- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- The case for abortion
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| The case for abortion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 7 2008, 02:00 AM (1,355 Views) | |
| Rockman | Nov 7 2008, 02:00 AM Post #1 |
hoighty-toighty
|
I write this with the first assumption that you know the controversy of abortion in America. That you already know it's religious meanings and are able to discuss this topic in complete detail. This will be my attempt to understand the Bible's position on abortion by taking direct quotes and commentary from people over the internet. This, by any means has anything to do with God or disproving his existence. I suggest that in order to do well in this thread, you answer the following question to the best of your ability and quote the sources used. I also implore you to use the Bible as much as possible. Questions at hand. Where in the bible does it state directly that abortion is wrong? I can't think of any other question at this moment. Please discuss. |
 JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
 |
 
|
| * .Revolution | Nov 7 2008, 02:26 PM Post #2 |
.: Changing Everything :.
|
Maybe it is connected to the shame of killing your own child? I remember a part about Herodes and child murder. It isn't stated directly, but I think the transfer from child murder to abortion is logical in certain parts. Not that I am directly against abortion, but I understand people who make that connection. |
 Bow down Surrender unto me Submit infectiously Sanctify your demons Click to visit my DeviatART | |
|
|
|
| Rockman | Nov 7 2008, 02:30 PM Post #3 |
|
hoighty-toighty
|
I refuse to take any stance on abortion, that's why I can talk about it so openly. |
|
JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Nov 7 2008, 02:36 PM Post #4 |
=._.=
|
Does it state in the Bible how old the fetus has to be before it is classed as a child though? If it hasn't been born yet, it isn't a child yet is it? The concept for it being a child came from science I think where they found the earliest a fetus could be born and still survive. But I don't know, I haven't read much about abortion. |
 
| |
|
|
|
| Rockman | Nov 7 2008, 03:09 PM Post #5 |
|
hoighty-toighty
|
In the age when the bible was written, there was huge speculation of how child birth worked in the womb. They did not know about tri-mesters, they did not know that both male and females start off as unisex, all they knew was that it was a child. Also they did not abort children on purpose back then, if they did, the mother was surely going to die. ====================== Here is a passage that is taken out of context. There is a bible passage about a man striking a woman as to cause miscarriage, but that is not what abortion is about and is taken out of context as being what abortion is today. "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23) This is taken out of context as it is a moral view on the stance of civil disputes. Not abortion. Edited by Rockman, Nov 7 2008, 03:13 PM.
|
|
JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
|
|
|
| + Byakko | Nov 8 2008, 03:49 PM Post #6 |
I once gave a Kangaroo a heart-attack just by staring at it
|
I, personally, do not really care. It's harsh yes, but I don't. I don't agree with either side. It all depends on the condition on whether or not Abortion is morally okay. For instance, if either parent does not want the child, yet the other does. The one who DOES want the child should not be forced to abort. If either parent is too young (I meant like.. legally underage to have sex in the first place. Or 16-19) but the other parent is, and is responsible, then it should be okay to keep the child. If both parents are too young, no, don't keep the child. At least give the child for adoption. If neither parent is emotionally responsible. Then they should Abort, or again consider adoption. |
|
GFX Portfolio Tumblr DeviantArt  Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'" | |
|
|
|
| Rockman | Nov 8 2008, 05:06 PM Post #7 |
|
hoighty-toighty
|
I personally believe that I don't have a right to choose for a women. This only accounts for my own relationship. I'm not the one who is having the baby, it's not my body, it's up to her to make the decision and I back both decisions 100%. I especially shouldn't have a say in the matter since in that case, it was probably generally my fault for being stupid. |
|
JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
|
|
|
| Sam | Dec 30 2008, 12:05 PM Post #8 |
It takes a mere second for treasure to turn to trash.
|
Personally, I'm a liberal and I have a lot of pro-choice views but in this case, I'm pretty conservative. Abortion is murder, in my opinion. The child that could be born has a lot of possibilities, and could do a lot of great things for this world. Why kill it? Just because one or both parents are physically/mentally/emotionally/psychologically irresponsible to take care of the child? Then adopt him/her off. Not kill it. The only way it should be allowed is if it is rape or incest. And it is not stated in the Bible because back when it was written, they probably didn't figure sometime in the future people would end up killing babies before they're even born with shots and injections. Kinda unrealistic for that time period, in my opinion. People shouldn't have the right to murder other people, just because that person is a "fetus" and doesn't have a voice to make an objection to there own murder. Just because they can't say, "No" doesn't mean it's not murder. |
|
WoW Legion Ending - Thank you Darker for making this into one, big incredible gif! <3 | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Dec 30 2008, 12:26 PM Post #9 |
|
=._.=
|
There has been an abortion topic before where if I can recall some points to you Neci that i or others brought up. If the baby will not lead a decent life, such as being born with an illness that will prevent them from doing most things, are you suggesting it is less crule to let them live? I think it's crule that perants decide they want the child who won't be able to enjoy life, those who can't even preform simple tasks on their own and can't have a productive life. Would you like to live a life like that? I wouldn't. Or if the baby is killing the mother, surly aboirtion is right then Neci? The mother should come before the unborn baby right? You mentioned rape already, but I see you also mention incest. Now this might sound stange but run with it. If a woman is pregnant by choice with their own relative, why does that make abortion suddenly right? If it was her choice then surly by your logic, the baby should be given a chance. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Sam | Dec 30 2008, 12:41 PM Post #10 |
|
It takes a mere second for treasure to turn to trash.
|
The baby would be mentally ill [unless it is a cousin, or something]. But, again, it wouldn't be a FORCED abortion if IT WAS incest. For instance, if a brother and a sister had a baby on purpose and wanted to keep it, regardless of the mental retardation, then, that's fine. Hell, even if they adopted it off even if it was mentally retarded is up to them. But, if it was forced incest, or accidental pregnancy due to incest and the parents do not want to bring a mentally retarded baby into the world, then, abortion should be open for them. Most illnesses are detected only when a child is born. Which is why I did not mention it. However, in the very rare case scenario where a doctor is able to determine the baby will have a serious birth defect BEFORE it is born, and that it is NOT treatable, then, maybe abortion should be left open as an option, if it is NOT safe to give birth to the baby otherwise [it's a lot safer to the mother to let the baby be born WITH the illness, depending on how far the fetus is developed] then abortion should be left open. Although, you did bring up points I hadn't thought of before, I think my original opinion remains intact, there are obviously very rare excursions where abortion might be acceptable, and there are many excursions in things like incest where abortion isn't even necessary. |
|
WoW Legion Ending - Thank you Darker for making this into one, big incredible gif! <3 | |
|
|
|
| Famicommander | Jan 7 2009, 06:54 AM Post #11 |
|
Jukebox hero
|
Abortion is murder, and the Bible is not relevant to the discussion. I am non-religious and from a legal standpoint this should be a non-religious discussion. The fact of the matter is that from the moment of conception, an embryo is alive and it has human DNA. Therefore it is a living human. And it is innocent by virtue of never having done anyone any wrong. Therefore it is an innocent human. By any set of morals it is wrong to take and innocent human life. People like to bring up the sentience argument, saying that since the fetus is not sentient yet it is alright to kill it. That's ridiculous. Sentience cannot be the barometer by which we measure the right to life. Newborn babies are not sentient. Elephants are sentient. Am I to understand that elephants' lives are worth more than those of human infants? Ridiculous. Other people tend to bring up the viability argument, saying that the mother has the right to kill the child since it relies on the mother for everything. But a newborn child relies on its parent for everything too. And the ability to live outside the womb is not relevant to the consciousness or humanity of a fetus. Many living persons rely on outside methods to stay alive. Consider people who living in iron lungs, or people who are on life support. People in comas. Are they not deserving of the right to life? Still more people use the "sapience" argument. These people state that the ability to act with appropriate judgment defines the right to life. But under this definition, all people under the age of 18 would be undeserving of life under our current legal system. And what about the "it's my body, and the government has no right to tell me what I can or cannot do with it" argument? Well, this is clearly ridiculous. The government is not telling you what you can do with your body. The government is telling you that you have no right to kill another innocent person living within your body. There are two bodies in question here. What obligations does a parent have to his or her children? In our society, it is the responsibility of a parent to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of a child. It would not be alright for a parent to kill his nine year old son, so why is it alright in our society for a mother to kill her unborn child? It doesn't matter what the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy are. The life of an innocent child supercedes all else. It is not alright to kill a child because taking care of it may "ruin your life". Rape is a horrible crime, but killing a baby doesn't change the fact that you were raped. Saying that abortion in the case of rape is justifiable is akin to saying that two wrongs make a right. Someone did something horrible to you, so you have the right to do something even worse to someone else? Sorry, that's not how it works. You cannot punish the child for the sins of its father. If you accept that normal abortion is wrong, then you also must accept that abortion in the case of rape is wrong. If you do not, then you've failed to understand what makes abortion wrong in the first place. And you people who bring up "mercy killings" make me sick. It is not for you to decide whether the child is better off living with an illness or dead. Are you saying that mentally challenged people have no right to live? If the child is going to grow up in hard conditions, then it will grow up in hard conditions. Many, many great people have come from tough situations in their lives. You don't have the right to kill someone because you think they would be better off for it. You have no right to end the life of an innocent human being, even if you think it's "for their own good". And don't give me that "back alley abortion" crap. Some people claim that though abortion is wrong, it should be legal so that the people getting abortions won't be exposed to unsafe medical conditions. This is absolutely ridiculous. First off, when abortion was illegal in certain states the majority of procedures were done by doctors under the table, to make money away from their taxable income. Second, there should be no laws in place to protect murderers from the self-inflicted consequences of their own actions. Abortion is wrong. If you disagree, you don't understand basic human rights. From the moment of conception, your DNA is no different than it will be the moment you die. Fetuses are living, and fetuses are human. |
| |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Jan 7 2009, 12:42 PM Post #12 |
|
=._.=
|
Why don't I have that right? If I had an accident that left me mostly paralised or unable to function without the help of everyone around me or another illness that would prevent me from having an okay life, then I would rather be dead. The mentally ill can lead okay lives with a little help, some okay can't lead anything like a decent life because of their condition and some people are obviously suffering but because we live in a socity where mercy killing is frowned upon and this whole argument that they have rights as well as us. I don't disagree that they have rights as well as us, but sometimes, some people are better off dying, it's less crule than letting someone live their life in pain and being forever dependent. Abortion is also right for when the baby is putting the mother at risk, at the time in the hospital, it's the mother whole is the patiant, the doctors are suppost to look after the well being of the mother. If the baby is going to kill the mother or paralise her, it should be aborted. Otherwise you are saying that the mother doesn't have a right to life. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Famicommander | Jan 8 2009, 06:00 AM Post #13 |
|
Jukebox hero
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Jan 8 2009, 12:59 PM Post #14 |
|
=._.=
|
Well you are saying I don't have the right to decide on if someone should die. But who are you to decided that they should carry on living in pain? If they can't communicate or arn't in a mind to make a sound decision, who is going to make it for them? Ultimatly there life is in the hands of someone else, that person then has to decide which they think is the best option. Have you ever had to have a pet put down? What makes that more right than having a persons life ended? Why is the animals life not as important as a persons life? If your pet is in pain and can't be treated, you have it put down, the same should follow for people, it's a pretty basic concept. Okay, I'm comparing pets to people but we have as much right to live on this planet as they do. That's off the topic of abortion though, you might think it's wrong, but ultimatly, it is the mothers decision. If she was raped then giving birth to such a child could cause her even more emotional pain. With the complicated birth, what's to say the child is going to live anyway? If it doesn't live after the opperation for a cesierian, you are causing the mother unneeded emotional pain. All in all, I feel the views of the mother should be protected over that of the life of a baby which would only end up in adotion or mistreated by it's mother. Nither of which are going to do a whole lot of good for the child are they? |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Rockman | Jan 8 2009, 10:09 PM Post #15 |
|
hoighty-toighty
|
Embryo's don't have a voice, rights, complex thoughts, desires, ambitions... A comparison of a human to an embryo is a very unfair comparison. There is nothing similar between an embryo and a Human other than DNA and organic material. But still not mine or any other person's decision other than the mothers. It's not our bodies, it's not our blood, it's not our child. Stop trying to make decisions for other people, instead encourage adoption over abortion if you feel that it's still a terrible thing. We are completely off topic though. Although many of you said it wasn't stated in the bible, and that it's a recent issue newer than the testaments itself. I guess that answers the question. Edited by Rockman, Jan 8 2009, 10:10 PM.
|
|
JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:52 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy