Abortion is wrong in part but there is some strong cases to show that in set circumstances it is a neccesary evil.
Stee_theliberal said 06/24, 05:13 AM
Abortion is the taking of a life, there is no definate proof yet as to when a baby can feel pain or when is the moral cut off point for allowing abortions is. Needless to say some people should not have children at all and others should not have them at the time when they perhaps got pregnant and in those circustances a child should not be brought into the world and abortion is justified. Surely it is better to end a life before the being knows it has a life than let it grow and realise its life isn't worth living?
RationalLiberty said 06/30, 07:01 AM
You seem to be making a judgment about when abortion should or should not be practiced, based off no clear premise.
However, if you read Roe v. Wade the argument does not become a moral one more than a legal one. This is the argument you should be addressing, not whether or not abortion is "evil".
Indeed, we cannot know, as you rightly say, the definite proof as to "when a baby can feel pain" or when consciousness truly begins. In the light of this judgment based argument, in which medical knowledge gives little definitive evidence for one side or another, we need to look at the legal argument for abortion.
Roe v. Wade accomplishes this, and sets up a legal precedent that should be respected.
The first trimester the fetus is the property of the individual, who has the right to end the pregnancy.
The second is disputed, and may or may not be regulated in some form by the state.
The third trimester marks the state's right to protect its citizen, and priorities are established in favour of the mother or the fetus.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Cnd, What would you do then? Would you advocate Roe v Wade or would you prohibit it more than the decision allows? Or are you just stating you personal opinion?
RationalLiberty | 07/02/08
Report Offensive Comment
He's just pointing out that if stee wishes to make moral argument for abortion, then he shouldn't use such fanciful reasoning. I don't think he was addressing your legal argument. You confuse me a little bit though. You provide an overview of what the current legal standing is without providing the reason behind it. Why was it determined that the fetus is the property of the individual in the first trimester? sounds like a guessing game to me. Anyway, just so you know, you are not likely to get a response in this debate. It appears that stee has left the site.
Skipper04 | 07/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
skipper04, yea it appears he has left the site. But in response to your question, i guess it is sort of like a guessing game. But the court looked at prior decisions and medical history and they found that there really wasnt any real reason that abortion was outlawed. It was particularly important that at the time of Roe v Wade, medical advances made it safer and more accessible for women to get abortions. When I said that there 'was no real reason to outlaw abortion', im saying that in regard to the times. One of the reasons it was outlawed was because there were only incredibly dangerous ways to abort fetuses before modern medicine, and since the state must protect the life of its citizens (thats what government is here for), more life would be protected if it was outlawed. Now go back to Roe v Wade, with medical advances, less need for large families (hence more demand for abortions) and the case of Griswold v Connecticut deciding that there was a right of privacy a decade earlier, and you get a good explanation as to why Roe v Wade happened when it did, and for what reasons. However I highly recommend you read the actual decision, its very interesting and I may have missed important bits or got some info wrong.
RationalLiberty | 07/04/08
Report Offensive Comment
RationalLiberty hasn't really presented an opposing argument to the original arguement. all he is doing is agreeing and giving us a history lesson.
Mark | 07/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Abortion is cruel, but it is legal, and that won't change anytime soon. If liberals want to scare voters into thinking conservatives will somehow change the law or hire anti-strict-constructionists, consider this: Even George W. Bush campaigned both in 2000 and 2004 that he is against abortion "except in cases of ****, incest, and life of the mother."
USA Pit Bull 63 | 07/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Apparently, one cannot spell r a p e on this web site, or it gets ****'d out.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 07/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Taking a life is still taking a life. There is no plausible reason as to why someone would want to end an innocent life. Why would you condemn the unborn baby, who is innocent until he/she has committed some sort of crime (morally or otherwise) simply because his/her parents made wrong decisions? That in itself is wrong.
Katelyn | 07/22/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
While i do agree that in some cases abortion should be allowed, i haven't liked and still don't like the argument that someone should not be brought into this world because of the conditions around him/her. There have been some examples in the past of people in horrible conditions in their youth who have become some of the most powerful and most influential people. A life is a life and a person is a person, and we cannot assume that just like their surroundings when they were young, their future, will be cr*p.
Cnd | 06/30/08
Report Offensive Comment