Legalize Abortion?

[Jollibee]

---

kana emo sad na opinion bro.... pero ngano man d ay dili pwde na eya epasagop sa mga charity...... kay sa patyon na dili man na nya sala....... kon ikaw kuno ang bata ok ra ka......?

you have a point bro... im serious considering sa im comment... BUT the more i think about it... and seeing fuente osmena is littered with street children... i wonder asa ning imong charity imo ingon na mo sagup ana?

... but if ikaw mag himo charity for ana... you have my greatest, sincere and full respect bro...

[demonyito]

legalizing abortion is like saying i legalize sad ang murder
bisan unsa pa ang reason, praktical man or dli, ang bottom line nipatay ghpn ka ug tao.

[tingkoy13]

@demonyito, sakto ka bai,

@jobe, nia nag tuo ka kanang mga ginikanan anang mga street children mu pa abort? waman gani sila kwarta ikaon paras ilang kaugalingon mo gasto na nuon pa abort!!! ang mo pahimos ani kanang mga tawo nga maka apord ug mga batan-on, murag sobra rajud kaau nang legalize abort., kaila man siguro tag pills ug condom ug uban pa, sa giingun pang demonyito(d monyo na gani na, anti-abort gani, hehehehe), sama ranag gi legal ang pag patay ug tawo...

[cottonmouth]

legalizing abortion is like saying i legalize sad ang murder
bisan unsa pa ang reason, praktical man or dli, ang bottom line nipatay ghpn ka ug tao.

The end result maybe the same but the premise are different. There are cases that a life must be lost for a greater cause. That is also the reason why your armed forces exist. If you say killing a human is a crime then you might as well convict the whole armed forces because their job is to maintain peace and order to which sometimes it will require the use of lethal force.

To legalize abortion does not mean to make it easy for the public. Just as in self-defense, the law will allow you to defend yourself even if it means killing your opponent. The law legalizes the act of killing but it did not make it easy for anyone to use it as a defense for just any reason. To legalize abortion means to place restrictions and conditions that will make the act lawful and humane.

The anti-abortion group will always try to discombobulate the legalities of the subject to make their case. It is for you to decide but always look at the two sides carefully. You cannot always be a zealot to your religious belief because it can sometimes close your mind from reasons.

[gcc4426]

angayan na tngali i-legalize bai, ky kung dli managhan tag samot. pminaw ninyo mkatabang nang giingon sa simbahan? naa man tngaliy lugar pra sa morality2 nga ilang ghisgut. dpende rman gyud nas taw kung abusaran na nya nang pg.legalize anang abortion. praktikal nang mga tao ron ky galisud na. mao btaw naay contraceptivs pra d mo lobo...mgbantay lng tas lihok nto, d plabihon ang lami.

[mannyamador]

The end result maybe the same but the premise are different. There are cases that a life must be lost for a greater cause. That is also the reason why your armed forces exist. If you say killing a human is a crime then you might as well convict the whole armed forces because their job is to maintain peace and order to which sometimes it will require the use of lethal force.

This reasoning overlooks a very important distinction. The armed forces are used to fight aggressors or criminals. This is self-defense. Criminals and aggressors have deliberately chosen to attack in some form, therefore they can be resisted.

The baby, however, is TOTALLY INNOCENT. It did not ask to be conceived and has done absolutely nothing on its own to hurt anyone else. In fact, the baby cannot make any deliberate decisions of any kind. If the baby is "unwanted" or is a "threat" to the mother, then that is the fault of the father, or mother, or both, because one or both of them made the decision to engage in *** (in cases of rape, the fault is with the rapist). There is no way that the baby can be seen as an aggressor and should not be made to bear the burden by paying with his/her life. Therefore the above analogy simply can't apply.

Actually, tt is the pro-abortion group that will always try to discombobulate the legalities of the subject to make their case. They will try to make the baby into an aggressor using stupefying leaps in logic. It is up to people to see through these errors.

[DrE]

Why not? Pro-choice feminists want it. Theres a reason they call it "birthday" sa event that happens when the child is born.

[cottonmouth]

This reasoning overlooks a very important distinction. The armed forces are used to fight aggressors or criminals. This is self-defense. Criminals and aggressors have deliberately chosen to attack in some form, therefore they can be resisted.

The baby, however, is TOTALLY INNOCENT. It did not ask to be conceived and has done absolutely nothing on its own to hurt anyone else. In fact, the baby cannot make any deliberate decisions of any kind. If the baby is "unwanted" or is a "threat" to the mother, then that is the fault of the father, or mother, or both, because one or both of them made the decision to engage in *** (in cases of rape, the fault is with the rapist). There is no way that the baby can be seen as an aggressor and should not be made to bear the burden by paying with his/her life. Therefore the above analogy simply can't apply.

Actually, tt is the pro-abortion group that will always try to discombobulate the legalities of the subject to make their case. They will try to make the baby into an aggressor using stupefying leaps in logic. It is up to people to see through these errors.

Hahaha you are really funny mannyboy.

First, I was using the analogy of the armed forces to prove my point to the person whom I quoted (not you), that the act of killing as long as within the legal limits will be considered in accordance to the applicable law. That is why I gave you the analogy of the "self-defense law". The act of killing is always a crime unless proven otherwise. To prove self-defense is not easy because the defendant has to prove he got the merit of the law. And that is my point, we should make a law that will give merit to abortion when it is necessary. I did not define the fetus as the agressor but I made it clear that a law should be made out of necessity. As such with every law, all are made out of necessity.

Second, I am consistent in this category that I am in favor of legalizing abortion as long as (from my previou post):
(1) Due to incurable disease of mother or child;
(2) In cases of extreme deformity of the fetus;
(3.) In cases of rape. (Currently against Art. 258 ) But in cases where the rapist has communicable disease that would either lead to 1 & 2.

I made my point clear and never did mentioned that I am for abortion of healthy babies. But your statement make it appear that I am for abortion of healthy babies. You are putting words to my mouth.

Third, I tried to explained as simple as possible that "legalizing" does not necessarily means freeing the act from the confines of the law. I clearly stated that there should be a exemption of the current law (which is against abortion). Although a law is absolute but it does not mean that is not open for revision. So do not make it appear that my case is for the abolition of the Articles 256 to 259. But I am for exemptions that will merit the case of abortion when it is necessary.

Fourth, you just made yourself ridiculous when you gave this statement " In fact, the baby cannot make any deliberate decisions of any kind. If the baby is "unwanted" or is a "threat" to the mother, then that is the fault of the father, or mother, or both, because one or both of them made the decision to engage in *** (in cases of rape, the fault is with the rapist). I am consistent with my case: healthy baby + healthy mother=no abortion (dont twist this fact). In case of rape your reasoning is just so preposterous...well, preposterous if it is not sad. I am a man so chances are I cannot feel the pain of the women who will experience this brutality. That is why I clearly stated in my previous post "Pro-abortion case #3, I am still undecided with this case. The extent on how the woman was rape and/or the state of the man raping her should be considered when making a decision.". With the help advance medical technology and proper reasoning thru consideration of existing laws of the land, law makers should be able to come up with something to resolve this case.

So who is discombobulating the subject in discussion now?

[Hozenyan]

hmmm... if you people call abortion murder... what would the right punishment be for the scared 15 year old who just had an abortion and probably will be haunted by this forever... Should she get the same punishment as the Stepfather who killed the two year old baby of his girlfriend in anger? You know, the guy who lost it because the kid was crying all the time. After all... according to some people here, they both killed babies therefore they both should be equally punished then in your opinion, i suppose

I think... every woman should have her choice... any woman who could live with herself aborting her own child, shouldn't be a mother anyway.

You all cry about the unborn baby, while the ones that are already born are suffering. it's like you people only want to protect the ones that aren't born yet, those already suffering and living you don't give a damn about.


yehey.... ethical exchanges in the internet during office hours.. i love it

[mannyamador]

First, I was using the analogy of the armed forces to prove my point to the person whom I quoted (not you), that the act of killing as long as within the legal limits will be considered in accordance to the applicable law. That is why I gave you the analogy of the "self-defense law". The act of killing is always a crime unless proven otherwise. To prove self-defense is not easy because the defendant has to prove he got the merit of the law. And that is my point, we should make a law that will give merit to abortion when it is necessary. I did not define the fetus as the agressor but I made it clear that a law should be made out of necessity. As such with every law, all are made out of necessity.

Then stay cool. You can make a point without being a boor.

If that was your point, then perhaps you should not have said, "The end result maybe the same but the premise are different. There are cases that a life must be lost for a greater cause." This cannot apply to abortion and totally discombobulated your statement. If these sentences were not there then your point would have been very much clearer.

With that cleared up, then just take my post as a separate trying to make a separate point, unrelated to yours. Fair enough to you?

I made my point clear and never did mentioned that I am for abortion of healthy babies. But your statement make it appear that I am for abortion of healthy babies. You are putting words to my mouth.

That was not the intention. My apologies. I was reacting to the wrong notion that just because two actions have the same results, then they are equivalent. That is clearly not so. The means used must be considered.

In case of rape your reasoning is just so preposterous...well, preposterous if it is not sad. I am a man so chances are I cannot feel the pain of the women who will experience this brutality.

Whether you can feel what a woman feels is not relevant. It does not make you less worthy of making a decision. We must remain objective. I think ALL opinions on the issue are to be evaluated equally, and that of a woman should not be considered more important simply because it comes from a woman.

Also remember that no woman can feel what the unborn child feels either (and studies shown that children undergoing an abortion most likely do feel excruciating pain). If we are to consider what the woman feels, then we should also consider what the unborn child feels. An unborn child's life is still a human life. Now obviously you cannot consult the unborn child, but since generally all people (and generally all mammals too) opt for self-preservation, then we should presume that it is in the interests of the unborn child to seek life.

@Hozenyan

it's like you people only want to protect the ones that aren't born yet, those already suffering and living you don't give a damn about.

Let me emphasize that such an idea has NEVER been stated or even implied in any pro-life arguments. That's really an unfounded and unfair accusation. Pro-lifers are quite active in social action/advocacy for suffering children as well as for the unborn.

Not all murders are the same and they do not receive the same judicial punishments. Under the law, there are different kinds of murder, and are designated by different terms. The circumstances of a murder are also considered. A stepfather who kills a two-year old commits a graver crime (and gets a different punishment) than a minor who gets an abortion. Both are called murders, but they are also different in circumstance and judicial standing.