GameTavern - Abortion

GameTavern (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/index.php)

- Happy Hour (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - Abortion (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9873)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameMaster

... They need it to survive, but since you own the house, you can remove them from the house whenever you want.

thanks for proving my point of the selfishness of abortion...lol

it is murder...u take it out of u..means ur killing it...cuz it cant survive

It's your creation, you can do with it whatever you want.

It's not the mothers fault, it's the fetus' fault for not adapting once it's removed from the growing pod. It's laziness. Most animals learn to walk in hours or days. We take months! Point: If the fetus isn't willing to prepare for all possible scenarios, then let it face the consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameMaster

It's your creation, you can do with it whatever you want.

can ur mom take knife and cut ur leg off and say *ITS MINE I MADE U* .... is that still legit?is that right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by happygirl666

can ur mom take knife and cut ur leg off and say *ITS MINE I MADE U* .... is that still legit?is that right?

No, because you are an independant being at that point.

A fetus is not independant, it cannot survive on its own. It needs assistance. Basically, at this point it is almost inanimate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

No, because you are an independant being at that point.

A fetus is not independant, it cannot survive on its own. It needs assistance. Basically, at this point it is almost inanimate.

wuz referring to GM's post about destroying ur own creations...-_-'....but k...i get it...

:flame: :p

If anything Im pro choice. I do think its wrong but its not my choice to make.

I think it's funny that Typhoid said he didn't want any arguments in this thread and just asks for opinions and then goes and starts pointing out what he thinks is wrong in other people's opinions.

I think that's called starting an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I think its funny it took this long for someone to point it out.

:sneaky:

Wait....i mean.....im...not....arguing...

GLITTER!

*throws glitter in your face*

I am in support of abortion, but to a point. That point is when the child, if prematurely born, could be saved. That current point is 5 months.

After the fifth month, there should be no abortion. Yes, it is a woman's body, but at some point that body is caring for another human being even if that human being isn't "independent" purely for the reason that they haven't come out of the womb yet. This is whole argument in support of partial birth abortion (meaning that only the head and shoulders are outside of the woman so the child is not "technically" born yet), which is basically a loophole for legalized infanticide and one of the more reprehensible and selfish practices allowed by law.

We can't continue with this whole "all or nothing" philosophy when it comes to abortion, as it will get us nowhere. You can't simply state that "all abortion is legal" because there are 8 month old children being partially born in the world today and are then being put to sleep like you would euthanize a dog or cat.

You also can't state that "all abortion is illegal" because the fact of the matter is that for a long time the potential life is just a collection of cells. Also this does not account for rape victims, horrific abnormalities and so on and so forth.

There is one thing that has not come up yet, that is a sign of how far this argument has gone and become completely myopic in its scope: What about adoption? My mother ran a free adoption agency for years and the number of parents out there that are looking for a child regardless of race or abnormality is astounding. There are not enough children for them, to the point that they spend 3 times more money to adopt children outside of this country. Why is this not brought up as an alternative, even by Planned Parenthood (which honestly should be renamed Planned Abortion). This is a completely viable and much preferred alternative to late stage abortion and should be discussed more than it is.

The problem with the abortion issue is that from a purely logical standpoint, you can't justify it.

Think about it this way. Most would agree that aborting babies when they're just sticking their heads out and haven't taken their first breath yet (as was done in China for families with more than one child) is pretty much murder. The baby is fully developed and more or less able to live outside the womb. And some would also say that a collection of undifferentiated cells unable to sustain themselves is not a human being.

Ok, but then where exactly do you draw the line? 8 months after conception? Still seems like the wrong time since most babies are viable at that point. So 6 months? 4 months? 4 months and 22 days?

The Strangler suggests that we should use the point at which a baby could be saved if born prematurely as the standard. That sounds reasonable, but the problem is that's a pretty blurry line, too. There is a point at which the chances of saving a baby is about 50%. And then there's a point when the chances are about 1%. And there's a point when we know the chances are even smaller. When do we stop? Theoretically, babies born as early as 4 months after conception can be saved, but they are in such poor health that they will most likely suffer brain damage and not live much of a life at all. Is that really considered "saving" a child?

There just isn't a clearly defined line when we can say, "At this point in time, it is not a living being, but after another precise period of time, it is." This is the world of morality and ethics, and here science fails us.

That said, I'm more or less with Strangler on this one. I'm against partial birth abortions because, among other things, I don't see how a woman could have gone to all the trouble of carrying a baby inside for nine months, putting up with all the awkwardness and strange hormones that come with it, and then decide to abort the baby just as it's coming out. On the other hand, I simply can't say no to a rape victim who will only be reminded of her rape every time she looks at the child.

I think it's worth noting that abortion is actually a fairly old practice. It's not like we have only been able to do it recently with the advent of modern medicine. A long time ago, certain cultures brewed teas which could abort a fetus when the mother drank them.

As to where to draw the line, well that's a decision I think is best left to a woman and not a man like me. I guess by definition that makes me "pro-choice."

Simple fact of the matter in my mind is that a woman has the right to an Abortion if she so desires. Its one of your rights in this country, and that shoudnt be changed.

I am not on either side of this issue. I'm kind of in the middle. I believe that abortion isn't right when a girl gets pregnant just because she was fooling around. I believe that abortion should only be allowed for instances such as if the baby was threatening the mother's life, or if it was rape, but even with rape wouldn't you still be able to give the baby up for adoption? I guess I'm more pro-life than I am pro-choice, but I do have some exceptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

So a 14 year old girl who had sex once is a slut?
Stupid yes, slut no. It only takes 1 time to get pregnant. 1 is not a big enough number to create slut status.

Being an ass here, but it doesn't have to take only 1 time to become pregnant. If it does, then that would be pretty "lucky", depending on the situation.

And think about this, if she really doesn't want the baby, she could kill it herself, which would definitely be murder. If abortion was legal, then you would get it removed the legal way, instead of actually killing it... There's just no way to stop it, if the mother puts her mind to it. So make it legal, make it easier.

I think...

We are the "evolved species" on this planet and that's why we can act worse than animals.