Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Why Abortion Will Always Be Murder (Page 2)
Anonymous
(25-29) 
Ask to an AI Persona
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
51Opinion
Your a sad human being. Probably a religious zealot.
when they are just a bunch of cells, incapable of living outside the mother, it is not a child or human being. While I would agree that late term abortions are murder, anything in the first trimester is far from it.
'a religious zealot'- sorry, science agrees with religion this time.
The same person, as a zygote, an fetus, a child, a teenager and an elderly person all have one thing in common. Their genetic code is already predetermined at the combination of the male and female gamete, and are only waiting on development based on their life cycle. Therefore scientifically speaking it is only a PART of human's life cycle. Two human parent creates a human child- SURPRISE. I would like a counter argument by presenting a legitimate and well documented case of a woman giving birth to a tree or a bicycle, a dog etc. just not a human. Even better, someone make a personal claim of themselves not going through embryonic stage. Then you can present a loophole in my theory. Until then, my theory remains universal and therefore correct.
I am a really happy human being thanks and why does it suffer from pain then? you see the childs arms and hands and head and call it a bunch of cells?
We talk about giving a baby a chance, but there are literally thousands of children across this planet who are basically stuffed into orphanages and have been waiting their whole lives for adoption and the day never comes. Just because you happen to be born doesn't mean, someone is going to come along and everything is going to be great for that child, especially if that child tends to be a minority or come from a particularly poor or remote area.
Aborting something that could in no way live or survive in any capacity at the stage you abort it is not killing a newborn child. There are cases of rape and molestation as well where the mother did not choose to be a mother and to not allow her to abort something she had NO CHOICE in creating is just cruel.
If you feel abortion is wrong, don't abort your future children, and that's fine, but I don't think you or I have the right to tell someone else what to do with their own body especially in the cases of rape and molestation.
I'm sorry, I just can't believe a small lump of cells is conscious and has feelings, or that if it does it has them beyond the scope of that mosquito you just swatted on your wall... God agrees because he lets 40% of conceptions end in a miscarriage anyway.
Plus, the state can't force anyone to sacrifice themselves for someone else so there is no argument to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if the pregnancy endangers her health.
Of course people who are against all cases of abortion are in favor of massive government spending on foster care, maternity leave, sex-ed, availability of contraception and condoms, etc... I mean, they're motivated by ethical arguments, not just repeating religious mantras, right?
'40% of conceptions in miscarriage'. What a pile of crap.
@bobbyxx
It really isn't, ask your doctor. The reason it seems implausible to you is that many of these miscarriages occur before the woman knows she is pregnant (and the embryo is still so small it's not, or barely, visible).
I'm not with abortion just coz the mom "isn't ready" to be a mother. But in with it is extreme cases. Like my moms. If she didn't abort the she would've been dead by now. I prefer to have my mom over a new brother/sister honestly. I would have loved to have baby brother or sister but that's not the case. Coz like i said, i would lose my mom if she was like 'oh no its a murder, in gonna risk my life and get the baby. Its okay if i die'
The issue is that legally, you can't restrict it only in very specific circumstances. You can think whatever you like morally, but in terms of legality the restrictions have to be for more legitimate reasons.
that case is extreme and it's a hard decision but a mom should love her child more than herself right
@SS-rated: no. That's not how it works, not morally and especially not legally. If you personally believe that for your situation, fine, but you have no right to regulate other people's feelings and certainly not their actions regarding their own body.
@SS-rated woah woah woah. Hold on right there. If you know that you will die if u give birth. Leaving behind your 2 kids, husband and parents. AND if the baby lives after birth then u will leave a NEW BORN BABY (which is a HUGE responsibility) behind you. I honestly think its selfish of the mom in this case to do so. She's leaving her other two children who NEED HER just to make another one live and WITHOUT HER. What about the baby after he's born? Won't he be like where my mom? I want to see her, etc etc. And she'll leave that baby for her mom (the grandma) which is already getting old, the father now has to take care of all 3 kids while he's depressed coz his wife passed away. All that why? Coz the mom should love herself more than the baby that wasn't born yet? Honestly, I dont understand that 😁
but like @cipher42 said, if you personally believe that then alright. To each their own I guess. :)
I know what you mean but consider it being your own child
I respect your opinion. Well, I am not for abortion at any stage unless there is a legitimate reason, and within very precise limits.
I believe that if one is to abort, it should be within the first forty days. As I said, with good reason. I personally don't find fear of the difficulty of raising children or of being unable to bear the costs of maintaining and educating them, or for fear for their future or because the couple feel that they have enough children valid reasons to abort.
I guess good reasons would be a medical reason. For instance if it poses any threat to the mother's health. Or perhaps in the case of rape.
Abortion is not a murder because a fetus is not a conscious being... I mean, it's like you are saying that picking plants is a "murder" - yep, plants are also living beings, but they are not conscious. If a woman is raped, or her health/life is in danger, or any similar reason, she has a right to abort.
it is, a fetus can react to anything, it also reacts to the knife that pierces trough its body but what can a fetus possibly do?
@123cheesecake: Again, do your fucking research, and maybe also quit being so idiotically pedantic. Consciousness in this sense doesn't mean whether we're currently aware of our surroundings. A "conscious being" therefore is a being with the capacity for sapience and sentience, something that sleeping people certainly have, but fetuses earlier than 20 weeks certainly do not have. And honestly, I think you're perfectly aware that that's the case, and are simply being argumentative being you don't want to have to accept the facts.
@RedHood7: you have an incredibly narrow and and misinformed view. Firstly, you clearly don't understand what personhood even is. And secondly, you have absolutely no idea why women ACTUALLY get abortions. Or you do, but pretend not to because it'd be inconvenient to acknowledge. I'm honestly betting it's the second.
@RedHood7: well first off, bodily autonomy. We have a right to decide what happens to our own bodies. In fact, you can't even remove organs from a dead body even if it would save a life. Nor can you force people to give blood transfusions or similar, even if they hurt someone and are the reason that person needs such a procedure.
Next, there's the fact that pregnancy is in fact very dangerous and very difficult, and women should be able to choose not to have to take those sorts of risks, particularly considering a fetus before 20 weeks can't even feel pain so it's not like they're causing undue suffering to preserve themselves from some.
Furthermore, it's very clearly that abortions are necessary and will always happen. Even in areas where abortion is strictly forbidden, people still do it a great deal. All outlawing abortion does is make abortions more dangerous, and thus cost more lives.
@RedHood7: it's in a person's body. Yes, it can't survive apart from the body, but too bad. My right to bodily autonomy overrides it's right to survive, considering that a) as I literally just mentioned you can't force people to give up parts of themselves to save others and b) it has no sentience or salient anyways until 20 weeks, and thus in my opinion ion it's rights are highly limited, if it has any at all.
Yes. People should not be forced to put themselves in danger even to save others lives, even when those others are fully sentient and sapient beings. Whether they should or not is a different issue, but in regards to law it would be highly immoral to make a law forcing that sort of behavior.
Yes only sometimes, but you can't make laws based on only sometimes. You just can't.
And for real? You fucking defend the life of something that can't even think or feel properly over a full grown human? yeah no. If you can't see how insanely hypocritical that is I'm done here.
@123cheesecake The main difference is - We were conscious before we went to sleep, and we will be conscious after we awake in the morning, however, even during the sleep, we have subconsciousness, because we are dreaming, even when we don't remember our dreams. Fetus does not qualify as a person until it was born, the same goes for any living creature, not just humans. We can speculate that a fetus is a formed human when it gets older than 3 months, but still, woman has a right to abort if her life/health is in danger (most of the abortions are carried out much earlier, especially if a woman was raped). Therefore, you have no realistic basis for your claims.
@cipher42 Exactly, I agree 100%.
@RedHood7 Not true, it's her body, what if she was raped? She has a right to abort. What if her life or health is in danger? Once again, she has a right to abort. I could go on, but there is no point in explaining the facts to religious bigots.
@JRICHARDS1996 Cut the crap with your "Scotsman Fallacy" bullshit, it's an imaginary term. I've stated facts why a woman has right to abort, and I will not change my opinion, regardless of your religious rambling - cleverly camouflaged by the science (even a religious bigot can quote science for his own purpose) ;)
@JRICHARDS1996 LOL - First of all - you have no logic at all, only religious bigotry (camuflaged but still obvious). Second of all - I have explained the reasons why a woman has right to abort. Third of all - It's not a fallacy, you are completely illogical., quoting latin phrases doesn't help you look smarter, bigots always use "big words" in order to look more "educated"... but that trick doesn't work on me.
@JRICHARDS1996 I have explained that a fetus is not a person. Murder is a term used for killing a person, therefore, you are wrong. Embryo is not a formed human before the third month of pregnancy.
You think a woman should give birth to a child of a rapist?
You think a woman should risk her own life to give a birth even if her health is deteriorating?
Bravo for you, the list goes on...
Here's another guy who supports your beliefs:
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/25641126.jpg
The main difference is - at least he was honest in his bigotry, he never claimed to value science.
@123cheesecake Not a fact, just a fiction of religious bigots like you. Even an egg is predetermined to become a chicken, but most eggs never get to hatch, does that mean they were "murdered"? Nope, it doesn't, learn the difference.
Abortion is a separate category, your "pro-life" theory doesn't prove anything, for example, if you, or I, or any other person were aborted - we would never know that we were aborted, therefore, we wouldn't care because we would never become a person (conscious and cognitive human), get it?
@RedHood7: You have a really hard time understanding basic concepts, don't you? No, I'm not saying its not a person just because I don't see it as one. I'm saying its not a person because it can't think or feel, which are things that are required for personhood. Go do your damn research.
And holy shit you've got it backwards. First off, I've never seen that whole rich women/poor women thing used as a pro-abortion argument. If anything, stuff like that goes for either women who actually give birth or women in areas where abortion is ILLEGAL. You know why? Because it's been pretty soundly proven that if abortion is made illegal, all that happens is that it becomes more dangerous due to not being regulated. So actually, that argument you just gave is an argument against your point, not for it.
Again, we're talking in terms of legality. In terms of legality, making a law that forces someone to give up the right to their own body is utterly ridiculous and unacceptable.
@123cheesecake @Jrichards1996: Both of you need to do your research. The thing about murder is that it's not about whether the thing being killed is "human", it's about whether it's a PERSON. To be a person, an entity must at least be sentient and sapient (among other things). An embryo is neither, therefor an embryo is not a person, therefor killing an embryo is not murder.
Also, @jrichards1996, you're using that logical fallacy wrong. That logical fallacy is relevant in cases where the thing being classified as "no true scotsman" actually fits the definition of a "scotsman". In this case, there are major differences between full grown humans and embryos that make this not that fallacy. In any case, did you actually look up the definition of a human being? And if so, could you cite it? Though honestly, it's not that relevant in any case because the thing at issue here is, again, "person", not "human".
Sorry Cipher42, but I blocked that ignorant and self-righteous bigot (Jrichards1996) because of his "fallacy" bulshitt.
@Jrichards1996 - I have no "guilt", only an arrogant person would say such crap, your personal opinion means nothing to me, you have no valid arguments, truth, or logic, only mumbo-jumbo, camouflaged as "science". Unborn is not a human, it's merely a bunch of cells, with no consciousness nor cognitive abilities, therefore, you wrong, you can repeat your delusions a billion times more, and you still can't change that fact.
I've stated my opinion to this Take, it's not open for discussion, especially not for the people who are not the makers of this Take.
PS - by unborn I mean a fetus/embryo - not a child.
The funniest thing about @JRICHARDS1996 is that he thinks that I blocked him in the name of "tolerance" and "progress", because he obviously could not fathom that I don't tolerate opinions of ignorant bigots, religious freaks and quasi-logical ideologists.
His ideology has nothing to do with truth and he has no arguments... plus, he is an arrogant snob, therefore, blocking him was the only logical solution.
Repeating one and the same bulshit does not make it true.
Unborn fetus or an embryo is not a human, because human is not "formed at conception", human is formed after all of the human parts were developed, that's a true biological fact, unlike the relious bigotry promoted by dumb people who desperately try to manipulate science, but they can't because they have no scientific knowledge of any kind.
So no, human doesn't have to be adult, but embryo is, as I said - not a developed human, not until the first trimester, which leads us to a conclusion - abortion is not a "murder". Case closed.
Most abortions happen in first trimester. It's not human, it's a cluster of cells that has potential to be a human. With that logic, if I throw away popcorn kernels, I just threw away popcorn that could've had the potential to be movie style popcorn.
1) you're metaphor for a foetus is both correct and incorrect. Everything in the universe is a cluster of cells, from a pencil to an African elephant
2) sorry but comparing an unborn child to popcorn is pretty degrading anyway
3) a foetus is a human, and unless it passes away, it will be a human for the rest of its life. If it isn't a human, then what is it? A mouse? A dog? It's a human.
@Sophiaaaaaa oh god and people say liberals are offended by everything
1. An explanation can't be correct or incorrect, pick one
2. It's not a human, see point one
3. Its not a human, I don't even think it has a brain. If a woman is pregnant with a mouse or whatever you suggested you suggested, I recommend she see a doctor or lay off the coke.
well every pregnant woman must be pregnant with a mouse or something else because it's not a human right?
No it's a cluster of cells, that will potentially be a human. Did you even read my response?
Don't even bother..
@bente2 I just love opinionated preteens who don't respect others opinions. Don't you?
Lol, I live with them. I'm opinionated but I mean bekieve what you wanna even though this is a topic I feel strongly about..
@bente2 obviously it is. And truly I don't care what you think. It's not going to change my opinion
I'm glad about that. I like the opinion you have right now and totally agree with it.
@bente2 oh okay. I thought when you said don't bother, you were talking to the asker not me.
Obv not, honestly who still agrees with 'abortion is murder'... it's 2016!
All living things are a "cluster of cells." Did you not learn basic Cell Theory in 7th grade? But what matters is the precise nature of those cells. And the unborn -- like you and I -- are their own living human beings. This is evident by the fact that a) they meet the 3-4 biological requirements for life, making them alive, b) they have human parents, making them human since "like begets like", and c) they have their own unique DNA, making them their own unique organism. Add the three together and they are their own living human beings. This is nothing but purely established, unarguable scientific fact. You cannot dispute it. No amount of rhetoric can change a single iota of established scientific fact. You are either Pro-Life or you are unscientific.
@JRICHARDS1996 it's still not a concious being so why should I care what happens to it? It'll only grow up to destroy the planet anyways.
@Sophiaaaaaa I already know I am an asshole. No need to tell me and no you didn't state any facts.
@JRICHARDS1996
Whoops, didn't mean to comment. Just reading responses. 😛
@bente2 Nice way to completely avoid the argument. Consciousness is irrelevant anyway as far as science is concerned. You are imposing your own arbitrary standard upon what the objective facts of biology confirm is a living human being, in the process committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Try again. The ends do not justify the means either; even if there is a chance a person will grow up to be horribly, they still deserve their chance to prove us wrong.
@ginny_weasley In my response I didn't state any opinions, I just gave out the facts that your opinion is both scientifically incorrect and weak. You're just mad that a 15 year old girl know more about cell theory. Look, flag me all you want but just accept the fact. God
Gosh, I literally can't believe you're being this narrow minded. You're going on, saying I'm conservative. I didn't even give an opinion. Ffs, at least have scientific evidence to back up your opinion, you're making yourself look even more ignorant with your incorrect metaphors and constant judging. You have two ears and one mouth for a reason. Listen. Listen to @JRICHARDS1996 and learn something. Jesus Christ.
@JRICHARDS1996 'conciousness is irrelevant as far as science is concerned' no, it isn't.. because prolife has nothing to do with science. You're trying to sound smart by bringing science in it but all you're saying is 'according to my biology book it is a living thing' while everyone knows that. I just said it's nt a concious being. Which it isn't. Hell, even babies aren't. Ever heard of abortion after birth? It was something two men brought up some time ago, and I can't say I don't support it. For example, a baby is disabled and humanely put to death because the parents don't have the funds to support it.
Honestly, there's too many humans and I'd rather kill an embryo that has the possibility (not even surity) to become a human that slaughter more animals and just take up space.
Sometime syou religious folks just need to chill and agree it's no longer the case of 'the more the merrier'. Raising kids costs money, and I'd rather someone abort their baby then not be able to support it
@bente2 Nice way to dodge the argument yet again. You did not address the science I presented, nor did you back your own scientific counter that consciousness is a part of it. Everything I stated can and has been substantiated by objective biological fact. I repeat, the unborn meet the 3-4 biological requirements for life making them alive, have human parents making them human since "like begets like," and have their own unique DNA making them their own unique organism. Together it means that they are their own living human, like you and I. Science confirms this whether you like it or not. It has nothing to do with consciousness, sentience, or any other arbitrary imposition you may try to salvage your scientifically bankrupt position with. Science is the only relevant discipline to this topic and everything else is human opinion. I have appealed to nothing but science. You can keep bringing religion up as much as you want, but I did not mention religion once.
it truly is sad that one human being can kill another just because of inconvenience
'One human being can kill another', no. One human can kill a cluster of cells.
@bente2 you are a cluster of cells
That is true, but I actually am a concious being. But then again, I agree with death penalty to some extent too. I don't value humans (or embryos for that matter) too much. We're destructive and selfish beings.
@bente2 Why dont you start by destroying yourself? Surely the best way to demonstrate your values is to act on it?
@123cheesecake after I've changed some things, i'll die sure.
Okay so I get that that women aren't supposed to be pro life because you know nowadays it's all about feminism and supporting your fellow women but I don't care. Now I'm not trying to force my views on anyone but I feel it is murder.
Rape? God is my strength
Incest? Can somebody tell me why the hell I'm sleeping with my brother.
Possible death? Now I think that one is personal. As for me, my mum went through bull crap to give birth to me and I feel I can do the same for another life.
If you ask me, it's murder and even if you're my bestest friend ever, have an abortion, it's over. Everyone has their limits, if you feel guilty or pressured after destroying the so called parasite then good for you. You didn't take my opinion into consideration? Then I don't care about your stupid feelings, that's my opinion and if you're judging me for it, you're not feminist, you're sexist.
this is a very complex topic, but i think the best approach is a passive approach of acceptance, you have your opinion about this, and let other people who are fine with abortion, or need to abort a baby, abort the baby, even though it's happening doesn't mean that the people doing it are fine with it, in fact it's usually far from it, the last thing they need is a bunch of people standing outside a clinic telling them how scummy they're being, when they're probably making the best decision for them, and a baby, who otherwise would have an awful upbringing. the best way to approach it is to not force your opinions on other people, that's what i'm saying, i can understand your concerns, and respect your points on this subject, it's very difficult to draw the line here, so the best option is to just do what you feel is right, but with respect for others.
Yes, and; what about the child? Guess you dont care about their opinion too? Oh wait, they can't voice it yet, thats how vulnerable they are.
Guess parents can just justify abuse on children if they silence them enough?
Get this, it is a UNIVERSAL FACT that two humans procreating creates another human. I can use myself, I can use you and others as an example. We've all been embryos at one point.
Hence, I dont believe this is a complex topic at all, rational thinking alone states that this debate is subjective to the core, but objective.
And not on a religions, but a scientific and logical one at that!
@123cheesecake well yes, they are vulnerable, they're a child, probably not very old either, but you have no right, no one has any right to intervene in someone's private decision, they should be allowed to make the decision for themselves, and the state should be there for them to support them, regardless of the decision made. i'm not saying it's not a horrible idea, like i stated before, everyone suffers if they have to go through this, but it's not other people's right to cause misery for an obviously painful process.
I really wish that people would take advantage of the many, many forms of birth control that are out there. Even more than that, I wish Mother Nature would make some people sterile and unable to have children in the first place.
it is funny how women who get abortions get offended when you tell them you wished they were sterile
@kukukuku Isn't it, though? Even though the risk of sterility after having an abortion is quite high.
At the moment of legal abortion there's NO baby, just a pea sized or bean sized blob of cells.
Yes, with human DNA, just like your nails, hair and like cancer cells.
If abortion is murder, then blowjobs are cannibalism and masturbation is mass genocide.
So sperm turns into babies naturally all by itself? Wow, let's throw all the medical knowledge away...
@RedHood7 no but sperm 'has the ability to become a life' just like your precious little embryo.
@RedHood7 It's very much alive.
https://youtu.be/ySej3k1YYV0?t=49
creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/.../
@bente2 Except it doesn't have the potency to become human, because ya'know- it only has 23 pairs of chromosomes!
@123cheesecake It still is potential life
Life, yes. So? It won't become a human. It was literally created to be disposable. Fetuses werent.
@bente2 an embryo is a human life. Like it or not.
That's why I think it's best to get a Vasectomy instead of ever being in or causing a situation where an unplanned for and unwanted pregnancy occurs. Take no chances with birth control that "might" fail. Because that is usually what will lead to abortions in the very first place, not properly using birth control or that birth control has failed such as from a faulty or defective condom, etc. Anyone else agree with me on this?
@Unit1 ?
If a man and a woman participate in sex, then they are essentially both equally responsible for all outcomes.
So yes, it's always best to prevent it in the first place to save the fuss for both people. For men to not worry about getting someone pregnant and for woman to not worry about going through an abortion.
Hence, if YOU as yourself do not want to deal with pregnancy then take charge and use birth control. Never trust someone else to be on it for you. It's a lesson only the foolish will learn... or maybe not but then I don't care.
What if i get raped and get pregnant? I can't get a vasectomy nor do I want one because I want children later in life. What if someone older gets raped? Should they have gotten a vasectomy? Should they now carry a child they will hate because they will always see it as 'the baby of my rapist' ?
@bente2 You get an abortion. Simple as that.
@bente2 Actually, the child itself is blameless. It is the perpetrator that should be punished through harsher laws. I don't know. Make them WORK 10 hour jobs to support the child in orphanages and coup for the cost of the mother's rehab?
I think everyone deserves a fair chance in life, and a human being in a different stage of the life cycle deserves no less from another. The rapists can suffer, he reaped what he sew.
@123cheesecake
So a woman who has gone through one of the most traumatic experiences a person can go through should have to suffer through its physical affects for nine whole more months
@123cheesecake 🙃🙂 too bad you can't experience rape and pregnancy the way women can. You're less probe to rape as well. I could never love a child that was comceived by my rapist, I don't think anyone truly can.
@bente2 I'd go with what @Unit1 had said. Otherwise, even if the baby was brought into this world it's still going to have to suffer regardless of whom will provide and take care of it such as the state or government or yourself. For ladies, sterilization procedures to have birth control in permanent effect is much more riskier and have more health hazards. E. G. getting your tubes tied would lead to sooner menopause if I remembered correctly. For guys, there are not nearly as much health risk and we don't suffer nearly as much if we go for a permanent method such as a Vasectomy, so the option is just there on the table. I'm only going by the perspective that if some guy wanted lots of sex or even with more than one partner frequently or otherwise in their lifetime and if they don't ever want to risk accidental or unwanted pregnancies which could lead to an abortion, so I think they should ALWAYS just consider it. But the Vasectomy won't protect them from ANY STD's though.
@bente2 I get what you mean due to those circumstances, and the harm and birth of someone was caused by somebody else forcing themselves onto you and it wasn't your fault to begin with.
Either way I'm not the religious type of person when it comes discussing abortion and life, and blah blah, however, I ALWAYS figured that ALL life comes with pain and suffering either way, then it is MUCH better to NOT ever create it at all, unless life can somehow ever be created WITHOUT the pain, the suffering, and harms that someone had to go through and then they have to inevitably die.
And since it cannot be changed, then that's why I would think the only control and choice that people, or guys specifically, can make are to undergo sterilization.
And that is "ONLY IF" they feel sex is so important and valuable to them, otherwise celibacy and standard birth control are the only other options, although the latter can fail, and will be more costly if the guy were to have sex frequently.
I am for abortion until a certain time period, once the baby can be considered human then yes that is just irresponsible and inhuman. I am for abortion because what if a girl is raped or accidents can happen, I don't think a girl should be forced to have a child.
but the child should not be forced to die
But in my opinion the baby is not truly alive until it has brain activity. Until then I don`t consider it murder. Besides, using your logic that is, babies are not forcibly murdered, they are murdered unknowingly. A woman should not be forced to have a baby if it is very early in the pregnancy.
Do you really want rape victims forced to have a child? Or people who accidentally get pregnant? Then what happens to the child, goes into foster homes or gets raised for the wrong reasons. That is not a good life in my opinion.
If a rape victim gets pregnant and don't want children, they can give it a foster family or adoptive parents. There are many people who can't get children in the natural way, but want some. Why not let them adopt then?
@curiousnorway Thats because pregnancy isn't just a walk in the park. There's the fact that there's still a chance for death in pregnancy and you have to wait 9 months for severe pain and possible medical difficulties. Also the fact that you have to get time off of work which could effect you financially. This is all fine if it was consensual and someone actually wanted the child but in the rape situation, it isn't.
@curiousnorway There are things like "attachment". Giving your child away is a big decision.
@YourFutureEx This also, they say if you even touch or look at your baby long enough you can get very attached and change your mind. Then that is a problem by itself and who knows if the girl will have enough support or even financially able to take care of the baby. This is why abortion should be legal in certain cases.
Exactly!
I dont think a speeding driver should be forced to pay for damage compensation. But its HIS CAR, HIS CHOICE. lmao.
@123cheesecake no, people decide to speed. But people don't decide to get raped or to get accidentally pregnant. Deciding to have sex does not equal deciding to have a child.
People decide to SPEED- not to CRASH. CRASHING is the CONSEQUENCE of the ACTION.
SPEED=PUT FOOT DOWN ACCELERATOR=ACTION
CRASH=SPEED TOO FAST TO CONTROL= CONSEQUENCE
Deciding to have sex means deciding to take the CHANCE of having a child. Having the child is the CONSEQUENCE of sexual acts.
Regarding rape; the case is the whole penalty should revolve around the person which CHOSE to start the unwanted sexual assault- not the victim which had NO CHOICE. And certainly not the child which obviously had NO CHOICE because biologically it is what sex does. Create children.
Many anchient cultures like the Maya and the Egyptians emphatically believed that life begins at the moment of conception. While modern medicine has no proof of that, they aren't really looking. I only say it because while we consider these cultures "primitive" they did have the know how to build structures that we cannot duplicate today, so clearly they were pretty smart, also much of the modern medical evidence is based on a theoretical "consensus" that young fetuses can't feel pain because of certain undeveloped parts of the cerebral cortex. Although fetuses "react" to say a needle modern medicine seems to think that doesn't prove pain. The same logic was applied until about a century ago that animals "don't feel pain". I am not saying my personal position, I am just saying there needs to be further research on the topic. Even pro choice people should be wary if this is the case, and do everything possible to find out the truth.
Science back then and science now are vastly different. Nowadays, we actually understand how and why pain occurs- it happens when the nervous system sends particular signals to the brain. We also happen to know that a fetuses nervous system and brain do not reach a stage of development such that they can properly feel pain until around 20 weeks. So quit it with this anti-science crap and accept that even though you may not like it, we do actually know what the fuck we're talking about nowadays.
@Anonymous (30-35) I don't think ancient cultures like the Maya and the Egyptians even knew when life begins or how conception happens.
I'm not a fan of abortion but this MyTake has poor arguments and extreme views that, I don't subscribe to.
There ARE cases where it's fine to abort:
Incest
Rape
Jeaopardy of the Mother's life.
Before 3 months I wouldn't really call the embryo a "Baby". Not that it's okay to use abortion as a contraceptive technique.
It's not murder. It's not even a living thing yet when women mainly get abortions. If it was actually living and could feel then abortion wouldn't be allowed. They're just getting rid of something that has the potential to start to develop into a human. It's not the same thing
Actually it is alive as soon as the sperm meets up with the egg.
Early on, when the overwhelming majority of abortions are done, it is only a cluster of cells with the potential to grow into a human being.
By the same logic, throwing away a bag of acorns is the same thing as cutting down a forest.
The same person, as a zygote, an fetus, a child, a teenager and an elderly person all have one thing in common. Their genetic code is already predetermined at the combination of the male and female gamete, and are only waiting on development based on their life cycle. Therefore scientifically speaking it is only a PART of human's life cycle. Two human parent creates a human child- SURPRISE. I would like a counter argument by presenting a legitimate and well documented case of a woman giving birth to a tree or a bicycle, a dog etc. just not a human. Even better, someone make a personal claim of themselves not going through embryonic stage. Then you can present a loophole in my theory. Until then, my theory remains universal and therefore correct.
Actually yes, if no more acorns are to be available, then that species of tree can no longer exists and therefore create a forest of the said species. On its own it might not 'account' much, but saying a cent is less important than a million is like disregarding individual bricks on your mission to build a brick wall. Without the cent, we wouldn't have the dollar.
@123cheesecake How do you sleep at night with the knowledge of all the natural miscarriages and trees that failed to grow?
I simply dont care, its not like its MY species. can't relate to it as much.
Whether or not it is murder, it's the woman's body and her fetus so it's still her right to abort a fetus if she wants to.
The fetus is actually a different entity, and has its own body. Therefore it is a different person.
Evident as the fetus has the chromosome of both the mother AND the father. Therefore it is a foreign INDIVIDUAL body. The mother's genetic code would only be half similar. That is why the embryo is located within the embryonic sac, to prevent the white blood cells from destroying the individuals due to the foreign (dad's) genes.
I say never argue with narrow minded or very religious people because you only waste your precious efforts and energy practically arguing, might as well argue with a stubborn wall.
@JudgmentDay take my "advise".
oh you're discriminating me but who the f*ck cares because i'm only religious
A-xactly.
No, I'm not discriminating. I'm giving advises to fellow readers to never argue with people, who have a firm position on that topic.
well that's also why I didn't start an argument with the discriminating narrow minded atheist :)
Talking about discriminating and backfiring.
@Unit1
I actually kind of agree with @SS-rated that you whole, I don't argue with Narrow minded or very religious people to be kind of a dick move.
I completely disagree with her on the take but please be civil
well I never said I don't discriminate people who discriminate me? it's a great thing to treat people the way they treat you because they will blame you for doing the same thing, dude get the f*ck out of here, you don't make sense, disgusting.
Triggered ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
You seem like a tumblr person. I like you.