T]

^
I don't think the questions is "What is living?"; rather, it is "When is it right to kill?"

Even if we decide everything in the reproductive process is alive (gametes, zygotes, embryos, fetus, baby), we still must decide whether a killing of this organism is justified. In the case of rape, it is; in the case of teenagers, it is; in the case of drug addict parents, it is.

[Charlotte N]

Quote

In the case of rape

If someone is raped they have a responsability to get to a clinic and get emergancy contraceptive. There really is no reason for someone to get pregnant if they don't want to be. I see your point, and I believe if someone DID get pregnant do to rape it would be appropriate for them to get an abortion, I just think that there are other options.

Quote

in the case of drug addict parents

Are you saying that we should force drug addicts to have abortions when they become pregnant? If not, what do you mean by this.

[Robbert L]

hey all,

Well as Lia said this is a topic which many debates have been held about but the most important factor to answer wether it should be illegal or not is religon:

Some religon (like catholics) ban abortion, some religon say abortion is allowed in some situations, and some approve it. But of course it is the choice of a person (the mother) but of course she can be influenced in her choice by other people (relatives, the father!, friends, etc.) So I don't think it is the mother's choice only!!!. I also think that new methodes of conceptions have decreased the amount of unwanted pregnancies also campaings from governments have contributed in this discrease.

To get back to the question if it's murder, well that depends in which country you live in some abortion is legal and in other countries it is not. Well to explain this I have to refer back to my first argument it depends which religon is the one with the greatest number of believers, maybe the majority of a country doesn't believe in any religon at all, does happen but most of the time religon has a part in the public opion and if the mass approves (just like the religon) the government will/ has made/make a law to allow abortion.

well don't have much time now so I'll leave it to this maybe i'll come up with some othe stuff later on.

[Lia K]

What if the mother has a choice between her life or the child, who isn't even properly formed yet. If she has the child she will die, if she aborts the child or not even that just yet will die.

[Devin T]

^
^
^
Charlotte: the same could be said about the event of the rape itself. Everybody has a responsiblity not to be caught in the situation in the first place.

Quote

Are you saying that we should force drug addicts to have abortions when they become pregnant? If not, what do you mean by this.

I don't believe drug addicts should be allowed to have children. One, their reliance on self-destructive behavior is a strong indicator of their not being able to be responsible for another life; and, two, drugs can have negative effects on children, such as brain damage.

^
^ And ^
The debate is not about how much "life" each organism (mother or child) has in them. It is about the impact on society abortion will have. Even if it is proven that an embryo is just as much alive as a baby, the effect of its birth on its parents and society will be the same.
Further, the majority's opinions on abortion have nothing to to with the practise of it. People's belief does not create reality.

[Lia K]

Quote

The debate is not about how much "life" each organism (mother or child) has in them. It is about the impact on society abortion will have.

No it's not. It's about whether or not it should be illegal.

Quote

So, should it be illegal?

Therefore all pros and cons of abortion should be stated. A pro-abortionist would say that the child isn't developed enough to even be considered a child (excuse the lack of biological terms), until it is properly developed. Therefore justifying abortion in the first trimester. They could also justify abortion if it would kill the mother, who is already alive and fully-functioning. All of those = arguments for keeping it legal.

Perhaps, the impact on society is an aspect, but it is surely not more important than the other arguments. Before you make remarks such as this, I'd like to ask you to please read the topic beforehand.

[Charlotte N]

Pros;
-Baby's not formed yet. Some believe no feelings or soul is diminished
-Teen mom's don't have to try and raise child
-Because of reason 2 more teens will continue through education without a kid and contribute to society
-Because of #2 there are fewer poor kids living in bad situations
-No babys resulting from rape.
-No 'mistake' babys.
-(pro of having it legal) No 'quack' doctors preforming illegal and dangerous procedures.

Cons;
-***Some believe it's murder*** <- Most important point
-Medical mistakes could occur (as with pregnancy)
-Emotion problems for parents (same could be said for if pregnancy occurs though)
-Conflicts with some religions (but hey, so does pre-maritual sex so if you're in this situation you've already sinned)
-by aborting a child you lose potential for a child who could change the world (this could be in a good or bad way)

[Charlotte N]

Quote

Charlotte: the same could be said about the event of the rape itself. Everybody has a responsiblity not to be caught in the situation in the first place.

Although there are some situations where this is true, I don't think you can blame people for getting raped. Sometimes rape is not something that can be avoided.

[Devin T]

^
^
^
Lia, I'm dissappointed that you think morality and legality are seperate things. The entire purpose of laws is to enforce morals.

^
^

Quote

Cons;
***Some believe it's murder*** <- Most important point

Whoever wants to prevent a beneficial procedure because it is murder does not know the reason for murder to be prohibited. Abstaining from killing people is to help society. In this case, "killing" the fetus is beneficial to society, and thus the anti-murder rule has no validity.

[Lia K]

Devin, it would be easier if you quoted people when the post is a lot high up. Especially if it's one specific line.

I didn't talk about morality and legality exclusively. You dismissed reasonable arguments for abortion, and stated that they were not addressing the debates topic. I believe I have spoken about morality. The arguments I gave address morality, and therefore address legality. If there is a specific line in which it is clear that I consider them to be exlclusive, please quote it.

[Devin T]

^
Although you did not state your argument in terms of morals, your refutation of my moral argument by saying we should be arguing about legality was clearly seperating laws from morals:

DEVIN said:

The debate is not about how much "life" each organism (mother or child) has in them. It is about the impact on society abortion will have.

Lia said:

No it's not. It's about whether or not it should be illegal.

The purpose of morals is to ensure protection of society; obviously, killing is not bad because it is killing- it is bad because it harms society.

[Lia K]

Quote

killing is not bad because it is killing- it is bad because it harms society.

Must I point out the fault in that statement? Yes, killing may harm society but that is not why it is bad. The ethics of killing is that no one has the right to take away another's life. The morality of killing is about ethics, and whether or not it is ethical. It's widely understood that killing is unethical because it takes away life of another human being.

Quote

Although you did not state your argument in terms of morals, your refutation of my moral argument by saying we should be arguing about legality was clearly seperating laws from morals:

Devin, I did not disregard morality because if you look a little closer you may notice that the example arguments that I gave for abortion deal with morality. If need be, I can point out the morality in the example arguments, but I am growing tired of arguing over this with someone who carries himself with such arrogance that he cannot except other arguments, other than his own.

Excuse the personal attack, I understand it is not forum procedure, but Devin I am not the only one who has noticed your arrogance. I am therefore, formally asking you, as a moderator to please tone it down.