Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Abortion Should Be Used To Save Life And Not Destroy It

[media=https://youtu.be/JaW56SU-9HA]

Abortion is murder, there is no other definition for it.


The only time an abortion should be applied is when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother; her God given life, not her social life.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
No it's perfectly okay to get an abortion either way. You're forcing women to have a baby they're not ready for, for life. Furthermore, just because it isn't the right time at that time doesn't mean women can't have one when they're ready, lots of women to that and that's far better than something you don't want.

A child for life is pretty significant. You act like a child is just some object or whatever but women often times have two jobs, they have to work and they take care of kids. They never get a break and I'm gonna tell you that the United States with no free childcare, food or other benefits, pro lifers are asking so much of women it's not even funny.

Do you know how many mothers regret having children? It's actually a trend and if you look up on YouTube you'll get a whole bunch of things.

Even the children who come out to speak on their experiences with parents who didn't want them but were forced because of society, political values or what not speak out about it and it's the saddest thing ever.

Abortion should be available no matter what.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@SatanBurger
No it's perfectly okay to get an abortion either way. You're forcing women to have a baby they're not ready for, for life.

Not necessarily. There's always the option of adoption. If a woman isn't ready to have children, then it's her responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant until the right time.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@GodSpeed63

Gretchen Sisson, a research sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said people who are seeking abortions are rarely interested in the option of adoption. Proposing adoption as an alternative to abortion does not meaningfully address the reasons why people seek abortions in the first place: Many abort because they don’t want to be pregnant anymore, not just because they want to avoid parenting, Sisson said.

Pregnant people can experience a range of health conditions that can create complications, but even without the health risks, a pregnancy can make it difficult to keep a job or provide for already existing children in the family. Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term, even with the option of adoption, does not address those issues.

There is no evidence that abortion leads to widespread trauma among those who get one, Sisson said. Meanwhile, those who place their babies for adoption often experience “adoption birth mother trauma,” according to the Texas Adoption Center website. This trauma is the physical or psychological response birth parents feel during or after they place their baby for adoption. It can include feelings of guilt, denial, shame, hopelessness and depression.
Also I want to add that if the female has issues with the baby daddy and vice versa, then putting a baby up for adoption when the female might be forced to pay child support for a kid she doesn't want if the father takes it from her brings up issues with adoption.

Even though a female doesn't have to pay child support if the adoption is successful there's still issues.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/12/texas-adoption-abortion-access/
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@SatanBurger
Even though a female doesn't have to pay child support if the adoption is successful there's still issues.

This is why she needs to take responsibility for her actions.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@GodSpeed63 Abortion is taking responsibility for your actions, so is adoption but there's problems with adoption that abortion addresses just fine as my link made the case for.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@SatanBurger
Abortion is taking responsibility for your actions, so is adoption but there's problems with adoption that abortion addresses just fine as my link made the case for.

It's still murder none the less.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@GodSpeed63 It's not murder. You can't murder an embryo or a cell.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@SatanBurger
It's not murder. You can't murder an embryo or a cell.

Didn't know that anything that is non-living can't grow?
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@GodSpeed63 I'll repost this from below.

From the Phil archive, can't really copy the link it's a download, it's titled 11 Common Arguments Against Abortion, you can look it up.

“Murder” means “wrongful killing,” and so this definition implies that abortion is wrong by definition, which it isn’t. This definition means that to know that abortion is wrong, we’d just need to reflect on the meaning of the word, and not give any reasons to think this. Murder is wrong by definition, but to know That any particular killing is murder, we need arguments. (Compare someone who calls the death penalty
murder: we know it’s killing, but is it wrongful killing? We can’t just appeal to the definition of
“murder”: we need arguments that this is wrongful killing).

This definition also means that someone who claims that abortion is not wrong says that “Wrongful killing is not wrong,” which makes no sense. We can even call this a “question-begging” definition, since it assumes that abortion is wrong, which can’t be assumed.

So this definition is problematic, even if abortion is wrong.

Definition 1 also describes fetuses as “babies” or “children.” While people are usually free to use whatever words how they want, people can say things that are false: calling something something doesn’t mean it’s really that thing.

And the beginnings of something are usually not that thing: a pile of lumber and supplies is not a house; fabric, buttons and thread are not a shirt, and an embryo or early fetus is not a baby or child. So it’s false and misleading to call embryos and early fetuses “babies” or
“children.”

Defining abortion in terms of “babies” seems to again result in a “question-begging” definition that assumes that abortion is wrong, since it is widely and correctly believed that it’s wrong to kill babies.

We understand, however, that it’s wrong to kill babies because we think about born babies who are conscious and feeling and have other baby-like characteristics: these are the babies we have in mind when we think about the wrongness of killing babies, not early fetuses.

Describing early fetuses as “babies” characterizes them either as something they are not or, at least, assumes things that need to
argued for, which is misleading, both factually (in terms of what fetuses are like) and morally (insofar as it’s assumed that the rules about how babies should be treated clearly and straightforwardly apply to, say, embryos).

Part of the problem with this definition is that terms like “babies” and “children” encourage strong emotional responses. Babies and children are associated with value-laden terms such as innocence, vulnerability, preciousness, cuteness, and more

....

(1) abortion is murder;
(2) abortion is killing babies or children;
(3) adoption is a better option than abortion;
(4) pregnant women just must keep the pregnancy and give birth;
(5) abortion should not be used as ‘birth control’;
(6) women who have abortions are irresponsible;
(7) a good person wouldn’t have an abortion;
(8) women who have abortions feel guilty.
These premises all assume that abortion is wrong.

To explain:

(1) assumes that killing fetuses is wrong, since “murder” means wrongful killing;
(2) assumes that fetuses are like babies and children and so are similarly wrong to kill;
(3) assumes that abortion is a worse or bad option, since it assumes it is wrong;
(4) assumes that women must not have abortions since it assumes they are wrong;
(5) assumes that abortion is wrong: but if it is not wrong, while it might not be an ideal form
of “birth control” it could permissibly be used for that purpose;
(6) assumes that women who have abortions are doing what they are not supposed to do,
doing wrong, and so are “irresponsible”;
(7) assumes that abortion is wrong and so good people, who avoid wrongdoing, wouldn’t
have one;
(8) assumes that abortion is wrong and so assumes that some women feel guilty because they
have done something wrong: however, people can feel guilty even if they haven’t done
anything wrong, so guilt feelings aren’t perfect evidence of wrongdoing (just as not
feeling guilty doesn’t mean you did something that was OK).
People would believe these claims only if they already believed abortion is wrong, so these claims
should not sway anyone who wants to think critically about the issues.