Gender-based abortions: right or wrong?

^ Unless the mother does not want to go through 9 months of pain and hardship with pressure from society? ?? ???

Going to say this again, men don't have an opinion in this unless they are in support of the mother's choice. Womb not yours, choice not yours. Boo. *******. Hoo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleh

Unless the child is heavily defected and the quality of life will be poor or degraded, an abortion shouldn't be considered. There is no reason to abort a perfectly fine human spawn.

---

But it's totally fine if the mother has their life potentially put at risk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleh

Unless the child is heavily defected and the quality of life will be poor or degraded, an abortion shouldn't be considered. There is no reason to abort a perfectly fine human spawn.

---

I think we need to consider the women's health as well as the child's. Lets say a perfectly healthy women has conceived a perfectly healthy fetus but then her health deteriorates, what then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

^ Unless the mother does not want to go through 9 months of pain and hardship with pressure from society? ?? ???

Going to say this again, men don't have an opinion in this unless they are in support of the mother's choice. Womb not yours, choice not yours. Boo. *******. Hoo.

---

Shouldn't let it get far enough to require an abortion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

It seems you're the one caught up in semantics - baby is not a technical term, the difference is just one between developing foetus and realised human, and therefore one of potential vs actuality. As I said in the very post you quoted here it is my opinion that until there is some sense development (which yes, can be pinpointed through brain scans) it is merely a potential life, a cluster of cells following chemical processes, and unless you believe that sperm contains magic souls that are implanted as soon as they reach an egg then it is medical fact that this is what they are at that stage. By your logic we are back to all periods and all ejaculate being real living beings because of what they are attempting to do on a cellular level. In terms of how alive an early foetus is, it has the same DNA and make-up as dandruff but washing one's hair isn't murder

---

What the hell is a 'realised' human? on that basis we're all not realised humans until we stop developing at age 21, and even then we are still developing in a number of ways. Again, this is the usual twisting of language by the pro-abortion side that you belong on. It's like at the end of your piece you start comparing a developing human in the womb to dandruff.. absolutely incredible. Look at the pictures in the womb, the little baby with it's body parts developing and it's movements and yet you compare this to sperm or dandruff. Wow.

I can sometimes understand where you are coming from, but as there is no way to define exactly when a 'foetus' becomes a human (probably because logic dictates that it is a human just as an Ash sapling is an Ash Tree) then i'm against abortions. Science hasn't yet been able to pinpoint this magical moment when somethine suddenly becomes worthy of life, and in my eyes never can for the reasons i've just mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Congrats on totally ignoring my explicit repetitions that I don't agree with late-term abortions. At that stage yes they are little humans, but there are very clear stages where this is not the case in any way

---

So again, when is the exact point and what does this process entail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Can I just add, all you pro-life people, you need to realise that women that have abortions aren't all women that have had one night stands and have gotten pregnant accidentally. There are couples, trying for children that end up having abortions.

---

I KNEW, I just KNEW you lot would fall back on this - because as soon as the argument against abortion has become so overwhelming and convincing (not that you should need convincing in the first place that having an unborn child in the womb scrambled up or injected in the heart with sodium is a bad thing) that all you have left is to drag out tiny percentages of cases that are either rape or mental/health defects in an unborn child - that is, I assume, what you are getting at?

As it stands, i'm actually against all abortion unless the life of the mother is threatened. I sometimes waiver on the mental/health aspect, but then I think back to the 1930s and realise that all life is precious and should be protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

Your argument of shaming the mother for having sex is so horribly ****** up, I am feeling nauseous that a person is actually using this dumb ****** excuse in a debate. Even in a heavily religion influenced and male dominated country like mine, this excuse is not valid.

---

Nobody is shaming anybody. What we are making the case for is personal responsibility, that is, when a woman engages in sex she should be intelligent enough to realise that by having sex and having a womb, she is putting herself at the great risk of becoming pregnant.

You talk as though pregnancy comes as a shock to women who have sex. It's so much for the women's movement which wanted women to become independent and responsible that we now have people like yourself arguing that women are too stupid to understand that having sex might mean they will fall pregnant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

She had sex without protection. Wow, shocker. She got pregnant (oops! bad move) Now she'll have to live 9 months caring for the child she doesn't want. This may ruin her career, her health forever. Oh well she deserves it right, she had sex. She was so irresponsible that she deserves a huge responsibility as punishment. Yay!

---

If she didn't want to become pregnant then why did she risk it and have sex? You talk about the poor diddums mother, what about the baby who didn't ask for the mother to have sex and bring it into this world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

I'm going to say this one last time, the womb isn't yours, the choice isn't yours. Men don't have a say in this because all along for centuries they've pressurized women to do what they think is right but not this time, this time the choice is the mother's. Because it's her body, not yours.

---

That's like saying a woman has the right to punch her stomach over and over when she's heavily pregnant 'becuz its her bodi and she can du wut she lykes' - wrong. There is another human being inside that body and it should not be harmed because of the selfishness and stupidity of a woman falling pregnant in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

What you expect is every pregnant woman should carry their pregnancy to term. If she is not ready for the responsibility, she should put the child for adoption.

---

Again, why is the woman having sex if she is not ready for the responsibility of a child? True there is contraception and the pill etc, but she must also accept that these are not 100%.

Therefore, when she has sex she makes (or should do) a calculated decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

Great. Now what if these unexpected pregnancies don't go so well? What if it has a permanent effect on the mother's life and even the new born's life? What if the new born does not get a healthy environment. That's multiple lives ruined just to save a cluster of cells. You're willing to risk all that just to save a cluster of cells.

---

The same question I put to Tom - at what point does this 'cluster of cells' become a baby? Science hasn't been able to answer it but you seemingly are claiming to be able to answer it, so spit it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

You do have an opinion unless you are speaking against them

---

Uh logic fail, that's like saying I can't have an opinion on ****** women. I can speak out on whatever the hell I wish without you holding up a womb as an attempt to deflect criticism.

I don't whip out my penis when talking about men-related issues because believe it or not, I can actually debate a woman on any topic without even discussing my own genitals or that of my opponent.

Identity politics is so 1960s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

TEXT WALL

---

So because the number of women that have abortions for life threatening reasons for the baby or the mother is just a small percentage of all abortions - it becomes irrelevant?

I mean, I at least understand your point of view for women that aren't giving a damn about their bodies and just have abortions simply because they're stupid - but come on... Some times they are medically needed, you can't shy away from that fact.

I could find you so many cases where a woman died from pregnancy, but she would have lived if she had an abortion. Heck, there's even some cases where the woman died because she was refused an abortion. You say every life is precious and should be protected. Well, what about the mother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

So because the number of women that have abortions for life threatening reasons for the baby or the mother is just a small percentage of all abortions - it becomes irrelevant?

---

It doesn't become irrelevant but it's strangely brought up all the time when the preveiling wind is against abortion in general. The issues of rape, mental/body conditions of the child and the health of the mother are all brought up as a means to divert the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

I mean, I at least understand your point of view for women that aren't giving a damn about their bodies and just have abortions simply because they're stupid - but come on... Some times they are medically needed, you can't shy away from that fact.

I could find you so many cases where a woman died from pregnancy, but she would have lived if she had an abortion. Heck, there's even some cases where the woman died because she was refused an abortion. You say every life is precious and should be protected. Well, what about the mother?

---

I have said in this debate that I support abortion only in the case where the mothers life is threatened.

But back to what I was saying above. The vast majority of abortions are not done because the child is ******ed mentally or has problems with his body, nor are the majority of abortions done because the mothers life is in danger or because she was raped.

So would you at least agree with us on the main bulk of the topic that abortion should not be allowed for those who simply became pregnant through fault of their own and not because of the reasons mentioned above. Once you've answered that, we can find out where you really stand rather than hiding behind issues which only affect a tiny proportion of abortions that are carried out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It doesn't become irrelevant but it's strangely brought up all the time when the preveiling wind is against abortion in general. The issues of rape, mental/body conditions of the child and the health of the mother are all brought up as a means to divert the argument.



I have said in this debate that I support abortion only in the case where the mothers life is threatened.

But back to what I was saying above. The vast majority of abortions are not done because the child is ******ed mentally or has problems with his body, nor are the majority of abortions done because the mothers life is in danger or because she was raped.

So would you at least agree with us on the main bulk of the topic that abortion should not be allowed for those who simply became pregnant through fault of their own and not because of the reasons mentioned above. Once you've answered that, we can find out where you really stand rather than hiding behind issues which only affect a tiny proportion of abortions that are carried out.

---

I agree with you that the percentage of all abortions that are medically required, or for reasons such as rape etc. are small.

But women should still have the right to have an abortion. I would say that the current 24 week limit does seem quite high, but it's also worth noting that the number of abortions at the 24 week limit is also small.

It's also worth noting that once again, out of all the "normal" cases of abortion, where a woman got pregnant and simply does not want the baby. It's not all because they didn't use contraception. Contraception can fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

I agree with you that the percentage of all abortions that are medically required, or for reasons such as rape etc. are small.

But women should still have the right to have an abortion. I would say that the current 24 week limit does seem quite high, but it's also worth noting that the number of abortions at the 24 week limit is also small.

---

Who says they should have a right? what about the individual rights of the baby to a life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

It's also worth noting that once again, out of all the "normal" cases of abortion, where a woman got pregnant and simply does not want the baby. It's not all because they didn't use contraception. Contraception can fail.

---

Indeed, as I have said - and as I have concluded after saying that, it's still the woman's fault for falling pregnant and not some sort of mystic force that comes from the heavens. If you have sex then you take varying degrees of risk just as you take varying degrees of risk when you drive a certain model of a car, buy a house in a certain area and so on. In the case of men they take the risk with STDs and women take the risk with STDs and falling pregnant.

If these women aren't prepared to deal with the consquences that can arise from having sex, albeit small when using protection, then they shouldn't be having sex. It's as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Who says they should have a right? what about the individual rights of the baby to a life?



Indeed, as I have said - and as I have concluded after saying that, it's still the woman's fault for falling pregnant and not some sort of mystic force that comes from the heavens. If you have sex then you take varying degrees of risk just as you take varying degrees of risk when you drive a certain model of a car, buy a house in a certain area and so on. In the case of men they take the risk with STDs and women take the risk with STDs and falling pregnant.

If these women aren't prepared to deal with the consquences that can arise from having sex, albeit small when using protection, then they shouldn't be having sex. It's as simple as that.

---

Ahh, I see how your view works. So every person that dies when a lorry (who had a drunk driver driving) crashes into their car, it was the person's fault for being on the road. And all the people that died in the twin towers, it was their fault for going to work that day. And the people that died in the recent UK storm, it was their fault for living in the south of the UK.

I'm quite astounded that you still blame a woman if she gets pregnant through no fault of her own. Surely the man is equally responsible for getting her pregnant as the woman is? I mean, wow.

Let me guess, is it still the woman's fault she got pregnant if she gets raped?