Abortion is Better than the Alternative

The rational used in the OP is "plain good for society". Not birth, not being a human person, not being viable, not on "potential". The OP's entire criterion is the cost to society.

Applying that reasoning to its obvious and logical conclusion (which the OP failed to do, and when confronted quickly shrank away) all people whose net worth to society is negative are to be killed.

 

Raising children has consequences. If you don't want to incur those consequences, then don't get pregnant.

 

Or else what, tough guy? I'll lose some internet battle to someone who just said that semen have feelings?

 

forcing people to have babies should never be used as a punishment

it sounds like what your really upset about is that people are having sex for pleasure rather then just for having babies?

do you at least agree that young children and rape victims should not be forced to have children and can abort the pregnancy if they choose?



.

 

Not at all. Do you think the abortion debate is new? Its been raging for 45 years, many arguments on both sides are well thought out. If you are not up to speed on the issue, then you make old arguments that have been refuted ages ago. Do your homework.

 

Yes forcing something on someone is bad.

 

Forcing people to murder their babies - or killing people who are simply a net cost to society - should never be done. And that's what this OP is about - aborting people who are not "good" for society.

You have asked that before, so have others. No, I do not agree. Abortion is acceptable if the mothers life is significantly at risk, but not just because of rape or incest Do you punish an innocent person for another persons crime? No. If the baby is a person then it cannot be killed, it did not commit any crime. Does the mother suffer? Yes, but the suffering is due to the crime and the criminal not due to the innocent baby. The criminal is punished.

The situation is no different than if a child is disabled due to a crime, and the child requires life long care from the parents. Do the parents simply claim the child is now such a burden on their lives that the child should be killed? No, they do not. The criminal is punished, not the innocent child.

 

seriously, you would want our government to force a 12 year old rape victim to have her rapists baby?

no one should be force to forced to abort or have a baby.....

.

 

Except that it isn't the same .. do try to at least have a semblance of knowledge before posting.

Oh and BTW the personhood status of the foetus is irrelevant, but of course you continue to run away from that debate.

- - - Updated - - -

Evading the question I see

 

What a hypocrite ... your so called arguments are old and have been ripped apart and you turn coward every time I challenge you to a debate.

 

Seems like someone doesn't know their own laws. You have zero understanding.

 

But YOU want to punish the INNOCENT rape victim by forcing them to bear the rapist's child which is pretty much like being raped again and again...it's being punished for being raped and YOU approve........the RAPIST uses force and so do Anti-Choicers....a very strong similarity.

 

And those who want to force a woman to have her rapist's baby are as bad as rapists....BOTH are ALL and ONLY about power and control over women

 

It all revolves around the status of the baby - is it a person or not? That is the only relevant question at this stage.

 

Why do you keep repeating that....it has no relevance to abortion rights...that has been explained to you several times....

It might be YOUR "relevant question" but no one else's...BTW, a baby IS a person....but that has nothing to do with abortion...

 

it's not a baby at that stage, it's just cells and I support a 12 year olds right to say she doesn't want her rapists baby

the morning after pill should be included in all rape kits imo

....

 

So you believe she should not have a choice and should be forced to give birth? (All exceptions noted)

 

That's fine, but that's just your opinion. It does not resolve the issue.

 

we can debate 3rd Tri, but there is no debating that they are just cells when they are nothign more then a glob of cells

in fact until after about 26 weeks is were people start disagreeing

http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
"a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."

I say we let each women decide for herself, you can also decide for yourself or anyone that wants your help deciding...

.

.

 

So far all you have produced is opinion based on error.......................AND the issue has been resolved abortion is legal

......and if you had a leg to stand on you'd be able to respond to all the posts ...

 

Don't be silly Fox that would require actual thought instead of parroting something they read off lifesitenews or some other equally "informative" pro-life website.

 

Does a newborn baby feel pain? Yes - because its brain has been activated by the process of birth and the nervous system is fully connected to the brain.

Does an embryo feel pain? No - because the nervous system is not connected to a functional brain. If you check your evidence, you will find that pro-life doctors can only state (honestly) that the nerves respond to pressure. Until the nervous system is fully integrated with the brain, there is no possibility of those signals being interpreted as pain. It is similar to the state of a person with a spinal cord injury... the nerves in the legs may still be alive and responding to pressure but they CANNOT be interpreted as pain by the brain because the wiring is not fully connected.

Is an embryo aware that the abortion doctor is approaching with a medical instrument? No, so any motion is just reflex response driven by the primitive brain stem. People who observed Terri Schiavo claimed she was responding to them, and that she recognized them as they entered the room. The autopsy proved that would have been impossible, so those observers were making the same mistake as pro-life doctors who misinterpret mindless reflexes as if they were mindful and intentional actions.

There is EEG evidence that global neuronal integration has started about the middle of the third trimester, so you could argue that a significant pain impulse in the last 4 weeks or so of gestation might be enough to awaken the mind of the fetus, but any claim that a fetus can "feel" pain before that is utterly false.

 

Your theory that unwanted pregnancies are controlled by anti-abortion laws is proven (by Canada) to be flawed.

I ask again. Canada eliminated their laws against abortion, so by your logic accidental pregnancies must have increased (thus increasing the abortion rate in Canada). Is that what actually happened when Canada eliminated abortion restrictions?

 

You owe atheiststories an apology for misrepresenting the OP. The OP is not about aborting potential persons based on whether they might potentially represent a net cost to society. It is certainly not about forcing anybody to get an abortion. It is the pro-life gang that wants to force a woman to bear a child against her will (even if it is likely to represent a net cost to society). There is nothing in the OP to suggest any woman would be forced to get an abortion.

 

You can repeat your brain development argument 1 million more times, it is not conclusive and will not become more significant with repetition.