It’s wrong to create it that way, but it’s no fault of the person who came into existence that way. It still invovles the same principle of mother and father, but in a corrupted way, but once a new life is conceived, then we’ve got no business destroying it.
It is debatable when the soul actually enters the human body. In fact I cannot answer that question so I will not even try to.
However, I can answer the question of whether abortion is correct or not. Most of the times it is not correct, life should be respected and cherished and not aborted. However, there are circumstances when one has to make a decision on whether a child should be bought into the world or not. I have answered in the past some circumstances when abortion is permissable:
- If the mother has been raped and the child is the result of that. The mother should not need have bear a child that she has not consented to and that would remind her of the trauma she went though
- If the birth of a child will endanger the life of its mother. The life of the mother is more precious because it is already established. She has friends and family and her loss will affect many people.
- If the child is being born into a world where there is exceptional suffering. Such as being born to a family that cannot look after it or during times of war or great economic strife.
It is better to abort during the time when the child has not yet developed a nervous system so that it cannot experience pain.
I don’t see why a child born of rape is any less a child than anyone else. And it’s not certain that it is better for the woman to abort, and possibly be violated a second time, and now have to endure the guilt of killing a child.
Regardless, the vast majority of abortions do not occur because of the above exceptions, but are purely elective.
Do we allow “choice” and the unjust deaths of millions for the sake of your exceptions, which likely would be exepmt by law anyway?
Again it is debatable you are killing a child if you abort the embroyo before it develops a nervous system. It is still not developed enough yet to be considered as a child.
I don’t support unjust abortions. However, I do support abortions when the mother has not consented to the child or her life is endangered if she gives birth to a child.
Especially in the latter case, do you support not abortiong a child and endangering the life of the mother?
How about this, SD. Let’s say there could be a law against elective abortions, but would allow for your exeptions of rape and danger to the mother.
Would you support that law?
Is there any place for compassion for the unborn? Are elective abortions unjust enough that they ought to be illegal?
[QUOTE=thomas;49456]How about this, SD. Let’s say there could be a law against elective abortions, but would allow for your exeptions of rape and danger to the mother.
Would you support that law?
Is there any place for compassion for the unborn? Are elective abortions unjust enough that they ought to be illegal?[/QUOTE]
Before, I would support that law, I would first think of other situations where it is acceptable to have an abortion. After making changes to that law to account for the other situations, or lack thereof, I would strongly support the law.
By the way Thomas, you didn’t respond to my PM. Did you get my messages? I answered your questions about the Space station.
First off, thanks SD! :rolleyes:
(are the resident Intergalactic Hindutva militia members solipsistic or is it just me?)
…I would first think of other situations where it is acceptable to have an abortion. After making changes to that law to account for the other situations, or lack thereof, I would strongly support the law.
Second, you would accept your own law. You would never accept Thomas’ law, now or later.
Watch this, I’m going to answer Thomas concisely (in a manner which neither you nor SD are capable of):
How about this, SD. Let’s say there could be a law against elective abortions, but would allow for your exeptions of rape and danger to the mother.
Would you support that law?
Is there any place for compassion for the unborn? Are elective abortions unjust enough that they ought to be illegal?
No, I wouldn’t support that law. I believe in the rights of the mother and her desire to end an unwanted pregnancy come ahead of a zygote or embryo during the 8-10weeks.
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;49469]First off, thanks SD! :rolleyes:
(are the resident Intergalactic Hindutva militia members solipsistic or is it just me?)
Second, you would accept your own law. You would never accept Thomas’ law, now or later.
Watch this, I’m going to answer Thomas concisely (in a manner which neither you nor SD are capable of):
No, I wouldn’t support that law. I believe in the rights of the mother and her desire to end an unwanted pregnancy come ahead of a zygote or embryo during the 8-10weeks.[/QUOTE]
I did say I would make changes to the law. Therefore, it wouldn’t be Thomas’s law anymore.
Thanks for your opinion.
By the way, I want to ask you a question. I reread Thomas’s post and saw the word “elective.” I didn’t see that when I posted my response. So what does elective abortion mean? I don’t know what it is and no, I don’t want to do a Google search and scar my retinas.
No, I wouldn’t support that law. I believe in the rights of the mother and her desire to end an unwanted pregnancy come ahead of a zygote or embryo during the 8-10weeks.
Nice try, but fail 
Your pro choice opinion is just as simplistic as Thomas’s opinion that all abortion is wrong. In the real world, our decisions depend upon the circumstances.
I would support a law that prohibits elective abortion, except under special circumstances. Basically I think the criteria for abortion should be based on meeting certain standards and should not be done simply on the whim of somebody. In the end, whether the zygote has a soul or not, it is still the potential for life and you are terminating life from taking place. So you should have a very good and valid reason for why you have a right to terminate that life.
My view might be as simplistic as his, but if my view were everyone’s view, there would be a lot more living people.
If my simplicity is an error, then it’s a much better error than scraping babies out of the womb.
My view might be as simplistic as his, but if my view were everyone’s view, there would be a lot more living people.
If your view was everybodies view than women who were raped would have to give birth to the children of their rapist and relive the trauma all over again. If your view was everybodies view then there be no compassion for the mother who might die if she gives birth.
I am glad your view is not everybodies view 
If we make exceptions for rape, then we contradict the reason to oppose abortion, which is that it is an injustice to the unborn.
What did that baby do wrong who was conceived by rape?
Have you not considered that there are many who have kept the child and are happy they did, and many who aborted and feel that that was a further violation, and the guilt of killing the child is added to the trauma of the rape.
At any rate, I would compromise and make that exception, since the vast majority of babies could be saved.
Topical Article I found for this Thread.
[B]Study: No higher mental health risk after abortion[/B]
By ALICIA CHANG
AP Science Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does, one of the largest studies to compare the aftermath of both decisions suggests.
The research by Danish scientists further debunks the notion that terminating a pregnancy can trigger mental illness and shows postpartum depression to be much more of a factor.
Abortion in Denmark has been legal since 1973 - the same year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, which established a right to abortion.
The Danish study included 365,550 teenagers and women who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007. None had a history of psychiatric problems that required hospitalization. Through various national registries, researchers were able to track mental health counseling at a hospital or outpatient facility before and after an abortion or delivery.
During the study period, 84,620 had an abortion while 280,930 gave birth.
Researchers compared the rate of mental health treatment among women before and after a first abortion. Within the first year after an abortion, 15 per 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling - similar to the rate seeking help nine months before an abortion.
Researchers say women who seek abortions come from a demographic group more likely to have emotional problems to begin with. Statistics show that a large percentage struggle economically and they have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies.
While first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall, the proportion of those seeking help after giving birth was dramatically higher. About 7 per 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth compared with 4 per 1,000 women pre-delivery.
The most common problems among women in both the abortion and the delivery groups were debilitating anxiety, severe stress and depression.
“A woman should know that her risk of having a psychiatric episode is not increased” after an abortion, said Trine Munk-Olsen of Aarhus University, who led the study.
Results were published in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine. The study was funded by grants from the Danish Medical Research Council and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which supports abortion rights organizations and projects.
The study did not examine why a pregnancy was terminated. Researchers also only studied mental problems serious enough to warrant admission to a hospital or outpatient clinic and did not look into the role of mild depression and other lesser symptoms.
In a previous study, published in 2006, Munk-Olsen found new mothers faced increased risks for a host of mental problems, not just postpartum depression.
Changes in hormone levels, sleep deprivation and other demands associated with having a baby could trigger mental problems, experts say. By contrast, women who have an abortion don’t experience similar changes.
“Anyone who’s ever had a baby knows it’s stressful. That stress doesn’t go away in a week or two” after delivery, said Dr. Robert Blum, who heads the department of population, family and reproductive health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The latest findings echo an extensive review by the American Psychological Association in 2008 that found no evidence that ending an unwanted pregnancy threatens women’s mental health.
A separate review by Blum and his colleagues found that the most rigorous research on the topic did not find a relationship between abortion and long-term mental health problems. Previous studies that suggested such a connection were often poorly designed, had dropout rates or did not control for factors that could affect the conclusion.
Though the latest study was done in Denmark, Blum said it’s comparable to the U.S. Access to abortion is similar in both countries though Denmark tends to be more conservative.
Abortion rates are lower in Denmark - about 13 abortions per 1,000 women in 2008, compared to almost 20 per 1,000 U.S. women that same year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive-rights issues.
What’s with the strawman and what is the relevance?
What about the baby that’s killed? What about his or her “mental health”?
[QUOTE=The Scales;49519]Topical Article I found for this Thread.
[B]Study: No higher mental health risk after abortion[/B]
By ALICIA CHANG
AP Science Writer[/QUOTE]
You have a link for that?
Edit never mind, I Googled it.
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does, one of the largest studies to compare the aftermath of both decisions suggests.
…what a rotten thing to say…how perfectly horrid…where are they, let me get to them !!..
If we make exceptions for rape, then we contradict the reason to oppose abortion, which is that it is an injustice to the unborn.
What did that baby do wrong who was conceived by rape?
What did the mother do wrong that she has to conceive a child of a man she did not want?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49590]What did the mother do wrong that she has to conceive a child of a man she did not want?[/QUOTE]
Nothing. It’s a horrible unjust situation. But there are now two people involved. And note that an abortion does not cure the problem by any means, and only compounds it.
But there are now two people involved. And note that an abortion does not cure the problem by any means, and only compounds it.
Ah ha, and now we are finally getting somewhere. There are two people involved: mother and child. Therefore the decision for abortion not only just concerns just the child, but also the mother. In your simplisic view we should simply ignore the mother altogether and just look at the child. If the mother is endangered by having the child, you don’t care, because the child is more important to you. Similarly, if the mother is raped, you don’t care about her right to not want that child, because the child is more important to you.
What about the mother? Do you have any compassion for the mother at all?
Of course I have compassion for the mother. But how is killing her child somehow “compassion” for her?
And I have compassion for women who have aborted, especially those who realize what they have done and suffer from guilt and regret.
What is your reasoning for opposing most abortions? Why not have compassion for the woman who might have to drop out of college? She can always have more children.