Do you think it's the woman's right to decide if she wants a baby or not or you think it's the murder of an innocent soul?

I think it's a right, but i'd also like to here from you Nairalandians!

I personally feel it's a crime.  It's the killing of a life-form.  In this country (US) it's a crime to kill animals in a painful, inhumane way, but not a baby.  I find that backwards.

Also, if a man were to kill a woman who is pregnant, he would be charged with a double murder but if a woman get's an abortion, it's legal?  It doesn't make sense.  I think it's a crime, it's always been a crime, and it always will be a crime.

Similar question: Does a man have the right to end his own life? doesn't the government have a duty to end the life of people who are undesirable to the society like disabled people, minorities and people who oppose the state's progressive policies?

answer to all the above including yours: NO.

consider it from the ethical point of view: doesn't that child have a right to live? The fact that he/she constitutes a temporary hindrance or nuisance should not mean abortion is the next thing. If you don't need the baby give it up for adoption. The state(even here in nigeria) will willingly take care of YOUR ABANDONED CHILD. If we just consider humans as objects, then what is the point of calling ourselves civilized. we might as well kill and eat each other (yes, to satisfy hunger.)

Every child has a right to live, to be loved and to love. so i believe its a crime.

I agree that killing a pregnant woman and abortion should both be ranked as crimes.

Personally, Abortion is a sin. Luckily, it's not allowed in Canada[i think so]. if a lady decides to have fun, she should protect herself, if because of her negligence, she has a baby, well take care of it.

Knowing about the overpopulation of the world and the painful life of an unwanted child, wouldn't it be better for a child that is not wanted not to be born?

On the other hand, no matter how bad life is, every individual, young or old, will always choose life over death because "where there's life their's hope". So if it were possible to ask an unwanted baby "would you like to be born?" the answer will probably always be yes!

i can say abortion falls on both sides because, the woman might not be ready for pregnancy so she might abort it especially maybe when shes schooling but if u did something wrong and u gat pregnanat aborting it will be a crime

I have to say that I think it is a right...

It is totaly a crime,no debating there.

This is certainly not a black-or-white topic. I would never consider an abortion a crime, although I think it should be prevented as much as possible.
For all of you who have the time and intellectual curiosity, go and check out this link: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=88699

Scorpio:

Personally, Abortion is a sin. Luckily, it's not allowed in Canada[i think so]. if a lady decides to have fun, she should protect herself, if because of her negligence, she has a baby, well take care of it.

vexxy:

I personally feel it's a crime. It's the killing of a life-form. In this country (US) it's a crime to kill animals in a painful, inhumane way, but not a baby. I find that backwards.

Also, if a man were to kill a woman who is pregnant, he would be charged with a double murder but if a woman gets an abortion, it's legal? It'd doesn't make sense. I think it's a crime, it's always been a crime, and it always will be a crime.

loveth:

It is totally a crime,no debating there.

what if a woman has been despoiled? do you know what would happen to that child if he should be brought to this life? don't you know that that child will never be loved by the mother, and do you know what it means to be hated by your own mother? think about it! it's not easy to say it's a crime or a right but we need to consider every situation. those who sustain here that's a crime I'd like to see you in the shoes of a woman who got pregnant through a sexual abuse!

God forbid something like that should happen to anyone, but it does. i would give that child up for adoption or better still there are couples that can't have kids, at least give the child to them.

michelin89: what if a woman has been raped? do you know what would happen to that child if he should be brought to this life? don't you know that that child will never be loved by the mother...and do you know what it means to be hated by your own mother? think about it! it's not easy to say it's a crime or a right but we need to consider every situation. those who substain here that's a crime I'd like to see you in the shoes of a woman who got pregnant through a sexual abuse!

Well, to speak from the heart I have two things to say to this:

1. I have a friend who was raped, became pregnant, and decided to keep the child. She loves him, he is actually my god son. He is so smart, to smart for his own age. He's so curious, interesting, funny, and a joy to be a round. He does this cute little dance that makes me laugh so hard it brings tears to my eyes. What if he was never born? No matter the act of how he got here, he was an innocent life. He did not rape the mom. It's not his fault.

2. If the mother does not want the child, there is always adoption. There are thousands upon thousands of childless couples out there who have been placed on waiting lists for a child. If the mother won't love him, someone else will. But how will you know if you never give the child that chance?

Abortion is pure murder of a soul, so it's a sin and must be avoided.

Don't let us justify things against God

Sir Kay:

Abortion is pure murder of a soul, so it's a sin and must be avoided.

Don't let us justify things against God

This is not an argument. A soul is supposed to be eternal and cannot be murdered. You could make the argment that abortion is killing a human being, but then again, at what time does life start?

loveth:

It is totally a crime,no debating there.

Why not? There's a lot to debate and there are good arguments pro and con. Closing your mind and not even considering the arguments of others is a sure indication of prejudice.

I would urge you all to have a look at the two opposing points of view presented in the debate I linked to before: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=88699
It's the most comprehensive and honest debate on the subject I've seen to date. A far cry from the hollow debating points that are usually presented on the subject of abortion.

Here are the summaries two opposing arguments from the debate in nferyn's link:

---

Pro-life: intentionally killing an innocent person is morally wrong because it unjustly denies them their intrinsic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Both biology and genetics prove that a unique human individual begins at conception, therefore, by definition, rights and value that are intrinsic to humanity must also take effect at conception. Abortion intentionally and unjustly denies these intrinsic rights, therefore it is morally wrong to abort an innocent human being in the womb.

---

Pro-choice: Abortion is the destruction of a group of cells which merely have the potential of becoming a person. But an embryo or early stage fetus is not an actual person yet. Therefore abortion is not morally wrong.

---

At the heart of this debate is whether an early stage fetus is a person or not. If you say it's not a person, then at what exact point does it become a person?

Seun:

[SNIP]
At the heart of this debate is whether an early stage fetus is a person or not. If you say it's not a person, then at what exact point does it become a person?

Indeed, and that's exactly what needs to be looked at.
Personally, I am of the opinion that early stage abortions are - although they should be avoided if at all possible - justifiable, because it does not involve a person. you have a person once the capacity to feel pain and to have sentient interaction (thus not purely mechanical stimulus-resonse) with the environment is possible. At that point, the value of the life of the baby and that of the mother and the people under her care needs to weighed against each other (e.g. carrying the baby to term would severely handicap the mother so that she can no longer take care of her existing children)

If God come first in ones life then abortion is out of the question. It is a selfish act.
If ones interest is only their own; then any action is valid.

At what exact point does the first cell that forms from the fusion of sperm and egg become a person?
- 1 week?
- 2 weeks?
- 1 month?
- 2 months?
- 3 months?
- 4 months?
- 5 months?
- 6 months?
- 7 months?
- 8 months?
- 9 months?
- Point of birth?

If you say '3 months' does it mean that abortion of a 2 month 29 day old pregancy is wrong while abortion of a 3 month 1 day old pregnancy is ok? Or are you saying that it's all relative?

If your view is that it's all relative, then shouldn't the law give freedom to each mother to commit abortion based on her own view of when the baby she's carrying becomes a person?

Since we cannot determine the exact point at which the 'thing' becomes a 'person' then a pregnant woman should have the right to take the stand that until her baby is born it remains a 'thing' and she can abort 'it'.

Seun:

At what exact point does the first cell that forms from the fusion of sperm and egg become a person?

Go back to the debate, a reasonable answer is given there: after 25 weeks the brain shows neural activity
[SNIP]

Seun:

If you say '3 months' does it mean that abortion of a 2 month 29 day old pregancy is wrong while abortion of a 3 month 1 day old pregnancy is ok? Or are you saying that it's all relative?

I don't know what you mean by relative. Everything and nothing is relative, can you be more specific?

Seun:

If your view is that it's all relative, then shouldn't the law give freedom to each mother to commit abortion based on her own view of when the baby she's carrying becomes a person?

No. this argument is similar to "If we cannot determine at what exact point spanking becomes child abuse, let's just let the parents decide that point, even if it's beating their childen so that they're cripple"

Seun:

Since we cannot determine the exact point at which the 'thing' becomes a 'person' then a pregnant woman should have the right to take the stand that until her baby is born it remains a 'thing' and she can abort 'it'.

In legal terms, they err on the side of caution: say that at 4 months the fetus is sentient and at 3 months it isn't. We know that the fetus starts to feel somewhere in between. The approach lawmakers take in such a case is erring on the side of caution and deciding that it is legal up to 2 months and 3 weeks

But please, we're not discussing something like just making a visit to the doctor. No woman will ever abort just like that, it's an experience that has serious psychological en physical consequences for the woman.

ajsalako:

If God come first in ones life then abortion is out of the question. It is a selfish act.

Can you explain this POV? Assertion is no argument
Why is abortion out of the question if God comes first? Why is it a selfish act?

ajsalako:

If ones interest is only their own; then any action is valid.

And what's the purpose of this? Do you honestly believe that people that are pro choice are only interested in 'their own' and that as a consequence[i] 'any action is valid'[/i]? I really haven't met this stereotypical caricature person before, have you?

@nferyn any human being is just a bundle of cells. so justifying abortion on the basis of that is not really valid.

@seun Overpopulation is a myth, what we have is mismanagement of resources and a reluctance by governments to see the real truth because it might involve changing whole lifestyles. If you support this then you have to support eugenics which believes in choosing humans based on certain physical characteristics selected as desirable (example: hitler's belief in a blond,strong race of aryans, chinese women's abortion of female children because of the one-child policy.). we can as well kill old people because they are no longer productive and are prone to diseases that will make life uncomfortabe to them, they are slow and are usually much of a hindrance in daily life and disaster situations(those are complaints by other people not me).
If you keep viewing humans as commodities or objects or things, that would be permissible but i believe we are more than that.

@michelin
Every child has a right to live. In the case of a woman who was raped, if i were the child of such a union, I believe i would prefer to be born than to be aborted,no matter how deep the hate my mother may have for me, while it might cause me distress, i can still live a fulfilled life so that is not an issue.

kodewrita:

@nferyn any human being is just a bundle of cells. so justifying abortion on the basis of that is not really valid.

Could you point out where I made that assertion?
I was talking about sentience, i.e. a living organism with the capacity to feel pain and to interact with it's environment.

kodewrita:

[SNIP]
@seun Overpopulation is a myth, what we have is mismanagement of resources and a reluctance by governments to see the real truth because it might involve changing whole lifestyles. If you support this then you have to support eugenics which believes in choosing humans based on certain physical characteristics selected as desirable (example: hitler's belief in a blond,strong race of aryans, chinese women's abortion of female children because of the one-child policy.). we can as well kill old people because they are no longer productive and are prone to diseases that will make life uncomfortabe to them, they are slow and are usually much of a hindrance in daily life and disaster situations(those are complaints by other people not me).
If you keep viewing humans as commodities or objects or things, that would be permissible but i believe we are more than that.

Overpopulation is not a myth. It is impossible to maintain the current lifestyle in the west, let alone export it to the rest of the world. The ecological footprint of the current homo sapiens is unsustainable. We are endangering the very survival of human life on this planet, unless of course you welcome it, because it brings rapture that much closer

I really would like to know where Seun objectified humans or viewed them as mere things. You put words in his mouth (e.g. you must support eugenics) that were certaily knowhere to be found in his contributions to this thread.

Can I say that nferyn's point of view is that:
- A fetus becomes a person when neural activity can be detected, at about 25 weeks.
- Legislation should allow women the liberty up to some time before the date at which we would reasonably expect the abortable 'thing' to become a 'person', maybe 24 weeks.

So if a woman aborts her baby at 26 weeks, it follows that she has murdered a person. Do we sentence her to death or life imprisonment for murder in the first degree?

Seun:

Ignoring the misattributions and misunderstandings, can I say that nferyn's point of view is that:
- A fetus becomes a person when neural activity can be detected, at about 25 weeks.
- Legislation should allow women the liberty up to some time before the date at which we would reasonably expect the abortable 'thing' to become a 'person', maybe 24 weeks.

exactly, spot on

Seun:

So if a woman aborts her baby at 26 weeks, it follows that she has murdered a person. Do we sentence her to death or life imprisonment for murder in the first degree?

Murder is a specific legal term, it's not murder, but killing. Following the same logic, carrying out a death sentence or killing someone during a war is equally murder. Strictly speaking, she's not the one doing the killing. At that point in time the value of the life of the fetus should be weight against the consequences of continuing the pregnancy, e.g. not aborting would cause great harm to the health of the woman or the fetus is severly handicapped and would not have a life of value. Here one should abort only if the consequences of continuing the pregnancy would be worse than aborting

At the moment the fetus becomes a baby and could survive outside the womb, abortion should be out of the question, except if not aborting would mean the death of the woman

Just my opinion, guided by my ethical principles

At that point in time the value of the life of the fetus should be weight against the consequences of continuing the pregnancy, e.g. not aborting would cause great harm to the health of the woman or the fetus is severly handicapped and would not have a life of value. Here one should abort only if the consequences of continuing the pregnancy would be worse than aborting

You know as well as I do that most abortions are carried out by young women who are not ready to manage the consequences of unexpected pregnancy, and this is the case I wished we would deal with first. I'm trying to simplify the debate to make it manageable, so we can draw useful conclusions instead of going around in circles.

Let's say we have an 18 year old female student, who got pregnant after having sex with her regular boyfriend. She's not ready to drop out of school to take care of her child, and her family members are not interested in any scandal. They do not want the child, and so abortion is being considered. The foetus is 26 weeks old, and so it's a person. Her health is not at risk, and the child to be born is going to be perfectly healthy.

In this case, is it right to kill this 26 week old 'person' simply because we don't feel like spending the resources that would be required to take care of him? This seems to be equivalent to the question of whether it's right for a mother to kill her new-born baby because she can't afford to keep him, right?

Seun:

You know as well as I do that most abortions are carried out by young women who are not ready to manage the consequences of unexpected pregnancy, and this is the case I wished we would deal with first. I'm trying to simplify the debate to make it manageable, so we can draw useful conclusions instead of going around in circles.

Let's say we have an 18 year old female student, who got pregnant after having sex with her regular boyfriend. She's not ready to drop out of school to take care of her child, and her family members are not interested in any scandal. They do not want the child, and so abortion is being considered. The foetus is 26 weeks old, and so it's a person. Her health is not at risk, and the child to be born is going to be perfectly healthy.

In this case, is it right to kill this 26 week old 'person' simply because we don't feel like spending the resources that would be required to take care of him? This seems to be equivalent to the question of whether it's right for a mother to kill her new-born baby because she can't afford to keep him, right?

I really don't feel that it's right to abort at this time. It's immoral and illegal (in most countries that have legal abortions).The girl knew perfectly well she was pregnant way before that time and if she wanted an abortion, she could have had it. At that stage the reason to abort needs to be something significantly more than inconvenience (such as I pointed out before), we're talking about ending a human life here.

I think in this case the overall morality of society is where the problem lies. Why didn't she have the abortion earlier? Is it because she can not talk about the issues with her parents? Is it because society has very negative attitudes towards early stage abortions?

It is an established fact that in societies with:
- access to comprehensive sex education
- a more liberal attitude towards sex and relationships
- legal access to abortion facilities under strict medical and ethical guidance and control
we find that:
- the rate/number of abortions is lower
- abortions do not result in medical problems (infertility, death, etc) to the same degree
- there are far less unwanted pregnancies

I have the unpleasant feeling that this is turning into a one-on-one discussion, so please other members do join and bring your perspective, especially the women

At 3.5 weeks the baby:

will have formed the heart
begins development of the brain and spinal cord
starts forming the gastrointestinal tract


At 7.5 weeks:

the eyes move forward on the face and eyelids begin to form
the palate is nearing completion and the tongue begins to form
gastrointestinal tract separates from the genitourinary tract
all essential organs have begun to form


At week 16, the baby:

reaches a length of about 6 inches
makes active movements
makes sucking motions with the mouth


At 24 weeks the baby:

has fully devloped eyes
has a hand and startle reflex
is forming footprints and fingerprints
is forming alveoli in lungs

More than just a group of cells.

vexxy:

[SNIP]
More than just a group of cells.

No question about it, but still no person.

I understand that this is an emotional subject and I feel that we should do everything in our power to avoid abortions, but logically you cannot equal an 24 week old fetus to a full human. To put it bluntly, an adult chimpansee is closer to a human than a 24 week old fetus

Would you consider an infant to a full human? What is a full human? When the famale has developed breasts? When the male has gotten a beard?

Did you know that with proper care and immediate attention a 24 week old can survive outside of the womb? Wouldn't that make it human?

Also, isn't it termed a "Late Term Abortion" once week 24 kicks in? That's when, in order to abort, the woman must partially give birth to it, then the doctor stabs it in the head, sucks out the brains to collaps the skull, and then commences to pull the rest of it out. What kind of madness is that? It's horrible, it's inhumane, and it shouldn't be tolerated.

Should the offence of deliberately aborting a pregnancy old enough for the feotus to be regarded as a person (25 weeks) be regarded as 1st degree murder and prosecuted the same way? With life imprisonment or execution? Can you give a reason for your answer?