Does anyone else agree with me that abortion is kind of killing something, but?

Question

it just doesn't seem all that bad? Just saying that the kid doesn't know anything about anything. It's not like it's missing out on a life it never started. It's over quick and most likely wouldn't exactly be going to the best possible life anyway.

Answer 1

I disagree with the "kind of".

It deserves a chance to live, then if it doesn't like it, it can make its own decision.

Answer 2

I use to think that way.  I figured that anyone that would kill their baby would be a horrible mother, so the baby would be better off not being born.  Now I realize that it's a slippery slope that leads to the devaluation of life and morals.  Look at late term abortions.  That's the most horrific thing a person can do - destroy a perfectly formed, viable human being because it's an inconvenience.  And the really ironic thing is that most of the people that advocate abortion are against war.  Why?  Because it kills people.  Try to explain that.

Answer 3

Ive got a hate love relationship with abortion. I love the fact that thrashy people abort, but I hate the fact murder is happening, so yah I admit Iam on the sidelines.

Answer 4

Since abortion is just murder by convenience, Why not allow all murder by convenience to take place? That way if someone is not convenient for us, we can just eliminate it.

Think of the free space we will all have and how easy would be to have a promotion. And if you dont like your husband or wife, no problem just activate the only until death do us apart clause. Besides if you dont do it first he/she might do it before.

How about that rude neighboor, finally you will have some use for the chainsaw on your garage.

If justifying this sound ridiculous, then you know how ridiculous does justifiying abortion sounds to me.

Answer 5

Woman's choice is sacrosanct. Women are. above the law.

Boy would there be an uproar by feminists if it was solely the man's choice to have the abortion. Then they would call it murder. There would be no rationalisation that it's just a clump of cells then.

Answer 6

"all babies want to get borned" -a line from juno.

soory i couldnt resist

Answer 7

There wouldn't be as much abortion as there is if women had better access to the morning after pill. I see abortion as the last line of defense against an unwanted pregnancy. For far too many women it is the first and only way that they deal with it.

Answer 8

Of course the embryo/foetus doesn't know anything. It doesn't have the necessary brain connections to feel until at least the 23rd week, probably later. Unconscious reflexes do not prove the embryo/foetus feels in a conscious way. We don't keep brain dead adults alive and embryos/early foetuses are basically in the same state.

"Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.

While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient—this pathway must also be functional. It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester. Cutaneous withdrawal reflexes and hormonal stress responses present earlier in development are not explicit or sufficient evidence of pain perception because they are not specific to noxious stimuli and are not cortically mediated."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ful...

Answer 9

I would rather see abortions than a nation of unwanted children.

Answer 10

If one is to live up to 80 yrs of age, one has a total of 29,200 days to live.  Please calculate how many days are left in each of your cases.  You will find its not a big deal.  We all are going to die anyway and beyond 60 yrs of age most of us will be "unwanted"

So why worry about "knowing anything about anything" or "missing out on a life"  Lets treat all murder like abortion if it is over quick and most likely wouldn't exactly be going to the best possible life for the rest of the days

Answer 11

I do and here is why.

I have thought about this quite a bit over the years. The wide spread of opinions is incredible, matched only by the passion of the activists on all sides. This is an issue that few people are even able to have a civilized discussion about. Complicating it further is that there are few that hold a black-and-white few of the issue. The majority of people in the US see abortion as a giant grey area with varying degrees of abortion considered acceptable. Very few people hold the position of unlimited abortion access or no abortion under any circumstances. Below is the process I went through to come up with my position on the matter.

First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. This is the position that spurred “Born Alive” legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks, such as Barak Obama, would hold that this type of infanticide as well as partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. Or perhaps just before while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.

Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my wife and I when we lost one of our children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave us their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve our loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why?

By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, a social worker, and heads up an international charity. I’d call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the “prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is” positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood.

But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, “we are going to make gold valuable”. Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.

This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at inception. Prior to inception, there was no “you”. The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors. It is only when they combine to create new life do “you” begin to be a person.

The notion of intrinsic value also carries forward throughout life. My mother-in-law was on dialysis for several months before diabetes finally took her life. There are many who would have said that she should just die and not burden the rest of us. If those persons held the position that human life has imputed value, I can understand. I however, believe that human life is intrinsically valuable and worth preserving and protecting for as long as possible. Thus, we should protect life at the beginning and at the end and at all points in between.

So, we come full circle back to the question of abortion. Should it be outlawed? My answer, since I believe in the intrinsic value of human life, is that for the most part it should. Why only “for the most part”? Because there are times when you have to weigh the life of two humans and pick one to live and one to die. My sister-in-law faced such a problem once. She got pregnant from her husband and it turned out to be a tubal pregnancy. Had the child been allowed to grow inside of her, it would have killed her before the baby would have been able to survive on its own. Thus, in weighing these two lives, one would have to conclude that the baby would have to die in order to save the mother’s life. What about cases of rape or incest? I have 5 daughters (yes, that was no typo) and the thought of one of them being raped is always lurking in the back of my mind. If one of them should get pregnant as a result, the hard decision would be to let that child live. Pregnancy is not the extremely dangerous event of the past. Rarely do people die from giving birth. Many more die as a result of complications after an abortion. But the bottom line is that the child is innocent of any crime, so why punish it? I’m not saying it is an easy choice and I can certainly sympathize with those who have had to make it. Perhaps they even made the wrong choice. But, God is a loving and forgiving God, who can even forgive the taking of a human life. Which is what abortion is.

Answer 12

"Yes, the world is vile.  Let's do these poor b******s a favor.  In a few minutes they won't feel a thing," said the Auschwitz officer as he turned on the gas...

Answer 13

It is up to a female to make an informed decision for what is best not just for the future child, but herself. Currently, there is no system in place forcing guys who go around wrecklessly depositing their sperm to take responsibility for their actions.

Many women are raped or abandoned by men and so are forced to have to make these decisions and it's a terrible decision to have to make.

As for the foetus, the brain and spinal cord don't develop until weeks 8-12 and abortions are performed before this time.

Answer 14

No child deserves to be born unwanted.

Most abortions are performed early stage and there isn't a "kid" to speak of being killed so I don't see it as homocide.

Think of an early spontaneous abortion or fertilised egg that fails to implant or what usually happens when a woman ovulates.

In a more advanced pregnancy, it is a little different and I do feel differently but I'm still in favour of a woman's choice.

Answer 15

i think that abortion is a form of "legal" murder and i think that your sexual consquences should mean killing your mistake. sorry but i think that its a huge sin

its rude

and not responsible at all......

Answer 16

ABORTION SUX!

Answer 17

I've said this many times, but i'll say it again.

I'm not totally against abortion, i just dont think should be the total absolutely unrestricted choice of the woman regardless of the circumstances or what the father thinks, even though its just as much his child as the woman's.

I think that there should be some way the father should have a say, if abortion is an unrestricted medical option at all.

Thats just my take on it, i know that the child is carried in the woman's body, and i'm not forgetting that, but i still think that the father of the child should get some say in the fate of his child, he gets a share of the responsibility as well, after all.

Answer 18

It is kind of killing someone, but remember, sometimes living isn't the best choice.  You could be born retarded or in a horrible life, neither of which one should go through unless they deserve it, which you can't tell at that age.

Not all babies would want to be born if they knew what they would go through, people just think they would.  What kind of life is one that is only torturing and miserable for the one experiencing it.

Besides, if you abort this body, it will find another, though this view is slightly religious.

Answer 19

Well I am pro-choice, but saying the baby doesn't know anything is absurd.  Many studies suggest babies are able to recognize many things from the outside world.  The most well known of these is their mother's voice.

Answer 20

Honestly in my eyes, it's a life as soon as it is born. I believe it should only be ok in the cases of rape or incest...

I know that sounds a little extreme, but I feel that if we CHOOSE to have s*x, we should fully know the consequences of our actions and be prepared to handle them. I am a firm believer in adoption, my uncle and his wife DESPERATELY wanted to have a child, but they couldn't. They tried to adopt one from America, and do you know what they were told? You have to wait at LEAST 10 years!?!?!?! Wha? So these women are killing these babies that perfectly good parents could want! That's not ok! My uncle ended up adopting a little girl from China.

Also we NEED to work on our sexual education to keep teen pregnancy from happening. I'm a Christian and I know that most Christians want to keep it out, I have s*x before marriage w/ someone I'm committed to an love, I don't think it's wrong. I know others would frown on that, but in all honesty WE NEED a better sexual education. We have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rate in the world!!!

Approximately One Million teens become pregnant each year in the United States. This results in approximately 520,000 births, 405,000 abortions & 80,000 miscarriages.

Is that ok? NO!

Answer 21

BRILLIANT AGRUMENT!!!! *claps sarcastically* Next we will start killing off infants because they don't know anything about anything and there life hasn't REALLY started. And then, then we'll start killing of the mentally slow children because they don't know anything about anything and because they don't have the best possible life. And then... why then the possibilities are just endless!!!!