Abortion should be banned.

[realcrypto]

Abortion is killing a baby but there are some exceptional cases that makes it the only option to make the mother survive or avert  an unforgettable incidence like rape. A child gotten from a rape by an unknown person needs to be aborted.

[1714109329]

1714109329

[Natsuu]

until a biological mass can survive independently.. its not 'living'
(no independent breath or experience or voice)

its the same as the question
is turning off a life support machine of a brain dead relative at families consent immoral?

a fetus is dependant on the mother. a mother is the life support
its a question which the mother and only the mother gets to decide.
it is her responsibility and her decision what happens with her biology

once a fetus gets to the third trimester where if it was birthed early it could independently survive..
thats where abortion should not occur.

but before that point of possible independence.. its the decision of the mother.. not men. not politicians

And not even the society, in this current era, the SOCIETY is the one determining what is good and bad. And society is not a single entity that has single decision to decide if something is good or bad, but instead a group of individuals that have a strong support towards what they believe as the good or bad. And this thread shows how it is separated.

There are good points in both side, but removing religion in the arguments, and the other side is now in void

[rajakulam]

what's your take on that?

Acts like this should be prohibited, because it is the same as killing someone without any wrongdoing and this is a very heinous act in my opinion, such an act should be punished according to the regulations laid down in a country, in this case it has become a habit for teenagers who are lovesick

[Natsuu]

what's your take on that?

Acts like this should be prohibited, because it is the same as killing someone without any wrongdoing and this is a very heinous act in my opinion, such an act should be punished according to the regulations laid down in a country, in this case it has become a habit for teenagers who are lovesick

I will give you some scenario choices:

Would you rather...

a) live in a household without a father, and a mother who don't accept you as her child because you were born from a "mistake", and become a homeless as your mother leaves you in the slum?
b) Live in a household with a family who degrades you and blames you as the reason for why they're in such a dire and poor situation?
c) Die not knowingly anything as you are just a growing zygote that don't have any senses.

[ifarted]

It is right to have the abbortion banned. It's very inhumane to those people who chose to kill their own child in their womb to avoid embarassment. People need to be responsible for their own doings. Having abbortion is just so wrong. The child has nothing to do with their mother's mistakes.

Most of the teenagers who are pregnant tends to be tempted from this abbortion because they are afraid of the consequences that they were about to bear and this is the problem that our society faces.

Abbortion being banned is good for the community and the society. Things like this should be prohibited.

[mu_enrico]

People should not base this decision on wants, but on health/safety. IMO human rights, the rights to live, starts when human formed as fetus. I think the fetus prefers to be alive than die if they can talk. But if the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother, the mother can choose to abort the baby since she also has the rights to live.

[Gases]

Don't take the most precious life as a joke. Life does not allow blasphemy, and resolutely oppose abortion

[af_newbie]

what's your take on that?

Should heart bypass surgeries be banned?

How about root canal procedures?

Abortion is a medical procedure.

Banning medical procedures is immoral.

No abortion refers to induced abortions. Wrong, any medical procedure to end human life is immoral. All abortions should be banned to have higher divisions of labor. I refer to this paper- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/padr.12085,https://www.redalyc.org/journal/413/41345703009/html/, and the Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon. Less people-economic slowdown. More people - more growth. However, I don't think governments should give incentives to people to have more children. Their only job in my view is to defend life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in that order.

You got it wrong.  More people means more pollution.  Having fewer people is better for everyone.

As for abortions, men should have no say what a woman can do with HER BODY.

Abortions until viability should be allowed, period. 

People who cannot get pregnant should have no say on the matter.

[Gyfts]

what's your take on that?

Should heart bypass surgeries be banned?

How about root canal procedures?

Abortion is a medical procedure.

Banning medical procedures is immoral.

No abortion refers to induced abortions. Wrong, any medical procedure to end human life is immoral. All abortions should be banned to have higher divisions of labor. I refer to this paper- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/padr.12085,https://www.redalyc.org/journal/413/41345703009/html/, and the Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon. Less people-economic slowdown. More people - more growth. However, I don't think governments should give incentives to people to have more children. Their only job in my view is to defend life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in that order.

You got it wrong.  More people means more pollution.  Having fewer people is better for everyone.

As for abortions, men should have no say what a woman can do with HER BODY.

Abortions until viability should be allowed, period. 

People who cannot get pregnant should have no say on the matter.

So you should kill unborn children for the environment, then? Surely there is a better way than murdering the human population in order to be more greener.

And define "viability". At what exact point does a fetus become viable? The line is blurry. And why viability? What about when the fetus can detect pain, or has a heart beat?

Say the pro-abortion crowd defines an unborn child as just a clump of cells (they do, but for the sake of argument, suppose). At 9 months post conception, the moment before birth where abortion is apparently okay, what exactly is that "thing" that originates from the uterus? Is it still just a clump of cells? If it is considering a human being, then why should other human beings (aka men) not have a say in the matter?

[af_newbie]

what's your take on that?

Should heart bypass surgeries be banned?

How about root canal procedures?

Abortion is a medical procedure.

Banning medical procedures is immoral.

No abortion refers to induced abortions. Wrong, any medical procedure to end human life is immoral. All abortions should be banned to have higher divisions of labor. I refer to this paper- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/padr.12085,https://www.redalyc.org/journal/413/41345703009/html/, and the Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon. Less people-economic slowdown. More people - more growth. However, I don't think governments should give incentives to people to have more children. Their only job in my view is to defend life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in that order.

You got it wrong.  More people means more pollution.  Having fewer people is better for everyone.

As for abortions, men should have no say what a woman can do with HER BODY.

Abortions until viability should be allowed, period. 

People who cannot get pregnant should have no say on the matter.

So you should kill unborn children for the environment, then? Surely there is a better way than murdering the human population in order to be more greener.

And define "viability". At what exact point does a fetus become viable? The line is blurry. And why viability? What about when the fetus can detect pain, or has a heart beat?

Say the pro-abortion crowd defines an unborn child as just a clump of cells (they do, but for the sake of argument, suppose). At 9 months post conception, the moment before birth where abortion is apparently okay, what exactly is that "thing" that originates from the uterus? Is it still just a clump of cells? If it is considering a human being, then why should other human beings (aka men) not have a say in the matter?

Don't play dumber than you are. Google 'baby viability'.

Abortions until viability should be decided by women. Period.

Women's rights to medical procedures trump your wants over her body.

[o_e_l_e_o]

And why viability? What about when the fetus can detect pain, or has a heart beat?

The limit of viability is around 24 weeks. The nervous system developments necessary for feeling pain do not occur until the 26th week.

There are people living without a heartbeat through Ventricular Assist Devices, and there are hearts beating away inside brain dead people. A heartbeat is a poor indicator of a viable life.

Women's rights to medical procedures trump your wants over her body.

QFT.

[Gyfts]

Don't play dumber than you are. Google 'baby viability'.

Abortions until viability should be decided by women. Period.

Women's rights to medical procedures trump your wants over her body.

Well if Google says so, it must be true! You have holes in your logic - viability does not define a human, that's the point.

Is someone on a ventilator not human because they are not viable with advanced medical equipment? Why bother saving anyone's life in the hospital if their life is dependent on medical equipment to bring them back to viability? Why would it be a tragedy if someone were to die in their sleep, not knowing they would have ever lived. It's because they would have missed out on the experiences of life.

Life starts at conception, not at viability. Abortion after the fetus is developed is cruel. I am not against outlawing abortion, it's celebration in modern times though is disgusting.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Is someone on a ventilator not human because they are not viable with advanced medical equipment?

If someone on a ventilator still has higher brain function and still has a possibility of survival, then that person will receive full medical treatment.
If someone on a ventilator has been declared brain dead, then that is no longer a viable life (despite their heartbeat) and will have medical treatment withdrawn.

If a fetus has higher brain function and has a possibility of survival when they are born, then they will receive full medical treatment.
If a fetus has no higher brain function and will not survive even with advanced medical equipment, then it is not a viable life.

Life starts at conception, not at viability.

Living cells start at conception. A human life, by definition, cannot start until there is enough brain development to sustain consciousness, which is around 26 weeks.

[Gyfts]

Is someone on a ventilator not human because they are not viable with advanced medical equipment?

If someone on a ventilator still has higher brain function and still has a possibility of survival, then that person will receive full medical treatment.
If someone on a ventilator has been declared brain dead, then that is no longer a viable life (despite their heartbeat) and will have medical treatment withdrawn.

If a fetus has higher brain function and has a possibility of survival when they are born, then they will receive full medical treatment.
If a fetus has no higher brain function and will not survive even with advanced medical equipment, then it is not a viable life.

Life starts at conception, not at viability.

Living cells start at conception. A human life, by definition, cannot start until there is enough brain development to sustain consciousness, which is around 26 weeks.

Again, viability does not define human life. Viability refers to chance of survival.

The start of human life begins at the formation of a zygote.

What you might define as "living" begins a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one, so there are reasonable disagreements and subjective interpretation.

Do we consider living to be sentient or conscious? If that were the case, that means we are are no longer alive while sleeping?

A human life is still human life even if it is not sustainable without the mother's womb. Abortion is ending human life.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Again, viability does not define human life. Viability refers to chance of survival.

And humans with a 0% chance of survival due to lack of higher brain function are both medically and legally dead.

The start of human life begins at the formation of a zygote.

A zygote is no more a human life than a skin cell.

Do we consider living to be sentient or conscious? If that were the case, that means we are are no longer alive while sleeping?

You don't need to be conscious, but you need to have the capacity for consciousness. Adults without the capacity for consciousness are declared dead. Fetuses without the capacity for consciousness are not yet a life.

[af_newbie]

Is someone on a ventilator not human because they are not viable with advanced medical equipment?

If someone on a ventilator still has higher brain function and still has a possibility of survival, then that person will receive full medical treatment.
If someone on a ventilator has been declared brain dead, then that is no longer a viable life (despite their heartbeat) and will have medical treatment withdrawn.

If a fetus has higher brain function and has a possibility of survival when they are born, then they will receive full medical treatment.
If a fetus has no higher brain function and will not survive even with advanced medical equipment, then it is not a viable life.

Life starts at conception, not at viability.

Living cells start at conception. A human life, by definition, cannot start until there is enough brain development to sustain consciousness, which is around 26 weeks.

Again, viability does not define human life. Viability refers to chance of survival.

The start of human life begins at the formation of a zygote.

What you might define as "living" begins a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one, so there are reasonable disagreements and subjective interpretation.

Do we consider living to be sentient or conscious? If that were the case, that means we are are no longer alive while sleeping?

A human life is still human life even if it is not sustainable without the mother's womb. Abortion is ending human life.

So what?  Who cares? That life is not viable so it does not matter if it is human life or not.

Why are you ignoring human rights to medical procedures?  But insisting on preserving non-viable human life?

Why?  I really want to know the logic behind it.  Who brainwashed you?

[Gyfts]

So what?  Who cares? That life is not viable so it does not matter if it is human life or not.

Why are you ignoring human rights to medical procedures?  But insisting on preserving non-viable human life?

Why?  I really want to know the logic behind it.  Who brainwashed you?

I just gave you the logic. I don't want abortion outlawed, so it's myself that doesn't care, along with plenty others. Celebrating abortion becomes the slippery slope, it didn't used be like that, but radical activists have a profound ability of taking moderate concepts and shifting them into radical philosophy. And who says it's a "human right," exactly? Who says it's nonviable? A fetus is viable, it (he/she?) will eventually turn into a born human being that functions. You still have your abortions, nothing stopping anyone.

[af_newbie]

So what?  Who cares? That life is not viable so it does not matter if it is human life or not.

Why are you ignoring human rights to medical procedures?  But insisting on preserving non-viable human life?

Why?  I really want to know the logic behind it.  Who brainwashed you?

I just gave you the logic. I don't want abortion outlawed, so it's myself that doesn't care, along with plenty others. Celebrating abortion becomes the slippery slope, it didn't used be like that, but radical activists have a profound ability of taking moderate concepts and shifting them into radical philosophy. And who says it's a "human right," exactly? Who says it's nonviable? A fetus is viable, it (he/she?) will eventually turn into a born human being that functions. You still have your abortions, nothing stopping anyone.

Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex.  Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.

Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.

Just because you don't understand how not to discriminate against people, doesn't mean discrimination must be legislated.

It is not a slippery slope as you think it is.  

[Room101]

Instead of banning abortion, we should make vasectomies compulsory for all males at age 14. They are reversible, so once a man has proven he is responsible enough to have kids, and raise them, we should allow him to reverse it.

[af_newbie]

Instead of banning abortion, we should make vasectomies compulsory for all males at age 14. They are reversible, so once a man has proven he is responsible enough to have kids, and raise them, we should allow him to reverse it.

+1

I'd limit men's reproductive age to 25-40.  Every man over 40 should undergo a permanent vasectomy.

This would solve more problems than one.

AND

Abortions until viability should be a choice. The government should pay for all abortions until 26 weeks of pregnancy.