People say 'Yes' to this?

[Lirange]

And, that 1% of happiness, to trade with 99% chance of torture, sounds pretty inhuman...

I think 1% is statistically low. I know a friend/aquantice in my class who said her mother was going to abort he but decided not to, and sometimes still say "I should have got an abotion" to her and she seems like she has a pretty good life.
Just because a child is born into a bad family or a foster home doesn't mean that they will live a life of unhappiness.

[Jikanu]

Ahh, see? Even you have exceptions. So it's wrong, BUT not always wrong, so is it wrong?

And, that 1% of happiness, to trade with 99% chance of torture, sounds pretty inhuman... (even though it's an exaggeration, the odds doesnt sound good)

i cant understand a word of what you said in the bold part.

As for the 1%, 0% of anything is still worse than 99% of torture. And it's like lirange said: The statistic is probably a bit higher, especially since people CAN find happiness outside of their family; in fact, im pretty sure my initial post said "Even if it's 1%" or something along those lines.

[Vasu]

Right. First off, hey Jik. Been a long, long time. Secondly, I shouldn't really be making this post because I likely won't be able to respond to any rebuttals or counter-arguments.

I'm continually surprised at how many things we disagree with each other on, but whatever. I think abortion should be completely at the discretion of the mother FOR AS LONG AS THE BABY IS DIRECTLY DEPENDENT ON THE MOTHER FOR SURVIVAL. That is to say, if the baby was to be aborted now and would survive, then the mother has no business prematurely aborting it because it is now a life form by itself now. On the other hand, at an early stage, (however callous it may sound to say so) the foetus is simply a parasite within the mother's womb at she is at perfect liberty to remove it.

Now I am not talking about depending on the mother for financial or other such reasons. For example, one might argue that even after birth a baby is dependent on the mother for nourishment, shelter, clothing etc. But these can be provided by anybody else just as well as by the mother. I am talking about direct dependence on the mother for survival.

Bye.

[aramil001]

hmm when you put it that way, it's hard how describe how to put it. But either way it should be allowed exclusively for people (such as Loki). But it should be used just because the "mother" does not want the child. Bringing up the topic, I can point to stronger example such as my girlfriend... When she was 13 she was raped and instead of abortion, she gave birth. She isn't in the best of health, and the baby, who isn't in much better health. Also her uterus was damaged in such a way that she cannot have children ever again. It depends on how you look at it.

[Jikanu]

Right. First off, hey Jik. Been a long, long time. Secondly, I shouldn't really be making this post because I likely won't be able to respond to any rebuttals or counter-arguments.

I'm continually surprised at how many things we disagree with each other on, but whatever. I think abortion should be completely at the discretion of the mother FOR AS LONG AS THE BABY IS DIRECTLY DEPENDENT ON THE MOTHER FOR SURVIVAL. That is to say, if the baby was to be aborted now and would survive, then the mother has no business prematurely aborting it because it is now a life form by itself now. On the other hand, at an early stage, (however callous it may sound to say so) the foetus is simply a parasite within the mother's womb at she is at perfect liberty to remove it.

Now I am not talking about depending on the mother for financial or other such reasons. For example, one might argue that even after birth a baby is dependent on the mother for nourishment, shelter, clothing etc. But these can be provided by anybody else just as well as by the mother. I am talking about direct dependence on the mother for survival.

Bye.

Complete necro-post, but whatever, this part of the forum's dead as a doornail anyways.

Yeah, it depends on the mother. But doesnt it NATURALLY do that in infancy too? I mean, without many of the modern things we have today, wouldnt the baby have to directly depend on the mother's body for milk, etc.? And if such is true, what's the real difference between within and without the womb?

My point is, hypothetically, would you feel the same if it was an infant and the only way to feed was through mother's milk? Because the problem im seeing is mainly the dehumanization of the fetuses. They're still humans, and as age doesnt factor into our decisions in post-natal care, why should we ignore the human rights of the infant while it's still in the mother's womb?

I suppose what im saying is, what gives anyone any right to say it's less human within the womb than it is outside of it?

[Vasu]

Complete necro-post, but whatever, this part of the forum's dead as a doornail anyways.

Yeah, it depends on the mother. But doesnt it NATURALLY do that in infancy too? I mean, without many of the modern things we have today, wouldnt the baby have to directly depend on the mother's body for milk, etc.? And if such is true, what's the real difference between within and without the womb?

Now I am not talking about depending on the mother for financial or other such reasons. For example, one might argue that even after birth a baby is dependent on the mother for nourishment, shelter, clothing etc. But these can be provided by anybody else just as well as by the mother. I am talking about direct dependence on the mother for survival.

My point is, hypothetically, would you feel the same if it was an infant and the only way to feed was through mother's milk? Because the problem im seeing is mainly the dehumanization of the fetuses. They're still humans, and as age doesnt factor into our decisions in post-natal care, why should we ignore the human rights of the infant while it's still in the mother's womb?

I suppose what im saying is, what gives anyone any right to say it's less human within the womb than it is outside of it?

But an infant does not necessarily need to have its biological mother's milk, does it? It could as well be raised by anyone else once it can basically survive outside the womb.

I guess how human you consider the foetus depends entirely on you. I still stand by that post I made where I think the mother is at perfect liberty to remove the within her as long as it does not have an active existence completely independent of the mother. (This is poor wording, I know the foetus is an independent life form from the moment it is conceived, but I hope you get my meaning from that previous post)

Once removed though, if it is still capable of surviving despite the premature birth, then it falls to the mother to care for it as per law, and the mother should be charged duly in case of negligence. The reason I say it is less human within the womb is once again because it is dependent directly on the mother for its survival. I realise we all depend on someone or the other to some extent or the other for survival but it is not something as strong as the dependency of the foetus on the nutrition provided by the placenta and therefore indirectly by the mother.

[Alishka]

Youtube and facebook removed it >.<