Is abortion immoral?

Sytar · **Posted:** Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:17 am

ClaudeDavis wrote:

this is debatable

which is just fancy talk for 'sytar wins'

cookitagain · **Joined:** Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:13 pm

i dont use abortion personally because its too expensive, i prefer to kick her till she bleeds.

cookitagain · **Joined:** Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:13 pm

Gilded[Shadow] wrote:

Preator wrote:

People who are forced to do something rarely do it right. Abortion lowers crime rates for this reason. Having someone carelessly raise a child and teach it nothing, but lavish it with what ever it wants will undoubtedly create an immoral bastard child.

This was gonna be my point. I've heard lot's of people say "Oh, you're killing the scientist who finds the cure for cancer!" Bullshit. There is no goddamned way that a kid who was born into an obviously shit family if their parents were considering abortion in the first place is gonna find the fucking cure to cancer.

well there is a thing worse about cancer than cancer and thats people droning on about it constantly, i call this cancer of the mind, and whats so bad about cancer anyway it makes the world that little bit more stable by reducing population and bringing the wrath of god upon the obviously deserving. you get cancer or aborted its probably because you deserved it!

Josef · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:30 pm

edit: I guess it depends what your morals are defined as

bashna · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:33 pm

Morals and ethics are subjective... We shouldn't be allowed to completely define either for ANYTHING. It's the mother choices, and she should get to do WHATEVER she likes with her "pregnancy". And like already stated, if its immoral to kill a potentially life, even when you create 1life, you killed millions of others because they did not impregnate the egg, therefor they died, you inadvertently become a mass murderer.

However, one bullshit thing about abortion, is if the women DOESN'T want an abortion and the man does, the man should be able to absolve himself of responsibilities, it takes two to make a baby, and if both parties don't agree, then it should be on the mother to take care of the baby. But, thats not how society works, so whatever. Back to my point, it should be up to the mother whether or not she is doing the right thing ethically or morally, and we should not be able to define it for her.

KaRdOoShI · **Joined:** Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:53 pm

Preator wrote:

Abortion is the murder of a POTENTIAL life. We have no way of knowing whether the baby to be would even be, or be what. If you want to say stopping potential life is wrong, then don't use a condom or you are a hypocrite. In fact, if you are ever not trying to conceive a child at any point in time, you are denying that possible baby the right to live. So every second you have, inadvertently "killed" hundreds of babies. Being fully aware of ones actions does not make them any worse, so how can abortion be wrong?

human babies are some of the most dependent babies of any species on their mother. Human babies cannot survive without their mother for years after birth. Should they only be considered 'potential' life?

bashna · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:33 pm

KaRdOoShI wrote:

Preator wrote:

Abortion is the murder of a POTENTIAL life. We have no way of knowing whether the baby to be would even be, or be what. If you want to say stopping potential life is wrong, then don't use a condom or you are a hypocrite. In fact, if you are ever not trying to conceive a child at any point in time, you are denying that possible baby the right to live. So every second you have, inadvertently "killed" hundreds of babies. Being fully aware of ones actions does not make them any worse, so how can abortion be wrong?

human babies are some of the most dependent babies of any species on their mother. Human babies cannot survive without their mother for years after birth. Should they only be considered 'potential' life?

Humans are generally depedant on their mothers even after they're babies. I'm too lazy to look up statistics ATM, but i'm sure if you were to find some research done on divorces where 50% went with their mothers, and 50% with the fathers, the Fathers side would have many more psychological issues, social issues, and probably would be depressed.

Python · **Posted:** Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:26 pm

bashna wrote:

KaRdOoShI wrote:

Preator wrote:

Abortion is the murder of a POTENTIAL life. We have no way of knowing whether the baby to be would even be, or be what. If you want to say stopping potential life is wrong, then don't use a condom or you are a hypocrite. In fact, if you are ever not trying to conceive a child at any point in time, you are denying that possible baby the right to live. So every second you have, inadvertently "killed" hundreds of babies. Being fully aware of ones actions does not make them any worse, so how can abortion be wrong?

human babies are some of the most dependent babies of any species on their mother. Human babies cannot survive without their mother for years after birth. Should they only be considered 'potential' life?

Humans are generally depedant on their mothers even after they're babies. I'm too lazy to look up statistics ATM, but i'm sure if you were to find some research done on divorces where 50% went with their mothers, and 50% with the fathers, the Fathers side would have many more psychological issues, social issues, and probably would be depressed.

That probably has more to do with the fact that a higher proportion of fathers are shitty fathers than mothers are shitty mothers.

bashna · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:33 pm

Python wrote:

bashna wrote:

KaRdOoShI wrote:

Preator wrote:

Abortion is the murder of a POTENTIAL life. We have no way of knowing whether the baby to be would even be, or be what. If you want to say stopping potential life is wrong, then don't use a condom or you are a hypocrite. In fact, if you are ever not trying to conceive a child at any point in time, you are denying that possible baby the right to live. So every second you have, inadvertently "killed" hundreds of babies. Being fully aware of ones actions does not make them any worse, so how can abortion be wrong?

human babies are some of the most dependent babies of any species on their mother. Human babies cannot survive without their mother for years after birth. Should they only be considered 'potential' life?

Humans are generally depedant on their mothers even after they're babies. I'm too lazy to look up statistics ATM, but i'm sure if you were to find some research done on divorces where 50% went with their mothers, and 50% with the fathers, the Fathers side would have many more psychological issues, social issues, and probably would be depressed.

That probably has more to do with the fact that a higher proportion of fathers are shitty fathers than mothers are shitty mothers.

I completely agree, but that could definitely be a biological, or innate thing. Not saying it is for a fact, but you understand the possibility and the reasoning behind it.

Digitalliquid · **Joined:** Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:33 pm

is it immoral to make a thread about abortion?

Python · **Posted:** Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:41 am

bashna wrote:

Python wrote:

bashna wrote:

KaRdOoShI wrote:

Preator wrote:

Abortion is the murder of a POTENTIAL life. We have no way of knowing whether the baby to be would even be, or be what. If you want to say stopping potential life is wrong, then don't use a condom or you are a hypocrite. In fact, if you are ever not trying to conceive a child at any point in time, you are denying that possible baby the right to live. So every second you have, inadvertently "killed" hundreds of babies. Being fully aware of ones actions does not make them any worse, so how can abortion be wrong?

human babies are some of the most dependent babies of any species on their mother. Human babies cannot survive without their mother for years after birth. Should they only be considered 'potential' life?

It is biological. Mothers are nurturing. Fathers are not necessarily. They can be, but are generally not as nurturing. Especially in the animal kingdom.

Humans are generally depedant on their mothers even after they're babies. I'm too lazy to look up statistics ATM, but i'm sure if you were to find some research done on divorces where 50% went with their mothers, and 50% with the fathers, the Fathers side would have many more psychological issues, social issues, and probably would be depressed.

That probably has more to do with the fact that a higher proportion of fathers are shitty fathers than mothers are shitty mothers.

I completely agree, but that could definitely be a biological, or innate thing. Not saying it is for a fact, but you understand the possibility and the reasoning behind it.

EDIT:: Wow, I literally just posted a long response and the post was blank when I went to view it. That's hilarious.

Anyway, jist of it is, it is biological. Mothers are nurturing, fathers generally are not. It's inherited from our primate ancestors actually. Male primates are generally infanticidal.

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=2818

Quote:

There is a further consequence. Infanticide is common among gorillas, as it is among many primates. A bachelor male inﬁltrates a harem, grabs a baby, and kills it. This has two effects on the baby’s mother (apart from causing her great, though transient, distress): ﬁrst, by halting her lactation it brings her back into estrus; second, it persuades her that she needs a new harem master who is better at protecting her babies. And who better to choose than the raider? So she leaves her mate and marries her baby’s killer. Infanticide brings genetic rewards to males, who thereby become more fecund ancestors than males that do not kill babies; hence most modern gorillas are descended from killers. Infanticide is a natural instinct in male gorillas.

bashna · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:33 pm

Python wrote:

bashna wrote:

Python wrote:

bashna wrote:

KaRdOoShI wrote:

Preator wrote:

Abortion is the murder of a POTENTIAL life. We have no way of knowing whether the baby to be would even be, or be what. If you want to say stopping potential life is wrong, then don't use a condom or you are a hypocrite. In fact, if you are ever not trying to conceive a child at any point in time, you are denying that possible baby the right to live. So every second you have, inadvertently "killed" hundreds of babies. Being fully aware of ones actions does not make them any worse, so how can abortion be wrong?

human babies are some of the most dependent babies of any species on their mother. Human babies cannot survive without their mother for years after birth. Should they only be considered 'potential' life?

It is biological. Mothers are nurturing. Fathers are not necessarily. They can be, but are generally not as nurturing. Especially in the animal kingdom.

Humans are generally depedant on their mothers even after they're babies. I'm too lazy to look up statistics ATM, but i'm sure if you were to find some research done on divorces where 50% went with their mothers, and 50% with the fathers, the Fathers side would have many more psychological issues, social issues, and probably would be depressed.

That probably has more to do with the fact that a higher proportion of fathers are shitty fathers than mothers are shitty mothers.

I completely agree, but that could definitely be a biological, or innate thing. Not saying it is for a fact, but you understand the possibility and the reasoning behind it.

EDIT:: Wow, I literally just posted a long response and the post was blank when I went to view it. That's hilarious.

Anyway, jist of it is, it is biological. Mothers are nurturing, fathers generally are not. It's inherited from our primate ancestors actually. Male primates are generally infanticidal.

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=2818

Quote:

There is a further consequence. Infanticide is common among gorillas, as it is among many primates. A bachelor male inﬁltrates a harem, grabs a baby, and kills it. This has two effects on the baby’s mother (apart from causing her great, though transient, distress): ﬁrst, by halting her lactation it brings her back into estrus; second, it persuades her that she needs a new harem master who is better at protecting her babies. And who better to choose than the raider? So she leaves her mate and marries her baby’s killer. Infanticide brings genetic rewards to males, who thereby become more fecund ancestors than males that do not kill babies; hence most modern gorillas are descended from killers. Infanticide is a natural instinct in male gorillas.

You've proved my point, with something to back it up. Gotta love them snakes.

Op.Ivy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:01 pm

Sytar wrote:

LagunaCid wrote:

youngstar2 wrote:

ReggioLegato wrote:

I believe abortion is wrong.. How can someone possibly live with the fact that they pretty much killed a new life.. Especially the fact that, that life would of come from them.

For those who think abortion is right, what if you were to know that your mother would of had an abortion on you? You wouldn't want that, so you would obviously think that abortion is wrong.

Do you fuck every three days without a condom in order to get a girl pregnant? If not, you're being immoral because you are wasting your sperm. Sperm die after three days. Sperm is potential life!

Do girls get pregnant every time they can? No. They let the egg die. That egg could be life! All girls are immoral!

Were you an egg at one point? Were you a sperm?

Actually, yes.

Actually, not really. Genetic material isn't living, much like that of viruses. It's only considered life when they both combine to form the zygote and go on in embryonic development

Sytar · **Posted:** Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:01 pm

Op.Ivy wrote:

Sytar wrote:

LagunaCid wrote:

youngstar2 wrote:

ReggioLegato wrote:

I believe abortion is wrong.. How can someone possibly live with the fact that they pretty much killed a new life.. Especially the fact that, that life would of come from them.

For those who think abortion is right, what if you were to know that your mother would of had an abortion on you? You wouldn't want that, so you would obviously think that abortion is wrong.

Do you fuck every three days without a condom in order to get a girl pregnant? If not, you're being immoral because you are wasting your sperm. Sperm die after three days. Sperm is potential life!

Do girls get pregnant every time they can? No. They let the egg die. That egg could be life! All girls are immoral!

Were you an egg at one point? Were you a sperm?

Actually, yes.

Genetic material isn't living, much like that of viruses.

You're going to try and pass off sperm and egg as mere "genetic material"? Nice try. Smallest unit of life is the cell. Eggs and sperm are haploid cells.

treetops · **Joined:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:35 am

its kinda like, is stepping on a bug immoral? The bug is probably as self aware as a fetus. Of course a fetus has the potential to become a self aware being that as far as we know is at its peak. If this is the way you want to look at it every single sperm and egg produced should be kept safe. Of course there are way more sperm then eggs, due to numbers maybe we should only keep egg safe? Or maybe just eggs that have happen to be impregnated by a sperm? Maybe a full second after then constitutes life, however when can you truly judge when it is immoral to stamp out said life, what instant is there life, what is life? The atoms that make up a rock will someday be a brain cell in the grand scheme of infinity. What if the said life lives in a part of the world were most people die of starvation does it sound more morale now? What if said life was to b guaranteed a life of slavery and suffering upon birth?

I believe life is beautiful and to willfully deny life without a good reason is wrong. Sorry but I completely bypassed all the comments and went straight off the topic title. Ill go through and read all your posts in a bit ^^.

Blizzhackers

Is abortion immoral?

Who is online