I haven't really thought about abortion much because whenever i think about it i contradict myself, and im trying to work it out.
well, im not against abortion, but its a tough thing to think about since its a fetus and not yet really 'living'. I do think abortion can be a lifesaver. In some religions, babies born out of wedlock(even if its rape) will get the mother brutally beaten and killed to 'preserve their honor'. Therefore, why not save one life if you can?

I think abandoning a baby in the dumpster is a much harder moral choice to make-since its YOU who are abandoning it, and YOU who are ignoring it's cries, but in abortion, you made the choice, but are not commiting the 'crime'. its also more humane than letting the baby starve to death...

[img][/img] A senpai tried to violate me after hearing about my transfer. BUT I RAPED HIM INSTEAD.

I believe that the government should not interfere in private matters. I don't like the idea of killing the zygote, but there should be a boundary that the government should not be allowed to cross. Also, if legal, fairly safe methods for abortion are declared illegal, those seeking abortions will just find painful, dangerous ways to do so. This is done in many less-developed countries where there aren't abortion clinics.
And what about rape victims who find they are pregnant? Are you really going to say that they should have the rapists baby?

"If you think being eaten by a carnivorous tree is something that only happens to someone else, then think again."
--Shades of Grey, by Jasper Fforde

Quote from AA2109964

Can I just say you described half my friends? One is going to get an abortion soon just because she doesn't believe in contraception. Abortion IS her contraception and she had no second thoughts about it. You're naive to think there aren't people out there like that.

Forgive me if I quote the wrong person the tags seemed screwy before hand and I don't really care who said what.

Abortion as contraception is perfectly allowable. are you trashing on Contraception or abortion? Just to clarify. All I require is the woman is making an INFORMED decision about what she is doing, has weighed her options and decides on the abortion

someone made some comment about things being alive. Its ALWAYS alive, like your hand. using alive makes it sound like you have no clue what your are talking about. its not the issue. the issue is whether it has rights to the mother's uterus or not. and it doesn't.

You are thinking too deeply of what I said. There is a large difference between fertilization, what develops to become life, and a sperm, which has the potential to give life. Abortion is the process of killing something that is developing, masturbation and the killing of sperm cells is no where comparable to a developing fetus, as the sperm can only develop once it it able to fertilize the oocytes.

not really no. At least not from a legal standpoint (the cells in question still don't have rights to the woman's uterus)

Or from a medical standpoint, contraception, to Abortion really just requires a larger dose of the same chemicals.

so the question I figure you are trying to raise is regarding the human soul.

the human soul doesn't enter the body until after birth (like 2 weeks really for it to fully set in) and is not even capable of entering a fetus until 5 or 6 months of growth have passed in the uterus.

Not at conception.

Quote from red255

the human soul doesn't enter the body until after birth (like 2 weeks really for it to fully set in) and is not even capable of entering a fetus until 5 or 6 months of growth have passed in the uterus.

Not at conception.

are you joking or not

Quote from mangacraze

are you joking or not

I am not joking.

It's like the trolly problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

not everything is defined cleanly as murder or accident.

If there were group of people in front of a incoming train, and there is one person on the other track of the incoming train. and you switch the direction of the train so it kills one person and not a group of person are you a murderer?

If there were group of people in front of a incoming train, and you push a fat man in front of the train (assuming that in this world you can stop the train because the man is so fat) so that the train kills the fat man but the group of people survive, are you a murderer?

That seems a bit unrelated to the discussion at hand.

I guess the trolley problem is properly assigning murder to the proper person. Is murder like a out of bounds in basketball simply because you touched it last? Or is the guy a murderer because he sent the trolley down the tracks with people tied to the tracks?

Of course its a rather ridiculous situation. you MIGHT be able to stretch it to apply to this situation in some respect, but you cant simply state it relates without relating it in some way. so I'll claim its off topic until you do so.

Quote from red255

That seems a bit unrelated to the discussion at hand.

I guess the trolley problem is properly assigning murder to the proper person. Is murder like a out of bounds in basketball simply because you touched it last? Or is the guy a murderer because he sent the trolley down the tracks with people tied to the tracks?

Of course its a rather ridiculous situation. you MIGHT be able to stretch it to apply to this situation in some respect, but you cant simply state it relates without relating it in some way. so I'll claim its off topic until you do so.

Not off topic. Hespia Klarerin is answering the OP

Obviously HK brought up the trolley problem because s/he is pointing out to the OP that people make a distinction between what does and does not constitutes murder. The thought experiment just highlights a major issue. People are morally opposed to murder and we have laws against it.

According to most laws:
Dumpster baby = murder
Abortion = not murder
Therefore Dumpster baby = illegal; Abortion = not illegal.

Can you imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie?

Quote from red255

Quote from Maharajah

There's something that's been bothering me for a while. In my country, if you watch the daily news there's a high change you'll hear something about a baby found dead in a trashcan/dumpster. Of course the next step is for the police to take legal action and look for the woman who gave birth and abandoned her baby and then arrest her.

Now my question is: Why is it illegal to throw you baby in a dumpster while abortion is legal?

Please note that this is not a topic about whether abortion is morally right or wrong. I am against of both abortion and abandoning babies which results in their death. Just use contraception. If you can't handle the consequences of unprotected sex then please don't have it. What I want to know is why is it ok for a doctor to kill an unborn child while it's illegal to kill it yourself after it is born? The way I see it the unborn child's life is equal to the born one's.

(Note: If this is inappropriate for Chatter Box, then perhaps it should be moved to a better section. Thank you.)

Too uninterested to weed thru the list of replies. TC replied once, didn't ask any more questions.

alright, first things first. Abortion is not murder. there are people that say 'abortion is murder' they are nutjobs. This is a technical term, for people who think something is not true despite being given ample evidence to the contrary.

Someone might say, theres ample evidence that god doesnt exist exactly the way the bible says he does, but they believe it anyway. we are getting on a tangent here, but its describing where the mindset comes from.

Abortion is legal as from the Roe V Wade Supreme court decision, in the first 2 trimesters of child bearing the fetus cannot survive on its own so its not a separate life from the mother. which is why its not murder.

Technology allows a fetus to be born prematurely so a mother can eject the baby and stick it in an incubator after the 5th month and it has a reasonable chance of survival which is why an abortion after 5 months require more conditions to be legal.

A baby, once its born is a seporate life. capable of living on its own. and should be dropped off at a police station or orphanage instead of a dumpster. LEGALLY.

If you want to go into the ethics of such a situation, I'm sort of the mindset that if you have a sane mother and she wants you dead, you are pretty much boned, so its not really ethical to force her to keep you.

Most mothers love their babies, so its more forcing religious beliefs on other people over a greater good for the society.

However its technically murder, negligence or whatever to leave a baby in a dumpster. Especially if Police stations or orphanages would take the child. and theres no reason to let it die.

and there are normally better options than that, its just pressure and despair and overall a bad decision. I wouldn't call it MURDER per se. but succumbing to grief and temporary mental instability.

If there are no better options its hypocritical to force her to raise a child she cannot support.

Being against abortion makes you evil.

This person is completely right.

And I think abortion should be seen as just a choice for the women who has to choose between abortion or giving birth, because it will affect her and her possible child's life, not yours. And being a random person that sees it from afar makes it easy to say: "abortion is wrong" but if that is truly your mindset you should offer to adopt all children that would otherwise be aborted. Would you be able?

I am unwilling to assume the man posting the trolley experiment meant what you said he meant.
I feel his issue was sometimes things are not CLEAR morally right or wrong.

But the moral issue is not the case here, TC was asking a legal issue.

In the case of the trolley, the mad scientist is guilty of putting people in dangerous situations that lead to death. REGARDLESS of what you do.

For instance if they train is pointed at the ONE PERSON, (YOUR child, lover or otherwise person you like) and the other track is the 4 people. its not murder for you to flip the lever to move the train to not kill your son.

Or at least if it is, the greater penalty (all things being proven true to the jury) would be applied to the mad scientist, as your actions were under duress either way. Unless otherwise proven.

His point of 'sometimes its not clear' is also invalid.

Sometimes its impossible for humans to tell what is right and wrong. BUT it doesn't make something not right or wrong just because its not humanly possible to tell which is which.

but all of that is off topic. Discussing murder for situations not related to childbirth is rather off topic.

the legal issue was answered with Roe V Wade and any other issue linked to that with that case (read it in some legal database, should be able to google it)

it will answer any legal question you have. Provided you understand it.

If there are no better options its hypocritical to force her to raise a child she cannot support.

Being against abortion makes you evil.

This is so true.

Unless you are going to take responsibility for your actions, let people do what they want, and what I mean with that is that you shouldn't talk someone (specifically a stranger) out of an abortion unless you are going to be involved in helping the mother that obviously didn't want that kid or helping the kid that was undesired, because if you convinced a mother to not go through with an abortion and she ends up having the child, she may mistreat it or ignore it, and you would have just added another miserable human being to this world.

So in short, leave your biases and morals at home and let people do what they think is right for them, because you can't go about life measuring people by your own standards.

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

Ugh can't believe I'm posting in a thread in the chatter box, I usually stay clear but I guess I'll post (w/out reading anything except the original post, lol).

I think there's really no difference between abortion and abandoning a baby in a dumpster, as both are murder, plain and simple. Science has showed us since the nineteenth century compelling evidence (at this point, really obvious evidence), that life does begin at conception. Even if you don't know exactly when it begins, would you bury a person if you weren't sure whether he was alive or dead?

I found this diagram recently, found it somewhat humourous and also applicable: http://wdtprs.com/images2/11_05_03_notyourchoice.jpg

Point is that there's the silhouette of a woman there, and that's her body. The part drawn in white is not her body, that's another person, that's a baby. I mean, this baby has its own heart, brain and all the other organs, or earlier on at least it has the capacity to grow them. Furthermore, it has its own DNA that is only partially the same is its mother. One can never choose to kill another.

Anyway, that's my $0.2.

Quote from Belegorm

I found this diagram recently, found it somewhat humourous and also applicable: http://wdtprs.com/images2/11_05_03_notyourchoice.jpg

That diagrams is only applicable in the late stages of pregnancy.

Well I'm against abortion myself, except in special cases, but I'd have to say that a proper abortion is far more humane than leaving it to die in a dumpster. 🙁 But either way is terribly sad.