neves
Active Member
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it okay to kill this?
- Thread starter neves
- Start date
dust1n
Zindīq
Neither ethical or unethical.. just is.
.lava
Veteran Member
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
Many people would disagree.
Anyways, in response to the obvious flame-bait thread, I would like to state that yes, abortion should be completely legal at any point. That does not make it moral, but morality is irrelevant in the law.
.lava
Veteran Member
really? it is so sad. why would someone wait for 23 weeks if she does not want to have a baby? it is almost 6 months. geez, i don't get it
.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Anyone who can't see that this is a HUMAN BABY who deserves protection BY the law rather than FROM the law is sticking their head in the ideological sand.
Idiot-illogical sand, that is.
I know that there are unusual circumstances in which abortion may be rationalized or even ethical - but those should be exceptions.
Abortion for the convenience of others is monstrous.
Idiot-illogical sand, that is.
I know that there are unusual circumstances in which abortion may be rationalized or even ethical - but those should be exceptions.
Abortion for the convenience of others is monstrous.
xkatz
Well-Known Member
Heck, a baby can be born by about then and survive, I think. There's no point in aborting it in my opinion. It would be best instead to give it up for adoption at that point, unless it had to aborted due to safety concerns or if they somehow found out the fetus was going to be stillborn or dying. If the person is aborting it just because they don't want it shame on them :tsk:
Last edited:
Smoke
Done here.
The relevant question as far as the law is concerned is, at what point is it ethical to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will?
98.5% of abortions in the United States take place during the first 20 weeks.
88% take place during the first 12 weeks.
58% of women having an abortion say they would have preferred to have it earler.
60% of those say the reason for delay was raising the money and making arrangements for an abortion.
Teenagers are far more likely to delay abortion than women 20 or older.
98.5% of abortions in the United States take place during the first 20 weeks.
88% take place during the first 12 weeks.
58% of women having an abortion say they would have preferred to have it earler.
60% of those say the reason for delay was raising the money and making arrangements for an abortion.
Teenagers are far more likely to delay abortion than women 20 or older.
dust1n
Zindīq
Yes, it is a baby; it's all not yet a separate being from it's mother. I do not dictate what one does to themselves.
It is a separate life even if it is dependent on the body of the mother.
.lava
Veteran Member
exactly, it has his own eyes, his own hands..geez it is a human baby. no human should gets his rights to live only after he was born
.
I understand what Dust1n is saying here. Yes, it is a developing baby, but this is a unique situation in that it must continue to use the mother's body to develop. This asks the question: At what point do we tell a woman, "You can no longer control how your body will be used."?
I think the only other situation that could come close to this would be conjoined twins where say...one twin is more dependent on the other to live. And even then it's not a perfectly matched scenario.
I've used the bone marrow argument in the past. Say you've got bone marrow that matches a patient in need. The patient will die without it, yet you still have the right to say no. Why? Because you have bodily autonomy. No one can force you to go through with bone marrow donation, even if a life hangs in the balance.
It's very tricky.
I think the only other situation that could come close to this would be conjoined twins where say...one twin is more dependent on the other to live. And even then it's not a perfectly matched scenario.
I've used the bone marrow argument in the past. Say you've got bone marrow that matches a patient in need. The patient will die without it, yet you still have the right to say no. Why? Because you have bodily autonomy. No one can force you to go through with bone marrow donation, even if a life hangs in the balance.
It's very tricky.
.lava
Veteran Member
i personally agree with Kathryn. there could be special circumstances to end pregnancy. but if people were just being reckless, well reckless enough to wait for 6 months then maybe not just the baby, her womb also should be removed.
i could not force or demand anyone to have baby that they don't wish to have. but it is a responsibility. one could refuse to take it. everything shoudl be done on the right time then. 23 weeks is just nuts. wait for 3 more months and hand it over to authorities. someone who can't have baby would gladly raise him as her own
.
.lava
Veteran Member
I agree with you, Lava.
While I identify myself as pro-choice, I'm not a hard liner who thinks the baby is up for grabs at any point during gestation. I'm very much torn between the legality and the emotion of it all. (Which means neither side likes me!
lol i like gray lady
.
DavyCrocket2003
Well-Known Member
I'm all for choice. Having sex get's people pregnant. If you don't want to have a baby, choose not to have sex. (Or avoid becoming pregnant in some other way:areyoucra). That may seem a little sexist, sorry. But seriously, the choice to have sex is the choice to chance pregnancy. Seems pretty logical to me.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Personally I think Abortion should only be legal after a small period of time, like maybe 6 weeks or something. I haven't studied the full process of how developed a baby is at certain weeks, however I think it eventually gets to a point where it is developed enough to feel pain and thus you'd be murdering an unborn child.
Does anybody know what week a baby starts to develope a responsive CNS?
Does anybody know what week a baby starts to develope a responsive CNS?
I agree about the 6 wk cut off. By this time, not only are the brain, lungs and heart opperating, the stomach is producing digestive acids, the liver is manufacturing blood cells, the kidneys are extracting uric acid from the blood and the nerves and muscles are operating.