Abortion

[Darnoc]

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.

 

That is your subjective opinion, neither evidence nor an argument. Until you put forward an argument to counter my argument, I rest my case, since you seem to be unable or unwilling to counter my argument.

 

If you believe that my concept is fundamentally flawed, prove so, do not just claim it.

 

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.

 

Define "State" or "Society". We live in a democracy, therefore the whole society (meaning all citizens) is the state (or at least it should be). As part of the whole, ones abilities should be used to benefit the whole. The wishes of one human are nothing compared to the needs of whole society. If we must sacrifice the needs of the society to the wishes of the individual, then our society is clearly flawed. It is logical that the needs of the society outweigh the needs of the individual, therefore the individual is required to sacrifice personal freedoms in order to serve the whole society. Personal freedoms may never endanger the needs of the society, everything which doesn't come into conflict with those needs is in order. If the needs of the society require that all potentials are saved (since we lack the ability to foresee what happens to those humans and how they will be able to serve society), then logically, no one must be granted abortion, unless we are able to one day determine what the potential human's abilities are (genetic analysis, for example). But even then no one can tell for sure, what a human being is going to do with its life.

 

Children do not belong to the parents. They belong to the society. The parents are only the people appointed to raise those children, so that they may later be productive members of the society.

[Malchik]

Darnoc, your post is that each person belongs to society. But what does 'belongs to' mean? If something 'belongs to' me then it is mine and I may do what I like with it. If I belong to society in such a definition then society has the ability to do what it likes with me. I'm sorry I don't think it does and I'm sure it should never have. It may wish to proscribe certain things but even then I can choose to ignore many of them without infringing any laws.

 

Individuals have freedom of choice in too many things to say they 'belong to'. They are certainly 'a part of' society but that has a different meaning altogether.

[Darnoc]

@Malchik: Then let me rephrase it. We are all part of the society. All children are therefore future parts of the society and all potential children too. No member of the society may command another member of the society, unless this individual is appointed by the society to command (for example, the government). Children are no exception, because they will become future members of the society and in them rests a potential which will be used in the future to serve the society. Therefore an individual of the society may not just decide wheter such a future member of society should live or not. This conflicts with the interests of the society, which will need those potential members of society. And therefore only the society and those appointed this power by the society (the government) should make such a decision.

 

It is simply illogical to destroy potential valuable members of the society. And certainly no individual, who doesn't have the needed objectivity to make such a decision, should make such a decision. Such decisions should rest with someone with greater objectivity. Since such a person does not exist, in my opinion, no one may make this decision. Therefore abortion should not be allowed, unless this would endanger the already existing member of society (the mother).

 

It is not a matter of the freedom of choice. It is a matter of wasting important potential members of the society or not. That is the important matter. And we may certainly waste no potential, this is simply a decision which is not in the interest of our society. And as I said, it is logical that the needs of the individual must step back when they endanger the needs of society. And abortion does endanger the needs of our society, because when aborting a potential valuable member of society is destroyed. And that we cannot allow to happen, wheter the affected mother likes it or not.

[Malchik]

But let us suppose that food is in short supply and that more births will lead to starvation?

 

Also you presuppose the society will look after this unwanted child after birth. It does not.

 

Furthermore damaging the mother mentally by forcing her to have the child damages a currently valuable member of society.

 

I find your approach far too simplistic.

 

The answer cannot be left to the state or 'society' it must be an individual choice. There are rules that do not allow abortion when the foetus reaches a certain level of development - except in extremis - and these are quite enough IMO.

[Darnoc]

But let us suppose that food is in short supply and that more births will lead to starvation?

 

This is not the case in western civilization, we have more than enough food.

 

Also you presuppose the society will look after this unwanted child after birth. It does not.

 

You are correct that it does not. But it should. It is the duty of society, or, to be precise, of the ones appointed power by the society, the government.

 

Furthermore damaging the mother mentally by forcing her to have the child damages a currently valuable member of society.

 

If the damage is indeed so threatening to the mother, then an abortion may be considered in my opinion. If in doubt, for the already existing member of society, I would say. But before such an abortion is granted, the case must carefully be considered.

 

It would be even better if we had the ability of genetic analysis. Then we could determine, if perhaps the unborn child would be somekind of genious. If this would be the case, the child would probably have to be saved, since geniouses are rather rare and very valuable to the society. Depending on the mother, perhaps even more valuable than the mother carrying this potential genious.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Oh, of course. It is every woman's duty to breed the future master race.

 

 

That kind of logic sounds uncannily familiar.... :angry2:

[dagoth v.s fargoth]

i personally think that if the couple have sex, then they should be responsible enough to take care of it, only under special condition should you have an abortion, or if one of the parents has died, or you already have many kids(world record is 74 kids to 2 parents) otherwise, i stick to what i said earlier

[Stampede]

i personally think that if the couple have sex, then they should be responsible enough to take care of it, only under special condition should you have an abortion, or if one of the parents has died, or you already have many kids(world record is 74 kids to 2 parents) otherwise, i stick to what i said earlier

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you advocating abortion as a form of birth control? If couples have too many kids there are better solutions:

 

A) Stop screwing

 

B) Birth Control (Condoms are free though still not 100% reliable)

 

C) Mutual Masturbation

 

D) Get snipped/tied

 

E) Put them to work in a Nike or Adidas sweatshop

 

Those who see birth control as the devils handiwork need only apply option A.

 

Also, could you elaborate more on the "one of the parents has died" argument? Though it is sometimes one of the most greatest challenges on earth, I know people who have had no choice but to raise the kid on their own. Why abort the future child to compensate for the death of a parent?

[mostafa_187]

Abortion, in anycase/way/shape/form IMO is wrong. But, what it boils down to is a choice, that none of you can make, until put in that possition. The choice is to try and raise the child, doing the best you can, and with all your power/might/will try and raise the child right and lovingly. If the parent/s believe that they cant do that, then they have one of 3 other choices with 3 different outcomes.

 

1) They abort- ending a life before it can begin, and possibly killing our(yes OUR) Next Great Thinker who in turn could've possibly ended the afformentioned Hunger Problem with feeding these Thousands of unwanted babies, Cured AIDS, Cured Cancer, etc.

 

2) Kill the baby after birth(dumpster, garbage can, etc)- Also ending a human life, but this one had begun. Possibly going to jail for life because you were afraid. Teens/Parents do it everyday in this country and others.

 

3) Place the child into an Adoption Program- The child is raised by (Hopefully) loving and caring people, grows to become (hopefully) a valued member of society, etc.

 

There are people willing to take care of these children given up or placed in adoption programs, so dont think otherwise. There are millions of people in the US alone who cant conceive a child on their own, but still want children, so they adopt. Never think once that these child wont find a home, you'd be surprized. And, even if they dont get adopted, they are still raised in the Orphanage with food in their stomachs, a roof over their head, and clothes on their back. My father was raised in an Orphanage until he was 17, and he has done more for alot of people than most could even dream of. There is always hope for a child, there is no need in killing something before it even gets a chance. With that, I rest.

[Zmid]

Abortion, in anycase/way/shape/form IMO is wrong. But, what it boils down to is a choice, that none of you can make, until put in that possition. The choice is to try and raise the child, doing the best you can, and with all your power/might/will try and raise the child right and lovingly. If the parent/s believe that they cant do that, then they have one of 3 other choices with 3 different outcomes.

 

1) They abort- ending a life before it can begin, and possibly killing our(yes OUR) Next Great Thinker who in turn could've possibly ended the afformentioned Hunger Problem with feeding these Thousands of unwanted babies, Cured AIDS, Cured Cancer, etc.

 

Let's flip this around, shall we - by the same token, this could also be the next Adolf Hitler/Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein that you just 'killed'. In that case, wouldn't you be doing a great service to the world by having that abortion?

 

2) Kill the baby after birth(dumpster, garbage can, etc)- Also ending a human life, but this one had begun. Possibly going to jail for life because you were afraid. Teens/Parents do it everyday in this country and others.

 

....and if they had simply aborted, same result, no risk.

 

3) Place the child into an Adoption Program- The child is raised by (Hopefully) loving and caring people, grows to become (hopefully) a valued member of society, etc.

 

Granted, that is one option. But, essentially, what you are doing here is dumping your unwanted kids on someone else to look after. In essence, you are getting someone else to pay for your responsibility that you don't want to shoulder. IMO, if you abort, at least you are dealing with that responsibility, even if it is in a way some people find distasteful.