In this discussion I would like to talk about abortion. It is always something I have felt very strong about and would argue to the ends of the earth on. I have always been Pro-Life, always. Ever since I became an Atheist, this topic keeps popping up in my head. Since it is something I have not wanted to confront, I have been pushing it to the back burner. Now that I have given it some thought I would like to tell you where I used to stand and where I stand now. When I was a Christian my thought process was "Abortion is Never the right choice unless the mother and child will both die." So even if the child were to survive and the mother dies, abortion is still not the right choice. Some might even consider that murder, I guess. To answer this question I'm sure someone will ask, Yes I would have and still would give up my life for my child. Well, now I'm sort of seeing things a bit different. If a female gets raped and gets pregnant from it, abortion is ok, (sad all the way around - for everyone).  If a woman chooses to abort a baby due to the risk to the mothers life, Ok. If the baby will have a very very very difficult life and in turn make the parents have an equally difficult life, ok. To me abortion is a horrible thing, if someone wants to have an abortion just because oops I got preggo. That is horrible. If you don't want kids do everything in your power to NOT get pregnant. Simple as that. Life is a beautiful an precious thing, and yes I do believe it is special.  Any and All comments are welcome :)

Views: 6026

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's not a person, and it's not a second body. It is my body, up until it it is ready to get out of my body, after 9 months. Until it is out of my body, it IS MY body.

so when it's born, it's still just as dependant upon you.  if you left it alone, it would die. Should you be allowed to kill it?

what about premature births, there have been cases as early as 23 weeks, just under 6 months, still not a body? then what the hell is it?


Wow, miserable fail! Premies generally meed medical intervention, babies born after a full gestation generally do not need medical intervention.

As for infanticide due to PPD, I have no issues with that either.

No. When a neonate is born it is not solely dependent on its former "host", is it. As such, obligatory dependency on the  former host, is removed.

Premies... more so removed from the former "host" and usually kept alive by hospital machinery and hospital staff.  As such, obligatory dependency on the former host is removed.

Prior to birth however at all stages, whether it be zygote/ blastocyst/embryo or foetus, it is entirely dependent on the host, even to the hosts detriment.  

I appreciate full well that self-assumed "pro-lifers" don't like the coming terminology, but prior to birth, at all stages of gestation, that foetus is (medically/scientifically speaking) nothing more than an obligate parasite.

Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

1 an organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism.

obligate parasite  one that is entirely dependent upon a host for its survival.

 The fact that some people want to bring emotional pleading into their argument against abortion and call it a "baby" from zygote stage and  on through gestation, is irrelevant. It is NOT a baby and IS not until it takes its own... first birth... breath. 

From now on I am going to call my kids OG1 and OG2!

Nah... if they are post birth, call them PP1 and PP2. ;P

Definition of Parasite, which strikes me as more in line with common usage: 

"(A)n organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." (source)

I'm for letting women decide what to do. 

This issue won't be settled by definitions. It'll be settled when the consensus of the electorate is that women should have the right to decide for themselves when they want to have a child with interference from no one else, least of all the state.

50 years ago it would be dead.

100 years ago it would be dead.

1000 years ago it would be dead.

2000 years ago it would be, you guessed it dead.

Why all of a sudden did god decide to save  (via human medical science, mind you) all of these premies and allow them to live? Must be he had a purpose for them that is beyond our comprehension.

Marc (born at 31 weeks gestation in 1965, perhaps that explains the current level of development of my feeble brain)

Apparently you consider "god" to be a "given" hence you giving he/she/it kudos for medical advancement.

As it seems you DO considering this god to be a "given" why is it then that over 70% of post conception zygotes spontaneously abort before a pregnancy read can even be done?  Apparently he/she/it STILL has not got his whole "perfect creation" things down pat.

On the other hand, your comment may well have been dripping with sarcasm... *shrug*

Which is it? 

It must not have been dripping enough if you had to ask.

I need to work on my sarcasm, or add smileys, which is in effect, admitting defeat.

Marc (The lucky 30%)

LOL, it was definitely drippy enough :)

Hello Marc,

LOL... well at least I gave some benefit of the doubt?  I am new here and all...*kickin dust*

I have heard pro-lifers use the same sort of wording though.. so...erm... yeah....

I will remember in the future...:D



© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service