Abortion

[Darnoc]

I have again thought about the whole problem and came to the conclusion that the solution we find is in fact a matter of the angle on which we view this subject.

 

The basic problem is this: To whom does this child, or should I say "potential child", belong? Does it belong to the mother (and father too, if they are a officially registered relationship like a marriage) who carries and probably will raise the child or does this potential life belong to the state, of whom it will once be a (hopefully) productive citizen?

 

If the potential life indeed belongs to the mother, then the choice obviously is hers. That is the logical conclusion, for if something is in fact possession of someone, then the possessor may do with his possession, whatever the possesser chooses (except use this possession in a criminal way).

 

But if the potential life belongs to the state it once will be a citizen of, the mother only serves as carrier and raiser, appointed by the state to bring this potential life into the status of a productive citizenship. In this case, it is not the choice of the mother, for the child does not belong to her, but to the state and only the state may decide what to do with its possession.

 

What is now the case? Let us look at the common practice of interpretation of law. In most countries of the western world, when someone kills someone else and is not appointed by the state to do so, this person is considered criminal (a murderer, to be precise). So, the choice of life or death may only be made by the state or by persons appointed this power by the state. Therefore we can safely assume that the life of any citizen is in fact the legal property of the state and the state may do with them whatever he wishes according to its own law, but no one else, since that would be in fact violating the legal rights of the state.

 

Now is the mother or father of a child appointed by the state to decide wheter their child shall live or not? If we reply "yes", then this automatically implies that the mother or father may kill their child at any time until the child is 18 and becomes in fact a citizen of the state, since the power to decide does not end when the child is born. If we reply "no", then neither the mother nor the father may decide if their child should live or not at any time of this child's life, unless the state or someone who has been appointed such power by the state gives them permission to do so.

 

So we have established that a parent may not kill (or abort) his or her child without official permission of the state, since the life of the potential citizen of the state belongs legally to the state. Now we have to establish under which circumstances the state may grant this official permission. And I believe that here in fact lies the discussion between those who approve and those who disapprove of abortion.

 

Now the important question is "What is the reason for the life of this potential citizen?" Obviously, since the life of any citizen of the state is the legal property of the state, the reason for the life of any citizen, potential or real, is to serve the state in any way the state chooses and follow any commands of said state. Since we are not yet able to predict how the life of this potential citizen will serve the state, it would be a waste of material to destroy this life prematurely. And I do not believe that a mother or a father is objective enough or has enough foresight to see what will happen to this life. Therefore, so it is my believe, any potential life should be allowed to come into existence and should be allowed to develop its potential. We cannot risk that valuable members of the citizenship are lost. What would you say, if someone aborted a person who should have becomen a genious scientist who, with his inventions, would have saved the lives of countless people? Since we do not know this, we may not waste any potential life. And certainly no parent should be granted the permission to make such a grave decision.

 

Therefore it is in the interest of the whole society, all citizens and the state, that no one shall be granted the right to decide upon wehter to abort or not. In the interest of the state, the interests of the individual must step back, since the individual's life is the legal property of the state anyway.

[ThetaOrionis01]

By your logic, women cease to be human, and instead become birthing machines.

 

Brave new world, here we come.

[Darnoc]

By your logic, women cease to be human, and instead become birthing machines.

 

Brave new world, here we come.

 

Women are not birthing machines. They are servants of the society and with this of the state, as are men. And every member of society must serve society according to his or her abilities. Nature has given women certain reproductive abilities which men lack, therefore it is only logical that they use their ability to sustain society (or else the society will be exterminated). Of course, no human being is restricted to serve society in only one way. In fact, it is the duty of every citizen to serve society in any way which is possible, according to his or her abilty.

 

And, as you have said, what I said is logical. I do not see logic in your words, they sound subjective. Either accept and support my arguments or counter them with other logical arguments, in order to continue the debate.

 

It is good, though, that we do agree that our world is not good. I might add that a "brave, new world" would perhaps be better than what we have now (referring now to the novel of Aldous Huxley).

[ThetaOrionis01]

I find your logic and concepts so flawed on such a fundamental level that I have no wish even to begin to try to think myself into your mindset.

 

However, I am afraid that your last post is uncomfortably reminiscent of a totalitarian way of thinking.

 

IMO, the state is the servant of its citizens, not vice versa.

[andrus]

The thing that i wanted to put across with my post was that a live is somthing that cant be measured by a persons state of mind are financial comitments.

What we are talking about is a small child that can think and build memories, if you dont believe me look into it but at ten weeks they are very much alive still tiny but alive, if in the instant that you die time slows like is prodicted by scientists and i mean for the individual not the whole human race, then bean sucked up into a vacume for a baby must be an eternaty of agony fear frustration and regret, do we have the right to enforce that upon a featus.

Would you torment a small child then stab it in the heart, i couldnt so why do people have the right to terminate an unborn child.

Like i said if you can kill a baby and get away with then if a criple wants to die then you should let them, are you can turn it right on its head.

You could go and strangle grand ma for being a financial burdon.

Abortion is wrong, life is far too short as it is, with out it being cut mid stroke growing in the womb.

Dont get me wrong there is circumstances when if a child under the age of concent gets pregnant she could have the option are rape victims even women that may die from giving birth but like i said earlier a woman that is 24 yrs of age healthy and in a stable relationship with a partner that can afford to support them, she shouldnt have the option, a woman knows if a man as left his seed behind and its both of thems responsability to deal with it before it becomes life like morning after pill for instance.

{CONTRACEPTION} is there for a reason. :cool2:

[ThetaOrionis01]

if a criple wants to die then you should let them,

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed. I fully support euthanasia.

 

 

I have given my views on abortion earlier in this thread, and see no reason to repeat myself.

 

If you think that abortion is mainly carried out for financial reasons - I'm finding it somewhat difficult to decipher your post - then you need to think again. There are far more reasons why a woman might choose abortion.

[andrus]

it is true there are many reasons for abortion, but in all honesty most women regret doing it after.

i do appologies if my gramma is bad im on pain killers for my back and im kinda floating on cloud nine lol

but i still dont condone killing a baby.

And i did make reference to state of mind being a reason.

the problem is, is that women cant be given enough info about abortion, are they simply wouldnt do it.

I cant shake this fuzzy fealing, i cant think strieght im kinda having trouble putting what i mean.

some women feal they cant cope with the pain are trama of child birth, others simply dont want children, for the ones that dont want kids give them the less stressful option of an histerectami> i hope i spelt that right.

then they wouldn need to kill anything would they.

[ThetaOrionis01]

the problem is, is that women cant be given enough info about abortion, are they simply wouldnt do it.

I cant shake this fuzzy fealing, i cant think strieght im kinda having trouble putting what i mean.

some women feal they cant cope with the pain are trama of child birth, others simply dont want children, for the ones that dont want kids give them the less stressful option of an histerectami> i hope i spelt that right.

then they wouldn need to kill anything would they.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*blinks*

 

I can only hope that what I'm reading is due to your painkillers, and not actually an indication of a very condescending attitude towards women...

[andrus]

Gosh no i love women all of them. :P

[TheDeadTree]

At heart, this is an ethical question. It still boils down to right or wrong, yes or no, even if there are -many- different reasons why a person would choose abortion.

 

As a male, my oppinion on this matter means exactly squat. I've no idea what child rearing feels like, both emotional or otherwise. I feel, therefore, that having such little understanding, I cannot accuratly pass judgement on what women do with their own bodies.

 

However, like most evils in our history I feel that abortion is something we cannot un-invent. It'll always be with us. Threaten it's exsistance, and you'll just enbolden people. Outlaw it, you'll drape it with as much mistique and danger that drugs enjoy in our culture.

 

Ultimatly, bad parenting, not contraceptives, or the promise of a speedy abortion is the only thing that increases the chance of pregnancy.