Abortion

[ArtDrake]

The question is, Deagonx, is there even a single black person in your womb?

[Deagonx]

The question is, Deagonx, is there even a single black person in your womb?

You're saying that it's her choice because the child is inside her?

It was her choice to let that child inside her. To let that man do whatever he did with her. Sex has risks, I don't think a life should be taken for lack of responsibility.

(Once again, 1 in 100 abortions are due to rape. I do not want someone saying we should be pro-choice for those 1 in 100 abortions. Rape is awful and even worse if you are stuck with a baby. But the thousands of other lives taken for such a small minority is not worth it to me, I wish to discuss it no further)

[ArtDrake]

The mother does not "let the child in," unless you subscribe to the Homunculus argument for origins. (Sorry, can't find a link)

So, you believe that even if a life is not capable of knowing that it is being taken, your moral standards should apply to it?

[Deagonx]

The mother does not "let the child in," unless you subscribe to the Homunculus argument for origins. (Sorry, can't find a link)

So, you believe that even if a life is not capable of knowing that it is being taken, your moral standards should apply to it?

I'm sure there are those who are not capable of even understand that they are "alive" or that they can "die"

And this issue isn't like gay marriage where I'm trying to shove my beliefs down others. I'd prefer to save lives here. If I believe they are lives I should try to protect them as they are being mercilessly destroyed.

[ArtDrake]

Cute fluffy kittens at the animal shelter have to be mercilessly destroyed. So do babies for which the act of being delivered would harm the mother.

Having a baby isn't a consequence; it's a joyous event that must come at the correct time.

And as for all your high-horse ranting concerning the immorality of sexual intercourse, and how women are being promiscuous, and how 99% of abortions are for rape cases, I'll tell you several things that may or may not come as a shock to you:

Monogamous couples engage in sexual intercourse frequently, and when birth control methods fail (which is a very common occurrence), other methods must take place. Such behavior isn't immoral, and does not mean that the female involved needs to be round for 9 months and give away a baby at the end.
Overpopulation is a problem.
Sometimes, pregnancy would prevent life fulfillment; if you're a mother who suddenly has a young child (particularly a single mother), you now can't really get your education.
Some people aren't ready to be parents.
Being pregnant sucks, and it's usually not worth it unless you're going to have a baby you can keep.

[Rob]

First of all, I'm going to address this issue.

Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?

A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.
Now, addressing Duckling's issues.
I doubt that most babies aborted are aborted because giving birth to the baby would kill or significantly harm the mother. Furthermore, I have absolutely no clue where you got the idea that babies must be killed if the act of being delivered would harm the mother. Abortion is an option, not an absolute.
Getting pregnant is as much of a consequence of sexual intercourse as a bullet fired is a consequence of pulling the trigger of a gun. Perhaps you meant that society should view getting pregnant as a good thing that was planned out instead of an unexpected consequence, but the sad truth is, not all pregnancies are planned.
Apparently, our views on the morality or immorality of sexual intercourse are different. When birth control fails, other methods (abortion) doesn't have to take place. Actions may have undesired consequences. The consequences may be very unpleasant to deal with. However, if you are able to completely get away from all the consequences, you don't learn much of anything, and so you don't do much in the way of preventing the consequences from occurring again.
Overpopulation may be a problem in India or some other country with a ridiculously high population density. It isn't anywhere near as big of a deal in America.
As I stated above, actions have consequences. Sometimes they are very unpleasant. However, the consequences are easily avoidable. For example, not having sexual intercourse before one has gotten the education they desire would take care of the problem of not being able to receive an education.
If someone has sexual intercourse, they are running the risk of getting pregnant. They should be prepared to accept the consequences. If not, they have a few months to get ready.
There are many disadvantages of being pregnant. This should be redundant by now, but pregnancy is avoidable, and if someone does get pregnant, it is probably because they made a choice. Your argument talks about the disadvantage for the mother. What about the disadvantages for the embryo? Do they not count at all in any way?  One of the things I don't like about abortion is that it lets the mother get away with being completely selfish. If the pregnancy is inconvenient for them, then they can just go ahead and kill the embryo. What if raising an existing child was inconvenient for a mother? What if the mother wasn't really ready to be a mother? What if having to raise the existing child got in the way of the mother's ambitions? Would it be right for the mother to kill the child? Of course not. Sometimes, you have to put other's interests at the same level as your own, if not higher. People are born with a life instinct, and it doesn't start at birth. It starts before that. The embryo wants to live; the mother wants it to die. Apparently, only the mother's opinion counts.

[ArtDrake]

Overpopulation is a problem in the world.

Abortion is a very viable possibility.
There is no reason not to abort.
Getting pregnant is as much a consequence of sexual intercourse as getting shot is a consequence of the firing of a gun,
despite the warning on the gun saying "point away from eyes and face" and the fact that you weren't aiming for anyone.
Procreation is a basic act which is performed when a couple desires a child. A child is a desired consequence of that act.
However, intercourse is an act performed for pleasure, and there is no moral depravity associated with it.
Thus, a negative consequence is not befitting of the act, and should not be forced on either the child or the parent.
If abortion is an option, it should be utilized to reduce the risk of inopportune birth.

Rob, that's not true. Nearly all abortions happen as a result of one of the following:
Inability to care for a child.
To prevent birth of a child after childbearing age, where childbirth might kill the mother.
To prevent birth of a child with severe congenital defects.
To prevent the birth of a child born of violence.
A condition the mother has that makes childbirth high-risk.

I've got you stone cold on the underlined ones. Harm to the mother, unfair to the child-to-be, emotional trauma for the mother.

You say that if a woman gets pregnant because of contraceptive failure, she should go through with the pregnancy, go through with the birth, weep, say goodbye forever, and give away her child? That stinks to high heaven of an outdated concept of male superiority -- the idea that women should go through any pain because of their immorality, and deliver their child, even though they don't want to, for the sake of a little nub of flesh in her belly, because (so the logic used to go) it might be a boy.

[SmartyPants]

Overpopulation is a problem in the world.

Abortion is a very viable possibility.

It really isn't.  Most population growth is in third world countries who don't have any access to contraception.  Aborting everytime someone has unprotected sex is not a viable possibility.

[ArtDrake]

No, the two weren't meant to go together.

In third-world countries, people generally have a lot of children because they can't be sure that all of them will survive or even be somewhat healthy. They, for the most part, don't need abortion, as they are willing to take the risks to the child and to themselves.

If one can afford to have an abortion every time one engages in unprotected intercourse, then one ought to be allowed to.

[Deagonx]

If one can afford to have an abortion every time one engages in unprotected intercourse, then one ought to be allowed to.

I can afford to buy bullets a gun and kill people. I ought to be allowed to.

[SmartyPants]

Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?

A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.

What if someone is in a coma with a 0.1% chance of that person waking up and cost $10,000 a month to keep that person alive.  Would you pull the plug even though there is brain activity and hope of recovery?

[Deagonx]

Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?

A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.

What if someone is in a coma with a 0.1% chance of that person waking up and cost $10,000 a month to keep that person alive.  Would you pull the plug even though there is brain activity and hope of recovery?

Ehm... I find the two situations relatively incomparable. 10,000 a month could probably go to homeless shelters and save even more lives.

[Steel Ersatz Man]

My view is that Abortion is just plain wrong. Now I respect others views on the matter but I'm like Set, I don't even kill flies, so, having a pro-sort of baby murder attitude? No thanks!
However, if we were to look at it mathematically, if someone has a child that they don't want to, then another child is less likely to be born. So, you are killing a hypothetical child by letting that one live. But, if you give that child up for adoption, the mother would be more inclined to have a second child when she is ready, so, both the child and the hypothetical other child would live, or a life equivalent.

[SmartyPants]

Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?

A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.

What if someone is in a coma with a 0.1% chance of that person waking up and cost $10,000 a month to keep that person alive.  Would you pull the plug even though there is brain activity and hope of recovery?

Ehm... I find the two situations relatively incomparable. 10,000 a month could probably go to homeless shelters and save even more lives.

The situations are comparable, because they both involve possibility of life and a financial cost.  I know both Deagonx and Rob think that the possiblity of life for an unborn fetus is worth the financial cost to not allow abortions.  I am only asking about the coma question to see where one draws the line.  Apparently, Deagonx thinks that $10,000 isn't worth a 0.1% of life.
If there is a 90% chance that the baby is a stillborn and the resulting medical bills without an abortion will bankrupt the eighteen-year-old girl, will you be against her having an abortion?

[Steel Ersatz Man]

Hmm, in those cases I'm going to go with a very left wing attitude of: "The government should give her money!"