From my stand point, if it is certain that the baby is going to have a miserable life, be it either from poverty, bad habits or a bad parent, I would still want it to be a choice. I see that it can be classified as murder, but when you say it like that, it really pushes people away from abortion, even if in their given position abortion would be a better choice. I find it better to put a fetus to rest and not have it live through what it might, but this really just goes back to the euthanasia discussion, and I really dont want to invoke more bittering from there.

So from my view, abortion should remain legal, or maybe a choice given to families with situations that will make the baby´s life a living hell.


or you could be as straight forward as the gentlemen above me.

um..no. You see, a child inside a mother's stomach is technically living. It may be dependant on the mother but it is still technically living. And, since abortion would kill a living thing, it is , in many ways, murder. As murder is a crime, abortion should be illegal as abortion is a "form" of murder. (NO)

Trees live. Choppin a tree down kills the tree. = Chopping down trees is murder

You are on whole new level of smarts

Define living. I would argue that because the fetus is physically incapable of surviving outside the womb without medical assistance that it's very much not alive.

This is the problem with most of the abortion debate. Both sides are arguing under different preestablished conclusions, which is the status of the fetus. Pro-choice typically argues under the fetus not being alive, pro-abortion argues under the fetus being alive. You will typically not have any productive discussion between both sides until this is otherwise.


Also, pre-emptive strike against the likely "ur putting the baby thru a painful death being torn apart monster" argument. The fetus will not develop a nervous system capable of feeling pain until several months in to a pregnancy. The majority of abortions take place within the first month. The fetus isn't even distinguishable as human at this point, let alone capable of feeling anything, and certainly incapable of living without extreme medical intervention.

I'm confused Oracle. Is it the womb part that makes it not living, or do you consider any living creature that's dependent on medical assistance "very not alive"?

A baby should be allowed to live out it's life.

If the parent is not fit to care for the kid then the kid can be placed else where to live.

It is not right to rid them of a life just because the parents are not smart enough to either care for the kid or use protection to prevent them.

I also know, that sometimes the situation is that the girl was raped and forced to have a baby but even then. If you don't want the baby put it up for adoption.

I see what you're getting at here. You are trying to trap Oracle into saying either "it's the womb part" or "needing medical assistance" and then presenting an argument about people in a vegetative state, with your stance depending on which answer he gives. I argue that it is the needing medical assistance to survive that makes them not alive anymore. And before you get all huffy, let me say this: In those situations, they are not able to make their own decisions, just like a fetus. Their family and/or loved ones make the decision of whether to keep trying to cure them, keep them alive, or pull the plug. So if you are arguing that abortion is murder, than you also argue that pulling the plug on people in comas is also murder.

"But pulling the plug is a mercy and prevents any more suffering!"
So is abortion. As duck has pointed out, it is very likely that the child will not have a very good life. On average, women give at least three reasons for getting an abortion, with the most popular ones being:

A) Having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities (75%)
B) They cannot afford the child (75%)
C) They do not want to be a single parent or are currently having problems with their partner (50%)

All three of these are reasons that show that if the baby were to live, either mother, child or both would be in financial or societal jeopardy.


It is questionable whether or not the fetus can be considered a baby or a child while it is still in the womb, especially if it is during the first trimester when most abortions are performed. And even if you argue that everyone has a soul like most religious people do, then you must also ask whether the fetus has a soul as soon as it is conceived, or if it gains one after a certain point in the pregnancy.


Adoption is not nearly as effective as it seems to be. I don't have the numbers available, but a good chunk of children that parents put up for adoption, either through the hospital or afterwards, go into either orphanages or group homes. And many of those children do not get adopted, or if they do, they do not stay in the foster homes. In 2012 (latest available statistics) 23,000 children aged out of the US foster care system. Of those 23,000, only 48% were employed, and I imagine that most had trouble holding that job.


It is not right to force someone to take care of a child when they cannot support it, especially when doing so will make both parties miserable. And just because a woman wants to get an abortion does not mean that she is not smart. See above for details.


Only 1% of women who had an abortion reported doing so because she was raped. Of course, most women do not list that as a reason because they are ashamed or afraid. As for adoption, see above.

Hawkes it wasn't so much a "trap", it was just more or less showing that I doubt even Oracle believes what he posted. I'm pro-choice, I have no agenda to set him up to admit a baby should be considered life whilst in the womb.

If you have managed to make a baby, man the fuck up and take responsibility. If you can't, put him/her up for adoption. Murder is bad, mkay.

Foster homes should get more attention. Kids need love or they turn out crazy.