Ask Your Question today
My response always seems to trigger people, but let's be real here: Some people are just bad breeding stock and shouldn't even be passing along their defective genes.
There is a huge racial gap when it comes to abortions, are you implying that certain races genes are defective? I don’t think you mean that, but I just want to be sure?
People can have shitty genetics and be shitty human beings regardless of race.
Wow you immediately went there. You do realize that means your the racist right
I definitely don’t want to be! Or don’t think I am!! I genuinely was just confused by his comment! I’m sorry if that was taken the wrong way! It’s just every timeI’ve heard other people talk about abortions and “genetics” they’re always going on about race and how it effects some races More than others
I think most people against abortion are anthropomorphising the foetus too much and making their mind up based on emotions rather than with impassioned logic. It's not intelligent and it's not conscious. It's like killing a plant or an insect. Yet people imagine it to have sentient thoughts running through its brain just because it has a human face that they can empathise with. It's similar to the way in which people are more likely to consider a humanoid robot as more sentient than a supercomputer, just because the robot looks like them, where as the supercomputer is just some mundane machine. Where as in fact the supercomputer is a god compared to the humanoid robot.
I agree that some people anthropomorphize, however there really is no way to truly fully know the inner experience of an insect or anything really, other than ourselves, so there for you could never be absolutely sure. We are all trapped with our own “qualia” and nothing else. I’m not really advocating for either side of the abortion argument. Just saying.
Yeah I agree with that, but I think we can be confident enough in this case.
Also people who use that as an argument against abortion often also use it as an argument in support of killing animals, claiming that animals only seem to be intelligent and aware, but that it hasn't been proven. And it's not like the reason they want to kill animals is as important as why people get abortions, they want to kill the animals merely for tasty food. So if they use the argument in one case and ignore it in another, then that shows that they really don't believe in the argument.
Ok at what point does the fetus acquires the awareness where it would be unethical to kill it?
I'm against abortion on the basis of logic. Im pro choice I'm just anti abortion. 18 week cut off to when you can have an abortion. 18 weeks and you arent a clump of cells floating in the ether.
Well I'd say the point that a foetus acquires awareness is just when it's born, at which point it's not a foetus anymore anyway. It might be able to respond to certain stimuli in the womb, but plants can respond to stimuli too. That doesn't mean they're conscious.
I’m confused.. It only consist of one word, how could that possibly be a troll? Are you trolling me right now calling me a troll?
You’re probably just saying that because I was responding to whatever people wrote. But truth be told I really am conflicted when it comes to whether or not abortion is right or wrong, what are your thoughts?
I'm not a supporter of it, but I can understand why some make that decision. It's a life changing decision no matter which way you go. I do have a problem with late term, just because you're no longer with the guy is not a good reason at the six month point. I also don't agree with the government paying for it. The makers should pay. This is a topic that is normally split pretty evenly and to force someone who doesn't believe it's right or has religious beliefs against it, to pay for it, is wrong. Personally there are too many people that can't have them or lose them accidentally for me to say; ahh this is not the right time so I think I'll throw this one away make another when I really want one. A little news you'll never really be financially ready. Try telling someone who lost one they're nothing special just make another, let me know what they said after you pick yourself up off the floor.
I can understand it sounds really unfair to make someone pay for it who is completely against it, but then if the government use that as a reason to prevent the public from paying for it, then people could complain about having to pay for a lot of things they're against. Some people are against vaccinations and operations based on their religious beliefs. They could claim discrimination if other people are exempted from paying for something based on their religious beliefs, but they're not just because their religious beliefs are less popular.
Like I believe killing animals is wrong and that the government shouldn't be funding grants to the beef farming industry with my taxes. But we live in a democracy so they shouldn't decide on that based on my opinion, it should be the larger public who decides. Besides there's no need for me to feel guilty about it anyway, my hands are tied and if I had the choice then I wouldn't pay them.
That's why I said it is split pretty equally across most countries. You even said the larger public, I agree if you can get 65 to 70% to agree then go that way. There are a lot of things individuals or even small percentage of people object to, however 51 to 49% is not justification for everyone to pay for it. It just starts a battle and never solves the issue, next time the other side is in control they want to change it back. That applies to most issues. In the USA, I feel they don't want to solve the issue they just want it as a political panic topic. I believe it's somewhere around 35 to 40% of countries allow it at least to some degree. Most all of them have limits. Most at 3 to 4 months with exceptions for life endangerment. Very few pay for it. Even some countries with national health care, it's not covered. It's treated like plastic surgery if it is medically necessary then it's covered.
Ok I think I see what what you mean now. So if the majority agree to it (even if it's just 51%) then it should be legalised, but the public should pay for it only if a much larger majority agree to it? That does seem to make sense, I think I might agree with that actually.
Kind of, I personally like to see it legalized or not with more than 51%. I'm of the mind there will always be abortions. If she really doesn't want it, there have always been way to many instances of brutal ways to cause abortion. Getting it done in a medical setting by medical personnel makes more sense, however I feel there should be limits. It should not be used as birth control or just a whim I woke up and baby daddy has split now I don't want this 6 or 8 month old growth in me any more. We have the morning after pill. As far as paying for it I really wish it was treated like plastic surgery, however even that is abused. A doctor once justified butt implants as medically necessary due to depression and self esteem. I believe if you need a paved lane to your house then you pay for it. If others are going to use it then they help, if it's going to be a lot of people or benefit the whole city or province then maybe they should do it, but even then they want the original owner to donate the property. If after an abortion the government paid for, you want the government to control what you do with that part of your body then by all means have at it. I think I'll keep control of mine.
Very left leaning but im pretty split on abortion, not sure of my opinions honestly
Surprised there were lots of comments coming through which explains why this blew up.
( Disclaimer I am not OP. )
Anyways if you want to know badly I think abortion is a personal choice.
I think if it is clinically proven that the kid will be born mentally retarded, then I would give abortion the green light.
Our last born in the family was born that way and I'll admit that he has put a strain on our family.