Abortion

[Marko]

I haven't read all of posts, but i see you keep writing stuffs here.
It's pretty simple actually. It's matter of choice. If one wants to do it you can't take that away from her just because your belief doesn't match with theirs.

It comes down to personal opinion and if someone who found themselves in that kind of situation thinks about it, you, who probably never experienced that, can't empathize with them therefore don't have any rights to say a thing about topic. Period.

But still courts have to be involved so it doesn't become chaos.

[Som1Lse]

It's pretty simple actually. It's matter of choice. If one wants to do it you can't take that away from her just because your belief doesn't match with theirs.

It comes down to personal opinion and if someone who found themselves in that kind of situation thinks about it, you, who probably never experienced that, can't empathize with them therefore don't have any rights to say a thing about topic. Period.

It is not that simple. The exact same thing, can be said for thieving, rape, murder or pretty much any other crime.

But still courts have to be involved so it doesn't become chaos.

This statement basically admits that it is not that simple, since it raises the question of how much, and to which extent, courts should be involved.

[Marko]

Lol!!!, are you actually comparing things that involves harming other people around you with thing which is totally self-dependent ?????

Hypothetically speaking, Would affect you the fact neighbour aborted a child last night the same it would affect you if knew that the same neighbour murdered someone last night? Of course it would not.
In first case you would think of her as selfish b*tch and probably not talk to her ever again because she doesn't share same beliefs (which is pretty lame in my opinion), while in second case you would be concerned about your safety.

It's not like "thieving, rape, murder or pretty much any other crime". Crime, necessary, involves harming other people and harmony of place while abortion is personal choice the same way you can choose to or not to believe in God therefore you can't call it "pretty much crime".
If you don't agree with someones beliefs, simply don't socialite with them.

The fact she doesn't want baby (or can't support) doesn't make her pretty much murderer. You can be disgusted by such people, but they did nothing morally wrong here. To make something crime it should be morally relevant.
Something is morally relevant if:
1. refers to being which has moral status of the facility
2. done on purpose
3. personal choice
4. done with knowledge about it
5. procedure has moral quality (good or bad)
- It doesn't refer to any living thing and it has no moral quality (Bible and other religous stuffs doesn't apply here because there are plenty of atheists as well)
Therefore abortion is morally irrelevant, meaning is not crime, meaning there is no reasonable argument against abortion.
(Listening teacher actually paid off hehe)

it's simple, very simple. You are complicating everything involving moral which doesn't apply here..... As everything, it should be regulated under the law that's why court is necessary. Under valid arguments, which i suppose are listed plenty of times in this thread, she should be allowed to abort a fetus/embryo.

[Som1Lse]

Lol!!!, are you actually comparing things that involves harming other people around you with thing which is totally self-dependent ?????
[...]
It's not like "thieving, rape, murder or pretty much any other crime". Crime, necessary, involves harming other people and harmony of place while abortion is personal choice the same way you can choose to or not to believe in God therefore you can't call it "pretty much crime".
If you don't agree with someones beliefs, simply don't socialite with them.

You completely ignored that many people consider aborting a fetus to be harmful against the fetus which will grow up to be a person.
If you are for abortion, but against murdering you have to draw a line, for where it is ok to kill it/him/her. Many people would probably draw the line at birth, but it is as arbitrary as any other place to draw the line. It happens to coincide with another major event, but there is no indication that they have anything to do with each other.

The fact she doesn't want baby (or can't support) doesn't make her pretty much murderer. You can be disgusted by such people, but they did nothing morally wrong here. To make something crime it should be morally relevant.
Something is morally relevant if:
1. refers to being which has moral status of the facility
2. done on purpose
3. personal choice
4. done with knowledge about it
5. procedure has moral quality (good or bad)
- It doesn't refer to any living thing and it has no moral quality (Bible and other religous stuffs doesn't apply here because there are plenty of atheists as well)
Therefore abortion is morally irrelevant, meaning is not crime, meaning there is no reasonable argument against abortion.

Well for you list:

1. Debatable.
   
2. Definitely.
   
3. Definitely.
   
4. Definitely.
   
5. Do I smell circular logic? Anyway still debatable.
   

I do not see how someone could not apply that to abortion, and that is only your definition of moral relevance. Morals are probably some of the most subjective things, so people are going to have different (essentially equally valid) opinions here.

it's simple, very simple. You are complicating everything involving moral which doesn't apply here..... As everything, it should be regulated under the law that's why court is necessary. Under valid arguments, which i suppose are listed plenty of times in this thread, she should be allowed to abort a fetus/embryo.

If you think something is simple, you probably did not understand it very well.

[Gespenst]

Court is involved... do you think that it will happen in instant?

[sadbhav]

Let's face it, abortion is bad. No matter what you will say "She was raped and got pregnant", well still abortion is not justified.
It's your fault for getting raped. Joking. Raping is bad but abortion is also bad. You can use "Morning after pills"

That's your opinion on the matter. I can respect that. But, I also happen to completely disagree with it.

Normally, the victim would be too traumatized to think of things like morning after pills.

[Marko]

You completely ignored that many people consider aborting a fetus to be harmful against the fetus which will grow up to be a person.
If you are for abortion, but against murdering you have to draw a line, for where it is ok to kill it/him/her. Many people would probably draw the line at birth, but it is as arbitrary as any other place to draw the line. It happens to coincide with another major event, but there is no indication that they have anything to do with each other.

How could it be harming towards fetus? Fetus is not living thing. Fetus has no social value. Fetus is nothing really. Can fetus feel anything? Was it in agony of pain? Can you ask fetus what's wrong or does it agree with abortion? All of you try to attach emotions on fetus and playing on card of empathize. If it hasn't been borned it has never existed, simple as that.
You can't consider it as murder when there is nothing to murder(yet). It's killing *potential* baby which is not murdering. You prevent fetus from being developed, that's all. Having that said isn't that the same as using condom? Think about it. You are preventing baby from being borned. Same as abortion, only abortion is very last resolution.

Well for you list:

1. Debatable.
   
2. Definitely.
   
3. Definitely.
   
4. Definitely.
   
5. Do I smell circular logic? Anyway still debatable.
   

I do not see how someone could not apply that to abortion, and that is only your definition of moral relevance. Morals are probably some of the most subjective things, so people are going to have different (essentially equally valid) opinions here.

That's not my list. I didn't invent it. It's international, widely used list in ethics to discern difference between morally relevant case and morally irrelevant.

...so people are going to have different (essentially equally valid) opinions here.

Obviously, that's the case. Only way to deal with different opinions is to give freedome of choice.(in other words making abortion a valid option)
Gay marriage, religion, changing gender,... people can choose between this things and the same should be with abortion. You don't have to like it, you have freedom of choice to have your personal opinion, but you can't forbid women to abort. Anything optional that doesn't interfere with other living beings, which aborton absolutely is, should be legal.
((I don't see how human should be limited by anything really, especially by human fabrications such are moral and crime. Such a humanish things. There is no crime in nature within animals, bacterias, viruses, plants.. Every option is available.))

[Som1Lse]

How could it be harming towards fetus? Fetus is not living thing. Fetus has no social value. Fetus is nothing really.

A fetus is definitely a living thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
Whether it has social value is debatable, but it definitely has the potential to have if it were to grow up, which you could consider an investment which has social value.
Being nothing does by no means describe a fetus, in fact it rarely (if ever) applies to anything.

Can fetus feel anything? Was it in agony of pain?

Maybe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_p...natal_pain), but probably not.

All of you try to attach emotions on fetus and playing on card of empathize.

Whether a fetus has emotions/which it has is not something we really know much about.
I would assume that an embryo in its early stages definitely does not have emotions, but I would also assert that children by the age of one do (based on the fact that my cousin has a one-year-old that definitely seems to exhibit emotions), so at some point a child would have to develop them. Whether it happens before, during or after birth we simply do not know.

If emotions are developed after birth would you consider it acceptable to kill a child before they begin developing (but still after being birth)?
If emotions are developed before birth would you consider it unacceptable to abort a fetus after they have been developed?
If you do not consider empathy a valid reason against murder then what would you consider a valid reason?

If it hasn't been borned it has never existed, simple as that. You can't consider it as murder when there is nothing to murder(yet). It's killing *potential* baby which is not murdering.

Most things that exist have never been born. If it does not exist why bother aborting it because it does not exist. You either meant to use another word or you don't know what "exist" means.

Whether abortion is murder is debatable, and it is wholly irrelevant anyway since if abortion is considered legal it would definitely not be murder which is unequivocally illegal.

The real question is what makes it different from murder. If one were to say that a fetus is not a human yet and thus killing it is not murder it raises the question of when it becomes a human. Birth is not a good answer here, since a baby can be born at many different phases (26 weeks is uncommon but it does happen http://www.babycenter.com/0_whats-the-ou...0300031.bc). Maybe there is another reason why it is not wrong and thus not murder (I believe there is), but the question is: What is it?

You prevent fetus from being developed, that's all. Having that said isn't that the same as using condom? Think about it. You are preventing baby from being borned. Same as abortion, only abortion is very last resolution.

Many cultures/religions (Catholicism for example) already consider it immoral to use condoms, because they think it interferes with the creation of new life.

That's not my list. I didn't invent it. It's international, widely used list in ethics to discern difference between morally relevant case and morally irrelevant.

Source?

Obviously, that's the case. Only way to deal with different opinions is to give freedome of choice.(in other words making abortion a valid option)
Gay marriage, religion, changing gender,... people can choose between this things and the same should be with abortion. You don't have to like it, you have freedom of choice to have your personal opinion, but you can't forbid women to abort. Anything optional that doesn't interfere with other living beings, which aborton absolutely is, should be legal.

Like I said before it definitely does interfere with another living being, debatably even of value to society.

((I don't see how human should be limited by anything really, especially by human fabrications such are moral and crime. Such a humanish things. There is no crime in nature within animals, bacterias, viruses, plants.. Every option is available.))

I am not entirely sure how to interpret this. Are you saying that you do not think we should care about morals, and that nothing should really be considered a crime.

[Gad]

This forum is turning ridiculous lol. This section is a terrible mistake.
But back to topic.

I think that society should be allowed to decide who should die. Regardless of Age, sex, and form. So as long the child is affecting society including only his parents, it should be fine for them to decide so. At some point baby starts to influence other ppl and from this time it should not to be decided just by parents. I speak of it as a proud father of 1.5 month old sweet infant girl.

Thanks God my girl is in perfect health condirions. If she was born heavly handicapped I would rather be happy to leave her and go for another try. In our world I would have to carry on with that poor damaged human and it would be an extreme pain for me.

[Hate]

Thanks God my girl is in perfect health condirions. If she was born heavly handicapped I would rather be happy to leave her and go for another try. In our world I would have to carry on with that poor damaged human and it would be an extreme pain for me.

True, cause this is a world full of judgemental assholes ... also you can not Diagnoses anything bad with the child's health condition till he's 3\4 mounths old. besides some health problems may start\reveal after the child is born, I know many cases of "Mental retardation" that was revealed after the child is born, and no signs of it were shown before that.