Abortion- Right or Wrong

Zulu wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm failing to see the difference. You are saying that it's ok to abort because the parent (mother) "could potentially endanger" the child. Correct?
So if someone is a poor parent (ie: will smoke/drink/take drugs while pregnant), it's ok to kill the child (abort the foetus). No?

Well, it's kind of taking the opposite view of the point I'm making. I was coming back to the point that women shouldn't be allowed abort because they got into that situation them selves and should just deal with it.

I think that doesn't solve the problem because in many cases now you have a pregnant woman, who doesn't want to be, is denied the choice of an abortion and may endanger the foetus in her because of a reckless attitude.

I'm not saying "kill the child if it's a poor parent". I'm saying forced continuation of pregnancy doesn't automatically a responsible parent make.

Zulu wrote: »

By the by, you can be anti-abortion, but still be for all the information being given to women. It's not like anti-abortion = no information.
Currently our society provides information, just not abortions.

Good point, but I wouldn't say I'm anti-life OR pro-life because I know what people take that to mean. I'm pro-people-being-given-the-option-to-have-abortions-if-they-so-choose. Snappy...

tallaght01 wrote: »

Some babies at 20 weeks will be as developed as a 21 weeker.

That's interesting, I didn't think of it that way before. But what would be the most common stage at which women find out they are pregnant? 3 weeks, 4 weeks? How long do you need to decide whether you want an abortion or not?

Malari wrote: »

I think that doesn't solve the problem because in many cases now you have a pregnant woman, who doesn't want to be, is denied the choice of an abortion and may endanger the foetus in her because of a reckless attitude.

so instead of permitting abortion offer free contraception and sex education. Just because people will have unwanted pregnancy, doesn't mean we should give them the right to kill the child.

I'm not saying "kill the child if it's a poor parent". I'm saying forced continuation of pregnancy doesn't automatically a responsible parent make.

Agreed it's not going to make someone responsible, but you are saying to let them kill the child because they are irresponsible, which to me is about the worst reason to let someone kill a human.

Malari wrote: »

Good point, but I wouldn't say I'm anti-life OR pro-life because I know what people take that to mean. I'm pro-people-being-given-the-option-to-have-abortions-if-they-so-choose. Snappy...

Hummm, PPBGTOTHAITSC, sounds terrible. I'm all for it!

Zulu wrote: »

so instead of permitting abortion offer free contraception and sex education. Just because people will have unwanted pregnancy, doesn't mean we should give them the right to kill the child.

Yes I'm all for that. But still, I was responding to a separate point that was made, not offering a solution, just pointing out the flaws.

Zulu wrote: »

so instead of permitting abortion offer free contraception and sex education. Just because people will have unwanted pregnancy, doesn't mean we should give them the right to kill the child.

Agreed it's not going to make someone responsible, but you are saying to let them kill the child because they are irresponsible, which to me is about the worst reason to let someone kill a human.

Hummm, PPBGTOTHAITSC, sounds terrible. I'm all for it!

Firstly, it's not a child; it's an unborn foetus, which will become a child when it is born. Calling it a child is a tactic used by the pro-life people to try and make it seem even more horrible. And as far as I am concerned, unwanted pregnancy is a perfectly good reason to "kill the child" - up to the cut-off point that modern medicince has provided us.

In relation to the post about giving "irresponsible" people the right to "kill a human" being a bad reason; Is it honestly better for a person who doesn't want the child, will probably drink heavily and smoke whilst pregnant and damage the unborn baby to what ever degree (something I am sure we have all seen outside various maternity hospitals), mistreat the child when it is born because it is unwanted and have it running wild in the streets?

The way I see it, the abortion is the better option, and if that person doesn't want to have to go through all that and have an even worse lifestyle than previously go ahead. Then again I am pro-choice even if the people chosing abortions are rich and happy; as long as the abortion is performed up to the point medicine dictates.

tallaght01 wrote: »

No, you're not forcing the pregnancy on her. You're denying her an abortion.

In my opinion anyway. Though I'm sure we could get bogged down with the semantics.

Like, should we let a woman terminate her pregnancy in any way she feels fit? By not doing that are we forcing pregnancy on her?

Let's not take the responsibility for the pregnancy away from those who were actually responsible for it.

Well, yes, semantics, as you say. If she doesn't get an abortion, she has to have a pregnancy, there's no in-between. As far as I'm concerned that's forcing a pregnancy.

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, a 23 weeker who's lying in an incubator in a neonatal unit is a child. But he's not if he's still in the womb?

Why does his/her place of residence affect his status like that?

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just curious as to your logic.

correct me if I'm wrong but would 23 weeks not be after the time allowable for an abortion to be performed?
I am happy enough with modern medicines cut-off point for when an abortion is allowable.
And yes a child that has been born and is alive is a child, in the womb it isn't really.. up to a point in it's development where after that point abortion can not be legally performed.. I realise that at that point it hasn't been born and is still "unborn" but like I said I'm more or less happy with the medical view on it

Zulu wrote: »

I'm interested to know where you pulled that defination from. According to dictionary.com a child is:

1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
5. a descendant

It's all good and well to use a dictionary quote, but all the dictionary does is give us what people use a word to describe. You describe foetus as child, I do not. Enough people describe foetus as child, it goes into the dictionary.. I don't regard it as a child, and even if I did I would still be pro-choice. I think there's enough people around damaging the world as it is

Zulu wrote: »

I call the child, because that's exactly what it is. If you feel the need to distance yourself from human life because it makes you uncomfortable, that's your prerogative, but it's no tactic. It is what it is. Denying what it is, is a tactic however.

So as modern medicine advances you constantly change the law? Say you create an artificial womb, will "it"(sic) become a child then???

You call the child a child, because that is what your idea of a child is, not mine. Trying to claim the moral upper hand because the dictionary says you are correct, and you feel you are correct may make you feel better about being on the "right side". This whole thread is obviously how people feel about the issue, and the pro-life side love to throw down solid things like dictionary meanings. But that doesn't ultimately matter as both sides are generally pretty entrenched in how they feel about the issue, regardless of facts presented.
To throw out something ridiculous like "what if there was an artificial womb" is totally pointless, we could spend all day going "what if?"
"what if god came down and said, your'e all just animals, kill all the babies you want.." ... well gee then it would be like.. totally fine.. but that hasnt happened and is unlikely, so it's a pointless argument to throw out.

Zulu wrote: »

Yes. Because not everyone raises children as you described. I fear that your own prejudices.

And at what point did I say that everyone raises children as I described?
I described a minority of mothers who I physically see using my actual eyes (not some strange magical prejudiced third eye in my mind) out side maternity hospitals smoking & drinking from cans of beer. Or on the street or in the pub for that matter.. if you have never seen these things, then you must never leave your house..
What I was trying to get accross was that if these mothers care so little for their "unborn child" and weren't going to raise them properly and didn't want them, why force them to have children?
Of course you didn't want to see the logic in the argument so you decided that I was prejudiced against all people who want children.
"all women drink and smoke and hate children they must all be aborted"
what kind of lunatic do you think I am?

Zulu wrote: »

....isn't really - according to you.

According to me, and the dictionary, it is. So bully for you.

According to your views and the dictionary which is a compilation of the mass definition of words, including slang; bully for me.
Obviously there are plenty of people who don't view it as a child, hence abortion is legal in other countries, and we can give women information here if they want to go to other countries, but the dictionary doesn't carry things like "fetus - not a baby - some people feel that before a certain stage it isn't really a baby".
Well done.. the issue is resolved by you and your mighty all encompassing book of "definitions".. abortion is WRONG - the dictionary says a fetus really is a child! we are going to hell!