Abortion: with or against?

I'm okay with abortion. The rules I would personally like to implement about whether or not you can have an abortion are unenforceableand arguably make very little sense when you break them down. Thus it's hard to say some abortion is okay and not others and because of that I am in the women's right to choose camp.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="thegerg"] The evidence does not support your claim that the Constitution defines a person in a certain way. I had never heard that the Constitution defines a person, and I was curious to see how the Constitution defines a person. I am simply saying that the evidence you provided does not support your claim. I am not nitpicking, I am simply letting you know that your claim is not supported by the evidence you provided.thegerg

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Once again, the Constitution does not define a person. You have now stated that "The justice clearly stated the sections in the constitution on how a person was defined." That is simply untrue. The Constitution describes persons in a number of ways, but it does not define a person. It does not define persons in a pre-natal form, nor does it define persons in a post-natal form. Look at it like this. I can describe a cellphone in a number of ways. For example, (using my phone as an example) black, about 5 inches long by 3 wide by 1/2 deep, it is black with a screen on one side, it has a slide-out keyboard. I have desrcibed a cellphone, but I have not defined a cellphone. The words "define" and "describe" mean 2 very different things and are not to be used interchangeably, doing so hinders your argument.thegerg

*Sigh* They're synonyms you know. So yes, they can be used interchangebly. You know you lost an arguement when you nitpick at words used.

Not a fan.

I'm not against abortions unless they're incredibly late into the women's pregnancy (unless it's for health reasons). However I'm not for abortions for this "women's" right to choose crap. If it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, than the man should at least have some say.

Against. Abortion is murder.

I think its murder, plain and simple. not to mention the fact that its completely pointless in society.

here is why i think its bad:

1) there are alot of well-off and successful couples who want children but cant have them due to medical reasons. If you dont want your baby because you cant support him/her, then why not have the baby and give him/her to one of the many couples out there and give him/her a shot at a good life with alot of opportunities?

2) If the baby was concieved out of rape, then why not refer to #1 above? its not his fault that he was concieved in such a horrific way, neither is it the woman's fault. Everyone deserves the same chance at life.

3) Its MURDER. You are denying a human being the right to life. that is, by literal definition, what murder is. plus, its a freaking baby! your killing a HUMAN BABY. I cant be clearer than that

4) you could make the argument that its the womans "choice" or "right," but the same could be said for a serial killer if that were the case. what i mean by this is, "Everyone has freedom of choice! therefore, that woman has the right to abort her baby if she doesnt want it!" sounds alot like "Everyone has freedom of choice! therefore, that serial killer has the right to murder all those people!" to me IMO.

besides, if we are throwing freedom of choice into this, do you think the human baby had a choice when you aborted him/her?

btw, the irony of abortion and capital punishment laws just astounds me

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"] Its MURDER. You are denying a human being the right to life. that is, by literal definition, what murder is. thegerg

bull. your still killing a living human being. it doesnt matter if malice is intended or not. its still killing

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No. That is not "by literal definition" what murder is. You seem to be confused. Murder is, fundementally, an unlaful killing of one living human being with another with malice aforethought. A legal abortion is not murder.thegerg

bull. your still killing a living human being. it doesnt matter if malice is intended or not. its still killing

if it has a heartbeat it does!

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] You may be right, it may be killing. However, an unborn fetus does not fit the legal description of a living person. It is not bull, it is law.thegerg

if it has a heartbeat it does!

I have actually. human fetuses have been recorded to have heartbeats as early as several weeks (22 days to be exact) in the womb. ergo, the human baby is alive at this point. whether he/she has intelligence is still up in the air however, but im not ruling it out that the baby could possibly think. therefore, my point stands. if it is POSSIBLE that the baby could have intelligence, then the baby is concidered alive to me

In most cases I oppose it. The Qur'an says a few things that have lead me to believe that God has a plan for a baby's life. I think it's OK to abort it if the mother's health is at a serious risk, though.

Against it, but strangely for Stem Cell but I would never want both to be together, just think of the foul industry that would be created with all those fetuses aborted for it specifically

When has this conversation on a forum or in any casual setting EVER ended well? This doesn't end with backslapping and hugs, mutual understanding and common ground; this ends badly, each time, every time.

In most cases I oppose it. The Qur'an says a few things that have lead me to believe that God has a plan for a baby's life. I think it's OK to abort it if the mother's health is at a serious risk, though.

dracula_16

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

if it has a heartbeat it does!

Neo-ganon

I have actually. human fetuses have been recorded to have heartbeats as early as several weeks (22 days to be exact) in the womb. ergo, the human baby is alive at this point. whether he/she has intelligence is still up in the air however, but im not ruling it out that the baby could possibly think. therefore, my point stands. if it is POSSIBLE that the baby could have intelligence, then the baby is concidered alive to me

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No, it doesn't. You seem to be confused as to the legal definition of a human person. Please do some research before posting again.Ace6301

I have actually. human fetuses have been recorded to have heartbeats as early as several weeks (22 days to be exact) in the womb. ergo, the human baby is alive at this point. whether he/she has intelligence is still up in the air however, but im not ruling it out that the baby could possibly think. therefore, my point stands. if it is POSSIBLE that the baby could have intelligence, then the baby is concidered alive to me

yeah, but does that mean that it really isnt? "legally" is just a title, it doesnt mean its set in stone. besides, if that were the case, then its going to be a human eventually, which is something you would prevent by killing the baby and denying it life

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

I have actually. human fetuses have been recorded to have heartbeats as early as several weeks (22 days to be exact) in the womb. ergo, the human baby is alive at this point. whether he/she has intelligence is still up in the air however, but im not ruling it out that the baby could possibly think. therefore, my point stands. if it is POSSIBLE that the baby could have intelligence, then the baby is concidered alive to me

Neo-ganon

yeah, but does that mean that it really isnt? "legally" is just a title, it doesnt mean its set in stone. besides, if that were the case, then its going to be a human eventually, which is something you would prevent by killing the baby and denying it life

I've denied millions of lives on many a lonely night.

2) If the baby was concieved out of rape, then why not refer to #1 above? its not his fault that he was concieved in such a horrific way, neither is it the woman's fault. Everyone deserves the same chance at life.

Neo-ganon

ah, but is it really right of society to expect a woman to have a constant reminder of such a traumatic experience for 9 months straight? Personally I don't think so.

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

2) If the baby was concieved out of rape, then why not refer to #1 above? its not his fault that he was concieved in such a horrific way, neither is it the woman's fault. Everyone deserves the same chance at life.

Serraph105

ah, but is it really right of society to expect a woman to have a constant reminder of such a traumatic experience for 9 months straight? Personally I don't think so.

they have psychological groups for that

but then again you have a point though. im kinda on the fence about the rape issue

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

In most cases I oppose it. The Qur'an says a few things that have lead me to believe that God has a plan for a baby's life. I think it's OK to abort it if the mother's health is at a serious risk, though.

Frame_Dragger

Well, we don't believe that He causes all things to happen, because if that were true, He would be the one who causes people to sin, making him a cruel tyrant. He allows things like abortion to happen, but that doesn't mean it's a kin to a puppet master controlling his puppets by forcing people to abort their fetuses. When I said that He has a plan for a baby's life, I meant that His message of salvation is open to all of humanity. Even though a baby doesn't understand what a relationship with God is, the human being, once it gets old enough to understand, is welcome to choose the path of Islam. His plan is for that person to live by Islam.

I've heard that some hadiths [our oral traditions] say that all babies are born sinless and are in a state of Islam, meaning that if the baby dies, it will go to Paradise. I've never come across this hadith personally, so I don't have a source, unfortunately. Sorry if that's a little convoluted-- it's difficult for me to explain. It was a great question, though. Thank you for asking it.

I support the womens right to decide.

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

2) If the baby was concieved out of rape, then why not refer to #1 above? its not his fault that he was concieved in such a horrific way, neither is it the woman's fault. Everyone deserves the same chance at life.

Serraph105

ah, but is it really right of society to expect a woman to have a constant reminder of such a traumatic experience for 9 months straight? Personally I don't think so.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

I have actually. human fetuses have been recorded to have heartbeats as early as several weeks (22 days to be exact) in the womb. ergo, the human baby is alive at this point. whether he/she has intelligence is still up in the air however, but im not ruling it out that the baby could possibly think. therefore, my point stands. if it is POSSIBLE that the baby could have intelligence, then the baby is concidered alive to me

Neo-ganon

yeah, but does that mean that it really isnt? "legally" is just a title, it doesnt mean its set in stone. besides, if that were the case, then its going to be a human eventually, which is something you would prevent by killing the baby and denying it life

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Legally a fetus is not a human.Ace6301

yeah, but does that mean that it really isnt? "legally" is just a title, it doesnt mean its set in stone. besides, if that were the case, then its going to be a human eventually, which is something you would prevent by killing the baby and denying it life

im pro-life and pro-capital punishment! ha!

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

yeah, but does that mean that it really isnt? "legally" is just a title, it doesnt mean its set in stone. besides, if that were the case, then its going to be a human eventually, which is something you would prevent by killing the baby and denying it life

Neo-ganon

im pro-life and pro-capital punishment! ha!

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Legally a fetus is not a human.Ace6301

yeah, but does that mean that it really isnt? "legally" is just a title, it doesnt mean its set in stone. besides, if that were the case, then its going to be a human eventually, which is something you would prevent by killing the baby and denying it life

- It's argued by Don Marquis

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Legally a fetus is not a human.Ace6301

yeah, but does that mean that it really isnt? "legally" is just a title, it doesnt mean its set in stone. besides, if that were the case, then its going to be a human eventually, which is something you would prevent by killing the baby and denying it life

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

yeah, but does that mean that it really isnt? "legally" is just a title, it doesnt mean its set in stone. besides, if that were the case, then its going to be a human eventually, which is something you would prevent by killing the baby and denying it life

trugs26

- It's argued by Don Marquis

I am against abortion, both morally and legally, even if the mother's life is at risk (no one should kill someone innocent to survive). An embryo, no matter how undeveloped it may seem to a born baby, is biologically alive since it's animated amtter and is biologically human since it's the offspring of a human. Many pro-choicers spout nonsense such as the embryo is part of the mother's body, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Since when does a mother possess 92 chromosomes and eventually exhibit two brains, four kidneys, and on some occassions male genitalia for just a matter of six months or so? Am embryo has its own identity, separate from the mother. Therefore, every human being possesses the right to life from conception.

[QUOTE="Mephers"]Still cant believe weve fallen so far that we even have to debate if murder is right or wrong. cheese_game619

lol lrn2science

"Still cant believe weve fallen so far that we even have to debate if murder is right or wrong." Sure hope you're anti-capital punishment and vehemently anti-war or else you've got some serious cognitive dissonance going on.Ace6301