Abortion, birth control (pill/shot), abstinence or adoption?

[Strideo]

Soul of Aqua

Strideo

Soul of Aqua

Strideo

Deppfan Teague

And a follow-up point is every unused egg that is shed every month by females who do not get pregnant. That's a potential child as well. How about all the fertilized eggs that for some unknown reason, don't attatch to the uterine wall and are then flushed out of the body? Is that murder, then too?

I think this unfertilized egg argument is quite spurious. Obviously unfertilized eggs do not spontaneously grow into babies and never had the potential to become a human being to begin with so I fail to see the logic of your argument.

Also miscarriages are often not the fault of the mother and occur without any action on her part so why would you even imply that somehow this is comparable to intentionally intervening in a pregnancy? Once again I fail to see the logic here.

An unfertilised egg has the potential of life. If fertilised it grows into an embryo. It's killing off a potential child just like abortion is.

An unfertilized egg on it's own is not a potential child no matter how you attempt to rationalize it. It takes more than just an unfertilized egg and there is no logical basis to assume that an unfertilized egg and a fetus are somehow equal in value or even genetic material.

Both need something to become a sentient being. An unfertilised egg can be fertilised, grow into a fetus and eventually a child. But it gets disposed of because (in general) the woman does not desire not to have a baby. She denies it its life. It's just earlier down the line than an embryo or fetus.

Whu- confused

You're equating every time a woman does not have sex and get pregnant to a conscious and deliberate decision to terminate a pregnancy? That's a hell of a cognitive leap!  

[Garynook]

xX Celeste Foxx Xx

Princess Zelda21

Soul of Aqua

Keimori2

Trauma or no trauma they're still killing an innocent baby! why should the child pay for the sins of the father? Adoption or Birth control should be the only options in such a case.

Look I feel sorry for any victim of rape, I really do, but killing an child, especially and unborn one REALLY knocks my opinion of that person down like a crumbling building no matter what the excuse is.

It's not a baby, it's a fetus/embryo. An unfeeling blob of cells. You are just as much killing a child as ejaculating and menstruation do at this point.

Also, what about abortion to save the life of the mother?
Would one value an undeveloped fetus over a ripe woman?

I serously would, no matter what!

If you were completely inadequate to raise a child, and looking at the already slim chances of it being adopted, that would make you at fault for that child's sufferings. Abortion makes the child/fetus' "death" quick and painless; letting that child rot during its lifetime because you didn't take any action on your part is just plain irresponsible. I hear stories about parents being unprepared for parenthood and acting selfish all of the time. I don't know how much more I can listen to because some naive woman was too afraid to do what was best for her and her fetus.

Not to mention that according to the Bible(as she is Christian) Children and thus most likely also fetuses have no sins and therefore will go to heaven. Giving the fetus a chance to life would be risking that it will sin and go to hell. Now would you not rather be sure that it goes to heaven than to make him live in this rat's nest and then go to heaven or possibly even hell?  

[Divine-Beauti]

Just want to say that abortion and menstruation are two completely things. What the body does on it's own as a biological process can't be helped. But manually going in and "disposing" of a zygote, egg, embryo, or what have you is murder. No matter what stage the fetus is in if you abort it you're killing it. Plain and simple.

As for the people who abort instead of adopt, maybe they are a bit selfish. If they can't raise their child they think nobody else should raise it?

To the religious, well depending on how religious you are, I doubt they would have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. But if they do I can see why they would abort. Certain religions frown upon some pregnancies and would probably shun the female.  

[Garynook]

Divine-Beauti

Just want to say that abortion and menstruation are two completely things. What the body does on it's own as a biological process can't be helped. But manually going in and "disposing" of a zygote, egg, embryo, or what have you is murder. No matter what stage the fetus is in if you abort it you're killing it. Plain and simple.

As for the people who abort instead of adopt, maybe they are a bit selfish. If they can't raise their child they think nobody else should raise it?

To the religious, well depending on how religious you are, I doubt they would have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. But if they do I can see why they would abort. Certain religions frown upon some pregnancies and would probably shun the female.

What the body does on it's own as a biological process can be helped. It's called fertilising the egg. Don't you read? The fact is both happen because someone does not want to get pregnant. In both situations they choose for it as well. The only real difference is that one situation is further down the line of birth than the other.  

[Divine-Beauti]

My post wasn't directed at fertilization or the act of sex. It was about menstruation. Not preventing fertilization of an egg. However, you can prevent the chance to get pregnant. But I was talking about without any type of prevention. Menstruation is not a psychological process. A female can't control when or when she doesn't menstruates unless she has some form of hormone-controlled birth control. So without any type of birth control it can not be helped. It's a natural process.  

[Keimori2]

Divine-Beauti

My post wasn't directed at fertilization or the act of sex. It was about menstruation. Not preventing fertilization of an egg. However, you can prevent the chance to get pregnant. But I was talking about without any type of prevention. Menstruation is not a psychological process. A female can't control when or when she menstruates unless she has some form of hormone-controlled birth control. So without any type of birth control it can not be helped. It's a natural process.

agreed but you can't talk about pregnancy and birth control with opening the proverbial can of worms.  

[Deppfan]

Divine-Beauti

Just want to say that abortion and menstruation are two completely things. What the body does on it's own as a biological process can't be helped. But manually going in and "disposing" of a zygote, egg, embryo, or what have you is murder. No matter what stage the fetus is in if you abort it you're killing it. Plain and simple.

As for the people who abort instead of adopt, maybe they are a bit selfish. If they can't raise their child they think nobody else should raise it?

To the religious, well depending on how religious you are, I doubt they would have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. But if they do I can see why they would abort. Certain religions frown upon some pregnancies and would probably shun the female.

Doesn't matter. Either way, the possible potential of a child is destroyed. That's the main problem pro-life people have with abortion, so my argument was that they might as well be against the body's natural process.  

[Divine-Beauti]

No point in being against something you can't control. Being against menstruation is just illogical. It's like being against the weather or how tall you are. You don't have to like it but you can't control it. So being against abortion means you're against menstruation? In that case are pro-life guys against semen? But deppfan what do you suppose is the best thing to avoid teen pregnancy? Abortion?  

[Keimori2]

Well just for the record, I have nothing against the body's natural process, thats nature, but I am against intentionally ending life once the process of the baby forming has started.
EXPECIALY once it's in the fetus stage and past such.
 

[Sick Until Sunday]

Princess Zelda21

Demon of the Stars

Princess Zelda21

Well, think about it, abortion is still considered killing an unborn human being though! It's just so wrong!

So?

So, the girl would be DENYING her child a chance to LIVE a normal life! What a sad world we live in!

It's not a child until it has been in the womb for three months. Even then, it's not really a 100% thing until it's born. We don't count the nine months before our birth as part of our age, do we?  

[GigglyGal]

Deppfan Teague

Divine-Beauti

Just want to say that abortion and menstruation are two completely things. What the body does on it's own as a biological process can't be helped. But manually going in and "disposing" of a zygote, egg, embryo, or what have you is murder. No matter what stage the fetus is in if you abort it you're killing it. Plain and simple.

As for the people who abort instead of adopt, maybe they are a bit selfish. If they can't raise their child they think nobody else should raise it?

To the religious, well depending on how religious you are, I doubt they would have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. But if they do I can see why they would abort. Certain religions frown upon some pregnancies and would probably shun the female.

Doesn't matter. Either way, the possible potential of a child is destroyed. That's the main problem pro-life people have with abortion, so my argument was that they might as well be against the body's natural process.

It depends on what you define as "possible potential". An unfertilised egg on its own cannot possibly develop into a child, so therefore has no viability, in much the same way that embryos that are spontanously aborted (in other words, miscarried) are often found to have had mutated DNA which reduced their viability.

In my opinion, as soon as the zygote (egg/sperm combo) is formed, that combination of DNA and cellular matter has the capability to grow and develop into a fully-functioning being and therefore is "alive", just as much as it is alive when it develops into a ball of cells, then into an embryo and finally into the unborn child. An unfertilised egg is haploid - it only has half of the DNA matter inside it, meaning that it is physically incapable of developing into a living being, just as a sperm cell is incapable of becoming a baby on its own.

 

[Keimori2]

GigglyGal

Deppfan Teague

Divine-Beauti

Just want to say that abortion and menstruation are two completely things. What the body does on it's own as a biological process can't be helped. But manually going in and "disposing" of a zygote, egg, embryo, or what have you is murder. No matter what stage the fetus is in if you abort it you're killing it. Plain and simple.

As for the people who abort instead of adopt, maybe they are a bit selfish. If they can't raise their child they think nobody else should raise it?

To the religious, well depending on how religious you are, I doubt they would have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. But if they do I can see why they would abort. Certain religions frown upon some pregnancies and would probably shun the female.

Doesn't matter. Either way, the possible potential of a child is destroyed. That's the main problem pro-life people have with abortion, so my argument was that they might as well be against the body's natural process.

It depends on what you define as "possible potential". An unfertilised egg on its own cannot possibly develop into a child, so therefore has no viability, in much the same way that embryos that are spontanously aborted (in other words, miscarried) are often found to have had mutated DNA which reduced their viability.

In my opinion, as soon as the zygote (egg/sperm combo) is formed, that combination of DNA and cellular matter has the capability to grow and develop into a fully-functioning being and therefore is "alive", just as much as it is alive when it develops into a ball of cells, then into an embryo and finally into the unborn child. An unfertilised egg is haploid - it only has half of the DNA matter inside it, meaning that it is physically incapable of developing into a living being, just as a sperm cell is incapable of becoming a baby on its own.

agreed  

[Deppfan]

GigglyGal

Deppfan Teague

Divine-Beauti

Just want to say that abortion and menstruation are two completely things. What the body does on it's own as a biological process can't be helped. But manually going in and "disposing" of a zygote, egg, embryo, or what have you is murder. No matter what stage the fetus is in if you abort it you're killing it. Plain and simple.

As for the people who abort instead of adopt, maybe they are a bit selfish. If they can't raise their child they think nobody else should raise it?

To the religious, well depending on how religious you are, I doubt they would have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. But if they do I can see why they would abort. Certain religions frown upon some pregnancies and would probably shun the female.

Doesn't matter. Either way, the possible potential of a child is destroyed. That's the main problem pro-life people have with abortion, so my argument was that they might as well be against the body's natural process.

It depends on what you define as "possible potential". An unfertilised egg on its own cannot possibly develop into a child, so therefore has no viability, in much the same way that embryos that are spontanously aborted (in other words, miscarried) are often found to have had mutated DNA which reduced their viability.

In my opinion, as soon as the zygote (egg/sperm combo) is formed, that combination of DNA and cellular matter has the capability to grow and develop into a fully-functioning being and therefore is "alive", just as much as it is alive when it develops into a ball of cells, then into an embryo and finally into the unborn child. An unfertilised egg is haploid - it only has half of the DNA matter inside it, meaning that it is physically incapable of developing into a living being, just as a sperm cell is incapable of becoming a baby on its own.

In order for something to be considered alive, from a scientific standpoint, it must be able to support itself, develop and grow on it's own. Does a fetus do this? NO! It is attatched to its mother, and recieves nutrients and oxygen from her. Without these, the fetus would cease to exist, except as a large grouping of cells, that would eventually deteriorate within the mother's womb. It's not until about 6 months (give or take, depending on the strength and development of the fetus) that it can even survive outside the womb. Prior to this, it's not life. It's development. So, you can't kill something that's not actually alive. It's destroyed, yes, but not killed, so abortion is not murder.

This is my belief, I stand by it wholeheartedly, and I am done with this thread.  

[Keimori2]

Well in my option its still murder in retrospect, for the life is still being taking away in one sense of the other.

*stretches*but I'm with Depfan on the topic of quitting, we've all made our points, allot of them valid points and at this point any more arguing and well just be writing in circles, mainly because this is a very Black and White topic.

so I leave this thread with a quote from an old song that always comes to my mind at the end of any argument:

"There an't no good guys, there an't no bad guys, there's only you and me, and we just disagree."  

[Kipluck]

For myself, Abstinence until marriage and then birth control, if needed.

I am also a HUGE fan of adoption as my boyfriend and I are planning to adopt when we marry.