Abortion Right or Wrong, part II

[WannabeSith]

This is just a continuation of a discussion that had gone quite off topic in another thread, but of a topic that I could find no recent threads anymore. Is abortion right or wrong? Should it be banned?

Here is the discussion thus far:

Republicans can destroy rainforests and ban abortion while the democrats will force everyone to have two children and have no cars.

Off topic: You know, this is at least the second thread that you've brought up banning abortion as a negative consequence or course of action. You also used it in that context in the thread about young girls dressing suggestively. I know this isn't relevant to the thread, but I'm curious as to why you seem to see this as a bad thing. I for one, would love for that to happen.

On the whole, more racist wackos are right wing. It's just a fact of life.

Why would you ban abortion? That's ridiculous. People would still have abortions, but a lot of them would die from poor technique and secondary infections.

Because I'm of the school of thought that believes abortion to be murder. Why on earth would I want such a thing condoned? I know not everyone shares my views and that some would label me as extreme for it, but I believe all of those unborn children have as much a right to life as you and I do. Therefore, it does not make sense to me to have laws in place that make such a reprehensible thing easier. If the poor technique and secondary infections happen to those who would get illegal abortions (I am of course referring to the hypothetical scenario in which abortion might have been banned.) then the women/girls who were so cowardly that they couldn't face the consequences of their actions... well, I think they'd be getting what's coming to them. It would suck, yes, but could've been avoided by facing up to what they'd done (had unprotected sex) and dealing with it responsibly, for example giving the child up for adoption or sucking it up and raising the child themselves. If you decide you're adult enough to indulge in the act that can result in making a child, you're grown up enough to stop acting like a spoiled child and behave like an adult you like to think you are.

So...instead of letting an unborn foetus die, you're condoning letting a full grown woman die?

To Splurgy's last question, I answer yes. the way I see it, the life of the mother is not intrinsically worth more or less than the life of the unborn child. To me the issue is a matter of comparable innocence. Obviously, the unborn baby has not had the chance yet to commit any wrongs, so he/she cannot have wronged their mother. On top of that, the child also has not yet even had the chance to make any simple mistakes, and the situation of the pregnancy itself is not the fault of the baby. The parents are the ones that had sex, after all, not the kid.

So if the child has not had the ability to commit any wrongs or even make any mistakes, unlike the mother's decision to have unprotected sex, I do not think they should be murdered for the mistakes of another. That would be the height of injustice.

As for the possibility of the mother dying, I might remind you that the majority of abortions are not about decisions of life and death, but rather the emotional mindset and desires of the reluctantly pregnant women involved. If it did come down to life and death for the mother though, for the sake of saving the child, I do however favor the child simply because they are completely innocent. When I make mistakes, I expect to be held accountable for them, even if the consequences are dire. This is also a value I hold others to. I don't approve of aiding anyone in avoiding the results of their poor choices simply so they can keep on blithely making the same mistakes or behaving the same bad way that got them into trouble in the first place.

I don't hate anyone that's gotten an abortion, nor do I think that they're evil. I just do not condone the act and believe that it should not be legally sanctioned.

[Splurgy]

Would you condone:
-The abortion of a foetus whose birth would cause the death of the mother (but the baby would survive)
- The abortion of a severely deformed (as in encephalitic) foetus which wouldn't be able to survive outside the womb for more than a couple of months
- The abortion of a foetus that's the result of rape

[WannabeSith]

I would condone none of those. As I said, the child is not the one at fault. If I might quote a well-known movie:

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

The fact is, sometimes life is rough, even to the point of death. We all die sometime. Why punish someone else for the bad happening to you when it isn't their fault?

The same goes for a pregnancy that resulted from a rape. I know a lot of people would make exceptions for this, but I just can't. That would be punishing the child for the sins of the father. Again, how is that just? Even aside from that, there are so many people out there dying to have children of their own that cannot. Two years ago, I had to call the police on a friend of mine because she was trying to attempt suicide because she could not conceive a child no matter what she tried. She desperately wanted a child to love and call her own, yet there are women out there who would destroy the innocent children growing in their wombs. Honestly, why couldn't the mothers of rape children give the babies to these families who would love them so? It isn't as if they'd ever have to see the child again.

[jillbean]

Can you imagin the emotional trauma of having to carry around the memory of being raped for 9 months. Just as the child is not at fault neither are the mothers.

And as for so many people wanting children. What about all the children currently in care? You show me a care system not overflowing with children needing to be loved and i will acept your argument.

Although now you are seeing everyting very black and white i would like to see how your opinion would differ if someone very close to you were raped and then forced by the state to carry round this constant reminder. I dont think anyone can say i will NEVER condone this or i will always AGREE with that. Which is how you are coming across. No one person never truly knows untill they are in that situation.

[WannabeSith]

As for the emotional trauma, I've heard that argument before. I don't stick my head in the sand like an ostrich. But the way I understand it, you're saying that a rape victim would be justified in killing a baby when the whole problem is the fault of the father. I still fail to see how that is just.

By the way, though she never got pregnant from it, I have a close relative who was a victim of repeated rape at the hands of one of her ex-husband's friends. You make it sound as though I am cold-hearted and ignorant of the effects of this kind of thing, but that is simply not true. While I would not condone the death of the child, I would do everything in my power to care for anyone I met that had been raped. Anyone. Cook their meals, pay for therapy to the best of my ability, help around the house, be a shoulder to cry on, etc. There are other answers than simply having the child killed. Is it really so impossible to love both the mother and the child in such a situation?

As for never truly knowing unless I'm ever in that situation myself, I don't have to eat mouse droppings to know that it's a bad idea.

[Zoxell]

Oddly enough, the pro-choicers still refuse to contemplate the possibility that the victim of this "choice" maybe wanted to live a full and rewarding life. But, meh, it's just a clump of cells... better to kill it before it knows what hit it, right?

[WannabeSith]

Ah, but the concept of "Justice" is not politically correct. What the 'clump of cells' would want doesn't appear to matter. Neither does perseverance in the face of hardship. The easy way out is what is glorified in this culture, and not just when it comes to unplanned pregnancies. Personal inconvenience and hurt feelings are apparently more important than right or wrong.

BTW, love the quote in your sig, Zoxell.

[jillbean]

Im sorry if you think iv made it come across this way. But in the pervious posts you have shown empathy to no one but the unborn babies. Im not says that is true. But this is how you have made yourself come across, not me. I just commented on it. Anyway i do not wish to verbally abuse each other so i will leave it at that.

I am pro choice. And although i strongly beleive in anyones right to have an abortion what ever the reason, i am not black and white about it. What i beleive now might change completly if i was in that situation, i just dont know.

As for the mouse droppings comment i dont see what you are trying to prove by this. That is a physical not an emotional decision. For example i no it would not be a good idea to put my foot in a bear trap, but on the other hand would i be able to kill someone who i knew was going to kill me? I dont know, because this is an emotional decision.And emotions are never stable and unchanging.

And as for the whole killing a baby thing. I dont believe a baby is a baby until it is born. And so for me the rights of the mother would always come before the rights of a fetus.

Im very sorry for your relative and i hope she is in better circumstances now. But i still think that if someone close to you would have got pregnent because of rape you would have a change of heart or at least see the gray between the black and white. Im just saying no one can truly ever know.

And i agree that abortions are not the only answer, shouldnt be the first port of call or be used as contraception but sometimes it is the lesser of the evils (although i am not expecting you to agree with this, nor am i trying to change your mind)

[WannabeSith]

What I was trying to get across with the mouse droppings comment was that I don't have to try or even be tempted to have an abortion (which I was at one point) to know that it is a bad idea.

All this really stems from the belief as to whether or not an unborn child is actually a baby. I know that plenty of others disagree with me. I'm okay with that. I just don't believe right and wrong are negotiable, no matter how much suffering is going on in someone's life.

And thanks, jillbean. My relative is doing better. Her situation is still not ideal, but she is at least getting to heal from that part of her past.

And I know it sounds kind of screwball, but I've actually given a lot of thought to what I'd do if someone I loved got pregnant that way. I would beg to raise the baby myself or find it a home. Like I said, I know it sounds screwball, and I can't force anyone to do things my way, but the idea is to try and love both victims.

Yuck... now I think I'm starting to sound mushy, but there it is. I believe truth, right and wrong, are not relative, and that right should override emotions. Those that let their emotions lead them around by the nose only end up getting screwed. Over-reliance on emotions only leads to more suffering in my opinion, though I realize that there are those who differ.

[jillbean]

Its so hard when two people have completly differnt strong opinions. Emotions get high, and nobody gets their point across well.

As for Zoxell's comment. It seams like you have come in here to stir up hate. You have not put your opinions across well and have been a bit childish to be honest.

You make it sound like anyone who has an abortion does so with ease. Even as a pro choicer i will be the first to admit its not always the right thing to do. But the women who have these abortion do not do so easily. And its not somthing thats done with out thought for both the mothers and fetus's wellbeing. I would suggest you actually came in here with somthing to debate about instead of throwing a hissy fit, and i will be more than happy to discus with you. But to be honest i think you have let the pro lifers down. Anyway back to the subject at hand.

Although a slightly weird thought to have it actually comforts me more than anything else. In the fact that you have thought out the circumstances and repercusions rather than just said i belive this and thats it. Every one has their right to an opinion, but i do belive you should have some thought behind it. And this is obviuosly the case here. Although i dont agree and dont think i ever would i can respect that.

AS for not relying on your emotions i think you are doing that as well. Its just emotionaly you couldnt bear the thought of a fetus being "killed" because you belive its a baby, just as emotionaly i wouldnt want someone to go through that because i do not see the fetus as a baby. Not may things is this world arnt led by emotions even if we cant see it at first.

[willwrightfan]

Okay, really. Let's say you find out you're pregnant. You're dirt poor, someone forced you to do it, and you really can't handle a kid, nor would the baby have a good life. Wouldn't you want it to have the best future possible for your child? Sometimes, that means no future at all in my opinion. I don't think it's murder. I'd rather have the parent just deal with it, but really, in certain cases, go ahead and get an abortion, I won't stop you.

[WannabeSith]

It's nice to get some of this cleared up, Jillbean, lol. And I'm not saying I don't feel anything about the matter, or that I wouldn't feel anything for the hypothetical baby in question, just that I don't think that emotions (mine or anyone else's) should be the deciding factor. If any kind of emotion is leading me in this, I would venture to say that it isn't even my feelings for the unborn children so much as my personal passion for what I believe is right or wrong. But I do like to think I'm mature enough to stand by my convictions even when my emotions might say something else, you know what I mean? I understand and respect that you have different values- that's the sort of thing that makes debate threads like this vibrant and thought-provoking. Only listening to opinions which mirror one's own stagnates the mind more effectively than anything else I know.

My answer to willwrightfan is this: dirt poor and forced to be pregnant, I think the best possible future is a life with adoption. And what I think many of us forgets is that a good life does not necessarily equate with an easy one.

[jillbean]

Just because i think we are being to nice to each to each other i thought i would stir it up a bit ( i joke - no hatred was inculded in the making of this post, lol)

Definition of passion - A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger.

I personally feel anything but science etc is based of emotion such as religion and polictics.As i said before many things are led by emotion even if we do not see it. Anything you feel is an emotion. Strong emotions leed to passion. So both sides of the argument are led by emotion.

On a side note im liking this debate, its got a differnt twist to the its wrong, no its not, yes it is debate.

[Rabid]

Joxell, the "victim of this choice" doesn't want to live a happy and fulfilling life because it has no desires at this point in its development. I think that dwelling on what would have or what could have been is fallacy; life is short, and we don't have that luxury. It's just as easy to assume that the same fetus has the potential to grow up and commit suicide, but no one cries wolf about that outcome.

I think that the answer to the abortion debacle would be astonishingly clear if religion and sentimentality were removed from the equation. It's not about what's right and wrong (government should so rarely be that way); it's about what women have the right to do, and denying one's right to control one's own body can only lead to the futures that George Orwell and Ayn Rand once envisioned. People say that the woman should take responsibility for her mistake, but not everyone has the potential to become a stellar parent, and allowing a child to grow up unwanted is terrible. Parenthood should not be punishment, and a child should not be used to teach an incompetent person to be a proper parent.

Abortion is not the ideal scenario, that much is true, but it's a gritty reality and a right nonetheless. It's not heartless, either; pro-lifers clearly lack the emotional compass to understand that, for most women, it is not a decision made lightly and not one without emotional repercussions. I think it's admirable, in a strange way; like I said, it's not the ideal scenario, but it shows that the woman has a level of self awareness great enough to accurately perceive her situation and a level of maturity great enough not to bring a child into it. Adoption is a nice idea, but the amount of children not adopted compared to the amount of children who are adopted is staggering. If the woman has enough faith to believe that her child will be adopted, then by all means she should pusue adoption, but realism dictates otherwise. I would rather see my child aborted than shuffled between foster homes and orphanages.

So often I say about politics that it's no one's business but those involved, and I have to reiterate this statement yet again. Pro-lifers need to stop sticking their noses where they don't belong and butt out; it's not your body, it's not your cluster of cells, and therefore you have absolutely no right whatsoever to judge the woman or influence her decision.

[WannabeSith]

:lol: I'm glad you're enjoying it. There's not much point to the debate if no one is, is there?

But please note, I did say IF any kind of emotion was leading me in this. I believe human beings are perfectly capable (some more so than others, admittedly) are able to put emotions on a back burner to convictions. Would you say that you're personally incapable of acting without emotion in anything? Somehow I doubt you're hampered that way.

And yeah, it is foolish to debate 'it's wrong, no it's not' without some actual reasoning behind it. It's all about questioning things: what you believe in, what others believe in, everything.

There was a time in my life when getting an abortion would have relieved me of a lot of pressure and made my life a whole lot easier. I was sorely tempted to get one because at the time, there was the distinct possibility that having the baby would cost me my then brand-new marriage. He didn't want a child, and I was a fool that had let my hormones rule my brain and married a man I'd only met a month and a half prior to that. My emotions told me that in order to have any kind of peace, I couldn't have a baby yet. I certainly didn't feel ready for one, and coming from a dysfunctional family of origin, I was quite frightened by the prospect.

But my values said something entirely different from what I was feeling. My convictions were and are that abortion is wrong, period, no matter what it cost me. I'd have to live with the results of my actions, but even if it hadn't been my fault, things just happen sometimes. (I've seen enough proof of that in life, lol.) So, nine months later, I gave birth to my daughter and my husband didn't leave me for another six years (unrelated issue). In my mind, at least I had the satisfaction of knowing I did what was right, even if it wasn't the easiest option. Mind, there are a lot of better people out there than I, but a lot of folks here don't seem to credit anyone with being able to learn from experiences that are anything other than their own, so I offered my story, for what it is worth.

Good grief, enough rambling for now, I think. :D

[jillbean]

I dont belive all pro lifers are judging. But they do have the right to have an opinion on the subject. And i dont think its fair to just lump pro lifers together as you just have as it would not be right to do so for pro choice.

I think abortion is everybodies business. Not on individual cases of course but on a whole, on its effects on our socity and moral questions it brings up. I am not directly involved in the war in Iraq. Does not mean i do not have the right to pass judgment or pass my opinion. Where it becomes a problem is where you take the debate and your opinions and jugments to a personal level. I think its fine to loby the goverment if thats what you beleive in, but not to stand outside abortion clinics beliteling the feelings of the women already under great emotional pressure.

As always alot of things would be easier with out religion, and the abortion debate goes hand in hand with religion. But its not going to go away. I no many pro choicer's who are also christian. Religion is not the be all and end all.

At the end of the day i am pro choice and pro opinion. Even though i may not share the same opinion, or even think its right does not mean i dont think people should be alowed to have opinions contray to mine. Its their right to say what they feel.

*edit* iv only just seen your new post.

yes actually i do believe i am ruled by my emotions (except for silly things like, what shall i have for breakfast today). But when i talk about emotions im not talking about me crying and laughing, being happy or sad. Im talking about what i feel. Whether this is what i feel is right or wrong, what i feel is injustice or justice. I think these all come from emotions. I think when we think of emotions we think of the extremes and not the every day that rules our disision making.

As regrads to learning from other people. I do believe this is possible. But as humans we rarely listin like we should, and normally feel we know best (im lumping myself in this as well,) In regrads to your daughter. You were stronger than i could have been. But whats right for one isnt always right for the other. I for istance dont want any children. And feel that any i might have wouldnt get the attention and love they would need from me. But due to family presure i dont feel i would be able to give that child up. So an abortion would be my choice (although of course i would not know until in that situation) And accidents can happen even if your careful. Rape is not the only result of a blameless pregnancy.

[el_flel]

Rabid's post sums up my thoughts on this subject perfectly (and far more eloquently than I ever could!).

I think in our society many people seem to have the belief that quantity of life is better than quality. IMO that's not the case.

I also just wanted to add - not saying that anyone has said this in this thread, purely mentioning it because it's something that always seems to get ignored - in an abortion debate people should remember that not all women who terminate a pregnancy were stupid and didn't use contraception. Contraception can, and does fail. Most sexually active people will probably experience this at some point in their lives.

[Rabid]

Of course everyone has a right to an opinion, and as an editorial journalist, I thrive on it. That's why we're all in this sub-forum, isn't it? But then again, having an opinion and gunning down abortion clinics because of it are two entirely different schools. I understand that not all pro-lifers are this way, but having an opinion that undermines a woman's rights is when that opinion becomes negotiable.

Kudos for bringing up the point about contraception, el flel; it's one of my mainstays in this debate and I forgot. Like you said, contraception is not infallible, and until it is, abortion should be a legal, accessible avenue. Why should a woman be suddenly jettisoned into parenthood if the condom breaks or the birth control fails?

I think in our society many people seem to have the belief that quantity of life is better than quality. IMO that's not the case.

I agree completely. I think that, for some of the opposition, it has become more about the principle than the actual act of termination.

[WannabeSith]

Ah, but those whose contraception failed were willingly engaging in sex, were they not? They could have simply gone without.

[el_flel]

They could have, but to suggest that in this day and age that if you don't want children then you should abstain is just silly. Sex is more than just a way to conceive a child, it's an important part of a relationship. I don't want children, the thought of being pregnant and having children terrifies me, does that mean I should become chaste?

I always mention contraception failures when discussing abortion because my best friend had an abortion as a result of both a condom, AND the morning after pill failing.

As a pro-choicer I think it's far more cruel to bring a child into this world who is not wanted, and who is at a high risk of having a poor quality of life, than it is to terminate that 'life' whilst it is still in the womb and totally incapable of feeling or knowing anything.

[jillbean]

but having an opinion that undermines a woman's rights is when that opinion becomes negotiable

I dont think an opinion ever undermines anyones rights. Its what you do with that opinion. For example i dont think WannabeSith is undermining anyones rights by posting her opinion here. Yet the opinions of radical pro lifers leed them to undermine womens rights.

An opinion is not dangours, its what you do with that opinion that can be harmful. Thats what i was trying to say before.

WannabeSith - I edited my earlier post dont know if you saw it regrading the emotions issue - I took to long writing and by the time i posted, you have posted already.

[Rabid]

Not everyone has the sexual constitution of a reclusive monk, and while I certainly don't mean to suggest that the greater adult population is composed of nymphomaniacs, it's human nature to seek a partner and copulate. On average, men will be horny men and women love to be in love- our pheremones necessitate sex, and not everyone has enough self control to ignore them. It's human nature to have sex; humans are animals, too, and mankind can't create contraception foolproof enough to avoid the unwanted outcome of sex. Why should a woman be punished because of her own nature and her species' own failure?

[WannabeSith]

Okay, I see it now, jillbean.

*edit* I do by the way believe it is good to have sex just for fun, not only for procreation. I just think it should be within the context of marriage alone. When I speak of forgoing sex if you absolutely can't bear the possibility of becoming pregnant, I'm simply saying that if you have sex, you should accept the risk, because you know there is a chance it might happen.

[Xunixeon]

Basically, Sith means in Irish, "A fairy who steals babies and adds in the changeling". Nowadays, it means the dark Jedi-like knights whose purpose is to bring the universe into the Dark side.

I think abortion is alright for a lot of women. But there is the nagging grief that comes after abortion like you have killed an innocent child. But losing the child is part of life, whether it's college, suicide, or even a murder. If you consider a clump of cells to be a child, then that would be killing a child who might save a person's life. For me, personally, I don't want that child, if he has autism, to be institutionalized or going through foster homes because of the "Perfect Child Syndrome" with the adoptive parents.

However, I'm going to abstain until I find a right companion for me.

[Zoxell]

As for Zoxell's comment. It seams like you have come in here to stir up hate. You have not put your opinions across well and have been a bit childish to be honest.

I have stated my arguments quite well, thanks. Your disagreement with my opinion does not detract from my ability to communicate it. And since we're being honest, I find many of the pro-choicers to be condecending and flippant. I suppose we're all entitled to characterize those who do not agree with our opinion.
And I do not care to stir up hate at all. I care to stir up compassion and regard for human life. I believe every human is entitled to life. But if you are unwilling to recognize an unborn child as a human being, then there is no grounds for logical debate. Unborn children are children just the same and a woman has no right to choose death for an unborn child any more that she has the right to choose death for a birthed child.

[WannabeSith]

Haha, my screen name was a reference to my ex husband who happens to have a Darth Vader fixation. I didn't even know that about the Irish bit, Xunixeon.

[urisStar]

Here is the thing, no one gets the right to have a say but that woman who finds her self in the position of having to make the choice to abort her unwanted fetus. Until she put out a public call for someone else to make the decision for her, I am quite sure she will followthrough and there is not much anyone can do about it. By the way, there was a time when she did not need a doctor to do it, and like they say, we go around in circles. There is nothing new under the sun.

If a woman have made the decision to abort, I don’t see her giving a flying fish what anyone else think about it. I don’t see why anyone’s personal decision has to do with the public/strangers that would walk on by and could give a flying fish about her or her fetus.

Abortions must take place as it is a manifestation of a bigger problem/story with far more consequences, and the story will be told, over and over, and over again until someone finally gets it. If you being dead, what do you know of life OR how can you protect what you don't have your self when you don’t understand that abortions MUST first take place in the spirit before it can manifest into the world of the mostly living dead? The fight is not with flesh and blood! Abortions are legal, the dead are not!

Only the dead care about the dead , so let the dead bury the dead after all it is the only proper/right thing to do! :deal:

[Lauren]

What I was trying to get across with the mouse droppings comment was that I don't have to try or even be tempted to have an abortion (which I was at one point) to know that it is a bad idea.

Did you read the post I put in the thread about Dr Tiller? About the MANY circumstances where abortion doctors have been faced with women coming in to have abortions who have previously been picketing the clinic? In many cases going straight back to it? (the only moral abortion is MY abortion)

Or the Texas college student, who was the president of her college's Right To Life chapter, who begged them not to tell anyone (which legally they couldn't and morally wouldn't) because it was very important position to her?

I've recently gone back to Christianity. The ONLY situation I can see myself having an abortion is if the child has no chance of survival once born. If I was faced with any other situation I would hope I was strong enough to not have an abortion. But until I'm faced with that situation? I don't know. And neither do you. From your posts (well you have to die sometime!) you come across as either very young or very naive. I pray that you're never put in a position where you do need to choose. But ultimatly you have the right to choose, which is a right every other woman has.

[Splurgy]

I would condone none of those.
So you would prefer a mother, who may have 3 or 4 other children to look after, dies giving birth to another baby than looks after the children she already has?
Are you saying this:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/2008/07/13/embryo.jpg
is alive?
That's a ball of eight cells.
Would you count this:
http://www.besthealth.com/besthealth/bodyguide/reftext/images/sperm_parts.jpg
as alive?

[WannabeSith]

If I was faced with any other situation I would hope I was strong enough to not have an abortion. But until I'm faced with that situation? I don't know. And neither do you. From your posts (well you have to die sometime!) you come across as either very young or very naive. I pray that you're never put in a position where you do need to choose.

Lauren, what I am trying to get across to anyone here that will actually bother listening (not saying that you're not) is that I believe right or wrong is independent of what is popular or convenient or sometimes even safest for the mother. I believe abortion is wrong, therefore it does not matter to me how I feel or how much pressure I'm under, even of the life or death variety. Yes, I believe in a lot of black and white and am firmly convinced this falls under black, under wrong. As for young, I am twenty six. Whether or not that constitutes young is a matter of perspective, I suppose. Naive? Certainly not when it comes to the realm of facing personal hardship, which is the reason most of the abortion supporters here are citing as sufficient cause to get an abortion if a woman deems it right for her. I could post the laundry list of garbage I've had to face in my life if you needed the proof, but I sincerely doubt anyone here wants a biography of me. So please do not make such assumptions. Most individuals on this forum have little to no idea about what personal experiences I've had that shape my opinions. And I also hope you are never put in a position of having to choose, Lauren. Not because of any ill opinion of you or your beliefs, but because I just don't wish that agony on anyone.

And Urisstar, I honestly couldn't care less if the law says abortion is permissible, in the sense that I do not believe it to be the final authority on what is good or evil. I do not picket abortion clinics, but I am doing my part to work in getting Roe vs. Wade thrown out. I do not wish to harass any individuals and believe in working within the system. Dr. Tiller should never have been murdered. That was not justice- it was profane.

Of course I do not believe a sperm is a life, Splurgy. Yes, you may scoff, but I do believe life begins at conception. You act as if I have never seen images before like the ones you posted above. I am a mother. I have been to a great deal of obstetrics appointments and the doctors were quite thorough in educating me on the facts of pregnancy.

[jillbean]

I have stated my arguments quite well, thanks. Your disagreement with my opinion does not detract from my ability to communicate it. And since we're being honest, I find many of the pro-choicers to be condecending and flippant. I suppose we're all entitled to characterize those who do not agree with our opinion.
And I do not care to stir up hate at all. I care to stir up compassion and regard for human life. I believe every human is entitled to life. But if you are unwilling to recognize an unborn child as a human being, then there is no grounds for logical debate. Unborn children are children just the same and a woman has no right to choose death for an unborn child any more that she has the right to choose death for a birthed child.

I dont beleive i ever said it was your opinion that detracted your ability to communicate. If i did not want to talk to people with differnt opinions i would just go on a pro choice website not a debate thread. If you look through the rest of the posts you will see that when somone puts their point across well i can understand and respect their opinion. Just coming in here blurting out what you did and not including any thoughts or feeling behind it does not make good debate in my opinion. But as i said before this is a strong issue and emotions get over heated, so there you go.

I reconize that a fetus is human, i never said it wasnt. But the debate come down to when a child becomes a child. And if somthing that has never had life takes priority over someone who has.

I think if science found a way to let the fetus survive outside the womb this would be a differnt disscusion. But they cant. And as no person (or child) has the right to any part of someone else's body women will always have the right to an abortion. So even with the argument that a fetus is a child woment will still have that right to abortions as that "child" can not survive with out the woman and it has no right to the womans body.

[Zoxell]

Splurgy,
Yes, the cells are alive and the beginning of a human life. You really don't want to me to post graphics to prove my point that abortion is murder.

Jillbea,
You clearly did not read the part 1 of this debate, where I made a number of points that continue to go ignored by those who believe a woman's right to choose what happens to her body is more important than the life that is taken as a result of that choice. I find the idea unconscionable and no amount of convincing will change my assertation that killing an unborn child is never justifiable.

[jillbean]

Actually i did read it and my last post relates to it. My point is, as i do not see a child as a child until its born, the rights of the woman come before the rights of a fetus.

[Zoxell]

Actually i did read it and my last post relates to it. My point is, as i do not see a child as a child until its born, the rights of the woman come before the rights of a fetus.
Then I can only hope that as you mature, you will one day come to realize that taking a life to protect a woman's choice of lifestyle is deplorable.

[urisStar]

I believe abortion is wrong, therefore it does not matter to me how I feel or how much pressure I'm under, even of the life or death variety. Yes, I believe in a lot of black and white and am firmly convinced this falls under black, under wrong. As for young, I am twenty six. Whether or not that constitutes young is a matter of perspective, I suppose.

And Urisstar, I honestly couldn't care less if the law says abortion is permissible, in the sense that I do not believe it to be the final authority on what is good or evil. I do not picket abortion clinics, but I am doing my part to work in getting Roe vs. Wade thrown out. I do not wish to harass any individuals and believe in working within the system. Dr. Tiller should never have been murdered. That was not justice- it was profane

You have every right to believe whatever you want, however, you do not have a right to believe for anyone other/outside of YOU.

I too am beginning to care less about law, as while we say we are a nation of Laws I see clearly that does not apply to all and to bad if you ends up at the bottom of the pile, it's a man's world and we know he knows nothing about justice unless it benifits him/his self interest in some way.

The final Authority give to ALL free will and until He/She/They starts to rain down judgement right away on everything and everyone, He/She/They, did not give you or the pope or anyone else, the authority to take over anyone’s free will nor did He/She/They appointed us the final or beginning Judge of eachother. We will all do our own answering for what we do in the body and He/She/They reserved judgement unto Him/Her/Them self/selves. Do you care about life more than who/whom created life? I say, deal with your own hell and allow others to deal with theirs! I would take my chances with the real Judge and would ask that the Jr. judges do the same. . .I might as well join the free will stealing mob, don't you think? Get off of others free will cloud!:lol:

[jillbean]

Then I can only hope that as you mature, you will one day come to realize that taking a life to protect a woman's choice of lifestyle is deplorable.

I dont think you have any right to say how mature i am. Anyway you seam totaly unable to see, repect or try to understand anyone else opinon. So im not going to try anymore.

[longears15]

Once again, Rabid has summed up my opinion more eloquently than I ever could. I firmly believe that while everyone has the right to their personal opinion, it's just that. No matter how wrong you believe abortion to be, you've no right to tell a woman that it's wrong for her to undergo one - it's her choice, and not one that she's going to have undertaken lightly.

Then I can only hope that as you mature, you will one day come to realize that taking a life to protect a woman's choice of lifestyle is deplorable. It's been asked a dozen times, but what if it's to protect a woman's life? Some women develop life-threatening complications during pregnancy and termination is sometimes necessary to save their lives - I can't begin to imagine how devastating that is for them.

Feel free to post other images if you want. Early human embryos look almost like any other animal embryos. Most abortions are performed early on and I'm sure the pictures are nothing that anyone with an interest in the abortion debate hasn't seen before anyway.

Going back to rape victims - I don't think anyone who hasn't been there can begin to imagine the psychological trauma, and frankly I find it incredibly offensive to hear it said that a 'child' (I don't believe that an embryo is a child) shouldn't be punished for the sins of its father. I was raped at 16 and there's no way I could have coped with pregnancy. If you don't like it, that's your option, but don't anyone dare tell me that it's wrong for a rape victim to have an abortion.

And to protect choice of lifestyle? I don't think it's for anyone else to say. What if that lifestyle means that a woman can't support a child, or can't support herself through a pregnancy? What if it starts to affect her more seriously - what if she can't cope emotionally with the pregnancy and it puts her at suicide risk?

Just my two cents.

[WannabeSith]

I believe that in the case of a pregnancy that results from a rape that there is not just one victim, longears. And yes, I will say again that a child should not be punished for the sins of its father. The person who raped you should be castrated. I'm not denying that the act of rape is anything short of monstrous and it deeply pains me that you ever went through such a nightmare. If you find my views offensive, I am indeed sorry, but I will not retract them, and if you ever came to me for assistance or comfort because of having been raped, I would never turn you away.

But coming from the viewpoint that the unborn, fetuses, embryos, whatever you like to call them- coming from the viewpoint that I do that they are children, it is very wrong to punish them by death for something they did not even do.

I hope with all my heart that your rapist got what was coming to them, longears, and despite our apparent differences, I hope you can believe that and I wish you only the best.

[why_00]

I think that this world is way too over populated to ban abortions. But I also don't think it should be done after the second trimester. It should be the woman's choice whether or not she wants to spend the next 18 years caring for the child. I know I sound cold hearted for saying this, but the child wouldn't know any different. All things intrinsically have the will to live, so yes I can agree that it would want to live, but in the first trimester it's not developed enough to even begin to think for itself, the second trimester is pushing it.

I think that people who really want a baby should adopt one first.(Which bring up issues I have regarding the adoption system...) There are way too many children needing families to just be popping out more left and right.

[Zoxell]

I dont think you have any right to say how mature i am. Anyway you seam totaly unable to see, repect or try to understand anyone else opinon. So im not going to try anymore.
And you don't have any right to make the life and death choice for an unborn child. I also find it ironic that you are accusing me of being unable and/or unwilling to see anybody else's opinion. You've made up your mind that the death of a fetus is an acceptable loss. As long as you can live with your conscience, then so be it.

[longears15]

WannabeSith, thank you.

And you don't have any right to make the life and death choice for an unborn child. I also find it ironic that you are accusing me of being unable and/or unwilling to see anybody else's opinion. You've made up your mind that the death of a fetus is an acceptable loss. As long as you can live with your conscience, then so be it. It's interesting that you're consistently referring to the loss of a foetus. Something like 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. Half of all abortions are performed in the first 8 weeks, when the 'child' is not a foetus, it's an embryo. Something that looks like this:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8094/humanembryo1.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/i/humanembryo1.jpg/)

I know that you were addressing jillbean, but that to me is still a potential human. It's not a child. It's alive, but it's not yet a life. It can't sustain itself outside the woman's body. Even at the early foetus stage where it starts to look human - it doesn't have wants or dreams or desires - it can't want to be alive and it just (in my opinion) doesn't rate alongside the life of a grown woman if it's going to have a serious impact upon her life.

[Zoxell]

Even at the early foetus stage where it starts to look human - it doesn't have wants or dreams or desires - it can't want to be alive and it just (in my opinion) doesn't rate alongside the life of a grown woman if it's going to have a serious impact upon her life.

I do not know what you see in this image. What I see is a premature human being who is as entitled to life as the mother who helped create him/her. Remember that you and I were exactly like this at one stage in our lives. We were among the fortunate ones to survive Roe vs. Wade.

You've made your decision and I have made mine. For the time being, the pro-choice movement has the upper hand in the legal system. I will continue to vote for conservative candidates in the hopes that one day this tragic practice will be brought to a legal end.

In the interim, I will teach my children the horrific truths about abortion and I will teach them to value all human life from the time of conception to the time of natural death, and that nobody has the right to sentence another living being to die.

[Xunixeon]

Imagine that you want to go to college to be a scientist to discover the cure for AIDS. Now you're wanting to be laid so you brought the condom with you, not knowing its expired. You have sex with the dude who has gonorhea but afterwards you went to the OB-GYN and found out that not only do you not have gonorrhea but you did not take the Plan B pill. But the bad news is...the Condom Broke and you're Pregnant! You followed what your parents have taught you and after being married to the guy who is now a drunkard, you end up like this...

http://static.open.salon.com/files/rsz/crop_364x485/files/barefoot_and_pregnant1219921096.jpg

Thanks to the baby girl, who has to suffer being born to no future except for gangs, drugs, and sex and your parents who won't let you go to college now that you're pregnant, your future is ruined.

As a reminder, if you can't abort, don't have sex.

[longears15]

I do not know what you see in this image. What I see is a premature human being who is as entitled to life as the mother who helped create him/her. Remember that you and I were exactly like this at one stage in our lives. We were among the fortunate ones to survive Roe vs. Wade.

You've made your decision and I have made mine. For the time being, the pro-choice movement has the upper hand in the legal system. I will continue to vote for conservative candidates in the hopes that one day this tragic practice will be brought to a legal end.

In the interim, I will teach my children the horrific truths about abortion and I will teach them to value all human life from the time of conception to the time of natural death, and that nobody has the right to sentence another living being to die. I see an embryo - not a human child, but a 'potential human', if you will. Something that cannot want or think for itself. Something that cannot sustain life for itself and simply feeds within and from a woman's body. I believe that true human life begins at birth, or when a foetus is capable of sustaining itself outside the uterine environment - because that line is so hazy I do not support late-term abortion unless there is life or death risk to the woman. I don't for a minute believe that life begins at conception, which is why I have no issue with early-term abortion. I'm not pro-abortion but pro-choice - I don't view it as a 'good' decision, but it may be the right one depending on circumstances - if that makes sense. Pregnancy may prove too dangerous, adoption may not be an option, etc. Incidentally, there was an article in our weekend paper on this particular topic, and very few religious women/couples actually opt for adoption despite previously held anti-abortion convictions, because they don't want a child raised in a household where their beliefs on religion and child-rearing aren't adhered to.

What I support is a woman's freedom to choose what occurs within her own body, and regardless of their own personal beliefs nobody else has the right to infringe upon that freedom.

[HaphazardSim]

Abortion is right even if the person simply does not want to be a mother...she should have that choice.

[BR_FL]

Abortion is right even if the person simply does not want to be a mother...she should have that choice.

Abortion is wrong even if the the person does not want to be a mother...the baby should have that choice.

Of course, since the baby within the womb cannot speak for him/herself, that obviously means his life is worth nothing. I just find it silly that rights for the woman's body are flung around in circles when the child's body within the womb has no rights. What differentiates it from being a complete human? A few months? Because each embryo develops at different rates, it's impossible to set a cutoff. Furthermore, what seperates an embryo from a new born infant? They both have no aspirations, no self awareness, and they don't rate alongside the life of a grown woman if it's going to have a serious impact upon her life
At least be consistent and support the murder of anything that falls under these characteristics

[longears15]

I'm being perfectly consistent - I've already said that I don't consider abortion to be murder. To have people like yourself call it murder is something that riles - if you consider it murder, then by definition you must consider any woman who has ever had an abortion to be a murderer. If a rape victim falls pregnant and has an abortion, what makes you think that you have the right to victimise her further by calling her a murderer? If a woman is pregnant and is forced by circumstances to terminate a wanted pregnancy to save her own life, how dare you accuse her of murder.

To answer your question, it is those few months that differentiate between potential human and human life. The difference between an embryo and a newborn infant? The infant, although it needs parental care and attention, can survive as an entity outside of the uterus. An embryo cannot. A newborn has the capacity to react, to display emotion - it quickly learns to recognise its parents and familiar surroundings. The embryo doesn't have that capacity.

[Zoxell]

To answer your question, it is those few months that differentiate between potential human and human life. The difference between an embryo and a newborn infant? The infant, although it needs parental care and attention, can survive as an entity outside of the uterus. An embryo cannot. A newborn has the capacity to react, to display emotion - it quickly learns to recognise its parents and familiar surroundings. The embryo doesn't have that capacity.
This is laughable. Please check your facts before you post. It is a proven fact that the child reacts to the mother's voice and can show recognition of the father's voice as early as 28-30 weeks. There are a host of other external stimuli that the child will respond to all throughout pregnancy. You don't have the luxury of ignoring the proven facts, or worse, fabricating contradictory ones to help support your flawed logic. I suggest you educate yourself and stop being led around like mindless cattle toward the liberal agenda.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Zoxell - You may make your point, but you may not be rude about it. Correct your tone and attitude or remove yourself from this debate. Thank you.

[Doddibot]

Remember that you and I were exactly like this at one stage in our lives.
Actually, that implies your own conclusion that human life begins before the embryonic stage. Because I think my mind is me, not my body (and so if I become brain dead, I will actually be dead, regardless of whether my body is still living). And embryos do not have minds, yet.

Therefore, I can say that I, for one, was never an embryo.

[longears15]

This is laughable. Please check your facts before you post. It is a proven fact that the child reacts to the mother's voice and can show recognition of the father's voice as early as 28-30 weeks. There are a host of other external stimuli that the child will respond to all throughout pregnancy. You don't have the luxury of ignoring the proven facts, or worse, fabricating contradictory ones to help support your flawed logic. I suggest you educate yourself and stop being led around like mindless cattle toward the liberal agenda. I won't lower myself to your level of rudeness, but I will suggest that you check your facts and point out that an embryo in reference to human pregnancy refers to the 'child' (as you insist on calling it) up until 8 weeks gestation. At 28-30 weeks gestation you are talking about a late-term foetus - potentially a premature newborn - which is a completely different situation and one that I have already offered my opinion on. If you don't have the decency and maturity to respect that, there is no point in you, or I, being a part of this debate.

[Zoxell]

I won't lower myself to your level of rudeness, but I will suggest that you check your facts and point out that an embryo in reference to human pregnancy refers to the 'child' (as you insist on calling it) up until 8 weeks gestation. At 28-30 weeks gestation you are talking about a late-term foetus - potentially a premature newborn - which is a completely different situation and one that I have already offered my opinion on. If you don't have the decency and maturity to respect that, there is no point in you, or I, being a part of this debate.
No rudeness on my part was intended or committed. You may make the distinction between embryo, foetus, and human. I see them as stages of a child's development which would then go on to include newborn and toddler, etc. And I will not remove myself from any abortion debate while there are children being denied the basic human right to life.

[el_flel]

It is a proven fact that the child reacts to the mother's voice and can show recognition of the father's voice as early as 28-30 weeks.

At which stage a pregnancy has gone past the point at which it can be legally terminated, based on the statutory presumption that a foetus under 28 weeks could not survive outside the womb.

Abortion is allowed because prior to that stage a foetus could not survive outside the mother, therefore it is not a 'life' in it's own right.

[Zoxell]

At which stage a pregnancy has gone past the point at which it can be legally terminated, based on the statutory presumption that a foetus under 28 weeks could not survive outside the womb.
Abortion is currently legal in the United States. There is no limit, currently, to the gestational age of the child. Only a procedure called partial birth abortion is banned. This is a procedure where a "doctor" pierces the skull and brain with a medical instrument and extracts the child from the mother's womb intact, albeit quite dead.
Abortion is allowed because prior to that stage a foetus could not survive outside the mother, therefore it is not a 'life' in it's own right.
I disagree. Many people have medical conditions that require constant care and life support who otherwise would die without them. This is the slippery slope that the choice supporters navigate. Abortion proponents pick and choose their facts to support a choice of lifestyle over another person's right to exist.

[el_flel]

I'm from the UK, and UK law states that an abortion cannot be legally carried out once the pregnancy has exceeded 24 weeks.

The issue of medical conditions that require constant care isn't really relevant. ALL babies need constant care in order to survive, what the law is referring to in terms of abortion is that a foetus could not physically survive outside the body. When a baby is born it can (medical conditions aside) breath for itself, its heart beats, it will be alive. A foetus born prior to 28 weeks gestation couldn't.

"Abortion proponents pick and choose their facts to support a choice of lifestyle over another person's right to exist."
That's your opinion. Mine is that people who are wholly against abortion think that simply being alive is more important than that person's quality of life, which I disagree with.

[longears15]

I disagree. Many people have medical conditions that require constant care and life support who otherwise would die without them. This is the slippery slope that the choice supporters navigate. Abortion proponents pick and choose their facts to support a choice of lifestyle over another person's right to exist. With all respect, I don't think that's relevant. To someone who is pro-choice (not, I might add, pro-abortion) there is a world of difference between a living person and an embryo. As it happens, I'm also pro-euthanasia, but a person with a medical condition requiring life-support is another debate entirely.

You are still ignoring the other facets of the issue and referring consistently to choice of lifestyle. Again, what about a woman who has been raped? What about a woman for whom continuing with a pregnancy is likely to result in her death?

A hypothetical, but realistic situation for you: A woman develops a very serious complication during pregnancy - one that threatens her life and that of the foetus. Left alone, both mother and baby will die. An abortion will save the mother's life. How can you stand in judgement and say that she is wrong?

No rudeness on my part was intended or committed. You may make the distinction between embryo, foetus, and human. I see them as stages of a child's development which would then go on to include newborn and toddler, etc. And I will not remove myself from any abortion debate while there are children being denied the basic human right to life. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. You informed me that my post was laughable before checking your own facts, you accused me of fabrication and lumped me in as one of a group of 'mindless cattle'. Intended or not, personally I consider that to be extremely rude.

[Xunixeon]

I'm from the UK, and UK law states that an abortion cannot be legally carried out once the pregnancy has exceeded 24 weeks.

The issue of medical conditions that require constant care isn't really relevant. ALL babies need constant care in order to survive, what the law is referring to in terms of abortion is that a foetus could not physically survive outside the body. When a baby is born it can (medical conditions aside) breath for itself, its heart beats, it will be alive. A foetus born prior to 28 weeks gestation couldn't.

I think you've met to say 28 weeks. Let's see... There is 4 weeks in the month. And 28 divided by 4 is 7 months if I could figure it correctly. By 7 months ending, in the UK, a fetus cannot survive out of the mother for 7 months unless it's a premature baby, which is usually born at 6 to 7 months. I think Obama is allowing partial birth abortion again by installing in the new judge which is probably more liberal than some of the judges in the Supreme Court.

Now there is the fact that politics is the gambling game to see if abortion is made illegal or not. You gamble away your life for this simple yet complex decision the woman can make. You may take away the woman's right to choice, but she will always have freewill to rebell.

[el_flel]

No it's definitely 24 weeks in the UK, which is just over halfway in a pregnancy.

[Xunixeon]

No it's definitely 24 weeks in the UK, which is just over halfway in a pregnancy.

Oh... so it's illegal to have abortions after 24 week, heh?

[Doddibot]

The law in the UK was only changed last year, from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. The amendments to lower it to 22 or 20 were both defeated. And you can still have an abortion after that cutoff in the cases of fetal abnormality, or grave physical and mental injury to the woman.

[el_flel]

^^ That. Other places in Europe have much lower cut-off periods, some of them only allow abortion up to 12 weeks.

[robokitty]

As a pro-choicer I think it's far more cruel to bring a child into this world who is not wanted, and who is at a high risk of having a poor quality of life, than it is to terminate that 'life' whilst it is still in the womb and totally incapable of feeling or knowing anything.

Not to mention, unwanted children from low income families, teenage mothers, or single parent households are more likely to commit crime and become an economic burden on society through subsequent processing through the penal system. Statistically speaking, over large numbers of cases.


The reasons why I'm pro-choice are not related to this, but I would be more sympathetic to the pro-life stance if that position included an emphasis on a feasible solution for how to support and care for all the unwanted babies who are either thrown into the adoption system or wind up going home with mothers without the means.



I disagree. Many people have medical conditions that require constant care and life support who otherwise would die without them. This is the slippery slope that the choice supporters navigate. Abortion proponents pick and choose their facts to support a choice of lifestyle over another person's right to exist.

It appears to me that your refusal to refer to the developing human according to its stage (embryo, fetus, infant, etc.) despite the extreme morphological differences in cognition and function of each stage, is characteristic of the same "picking and choosing of facts" you're accusing your opponents of.

[Splurgy]

Splurgy,
Yes, the cells are alive and the beginning of a human life. You really don't want to me to post graphics to prove my point that abortion is murder.

My point was that if that ball of eight cells is alive and has rights, why isn't a sperm cell alive? After all, each healthy sperm cell is a potential human life. Maybe people shouldn't be allowed to masturbate, lest potential children die. And what of those selfish women who menstruate! Fancy that, letting an egg cell that could have grown into a baby bleed out! It's deplorable!
And you're not going to freak me out by posting abortion pictures. Having seen various aborted and pickled foetuses in a hospital's embryology ward, you're not going to move me. I could post images of massively deformed foetuses with an eye in the middle of its face and a proboscis on its forehead if you'd like.
...toward the liberal agenda.
As a liberal, I'm shocked to hear we have an agenda. Could you a) fill me in on the details and b) prove this agenda exists?

[Zoxell]

As a liberal, I'm shocked to hear we have an agenda. Could you a) fill me in on the details and b) prove this agenda exists?
That's an entirely different debate, now, isn't it? ;)

Look gang, I suppose we can continue to villify each other over something that ultimately will be re-addressed in the courts. I know what I believe is exactly the right thing for me to believe. I feel strongly about it, strongly enough to go toe-to-toe with a forum filled with people who disagree with me. We are clearly not going to change each other's opinions, but all I can hope for is that somebody maybe hesitated and thought for a moment about the rights of unborn children.

*Goes back to playing Sims 3* :llama:

[BR_FL]

Splurgy, does one sperm have 46 chromosomes, the equivalent to any living human? Nope. They have 23. Eggs only have 23 as well. When they meet, that is when the zygote is formed and has all the genetic material that makes up this new human being. That's why sperm and eggs are not considered human lives that are allowed their own rights.

And I have yet to see any scare tactics, which in my opinion, are an extremely cheap way to debate.

[longears15]

That's an entirely different debate, now, isn't it? ;)

Look gang, I suppose we can continue to villify each other over something that ultimately will be re-addressed in the courts. I know what I believe is exactly the right thing for me to believe. I feel strongly about it, strongly enough to go toe-to-toe with a forum filled with people who disagree with me. We are clearly not going to change each other's opinions, but all I can hope for is that somebody maybe hesitated and thought for a moment about the rights of unborn children.

*Goes back to playing Sims 3* :llama: Fair enough, if that's what you want. As a final point about something that ultimately will be re-addressed in the courts - although you will disapprove, you may be interested to know that the move is toward making abortion easier to access. Where I live, abortion was technically illegal. We had major reforms last year to legalise abortion.

[Doddibot]

Splurgy, does one sperm have 46 chromosomes, the equivalent to any living human? Nope. They have 23. Eggs only have 23 as well. When they meet, that is when the zygote is formed and has all the genetic material that makes up this new human being. That's why sperm and eggs are not considered human lives that are allowed their own rights.

Some people have more than 46 chromosomes, such as those with Down's syndrome or Klinefelter's syndrome.

Anyway, at what stage during this 'meeting' does this new human being form? If life begins at conception, when during the process of conception is this?

[Xunixeon]

Would you have a child grow up to be a maniacal killer because you have no money and resources to care for his mental illness as well as state of poverty?

Think about this man when you have a baby out of wedlock and in poverty...

http://i5.tinypic.com/15377kl.jpg

This mad freak would be your son. Killing his father and disposing it in the sewers.

[Zoxell]

As a final point about something that ultimately will be re-addressed in the courts - although you will disapprove, you may be interested to know that the move is toward making abortion easier to access. Where I live, abortion was technically illegal. We had major reforms last year to legalise abortion.
And as a final point from me, It will only take a couple generations for those who celebrate and practice abortion to weed themsevles out of the gene pool, while those who celebrate and practice responsibility and child-rearing will replace them. I love how nature works itself out.

[Thrior]

I probably shouldn't get included in this but just wanted to tell my opinion. I accept abortion. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother and doesn't feel she's ready for it, then nobody has right to force her. It's her body and it affects her life in every aspect. Why should she carry the child for 9 months, only to dump her/him later or raise the child in poor conditions, without feeling any love and affection towards it? Yeah, I may sound cruel but why would just a "ball of 8 cells" have more rights than a moving, thinking, feeling, speaking human being? Yeah, now someone says that ball of cells is a human being too. Perhaps but I don't care if I sound cruel or not. In my eyes the woman IS more important. She's already in this world and can make decisions. She's not a birth factory.

I do despise people who don't take any responsibility over this by just having sex without thinking about consequences and then making abortion after abortion but I despise those too who just say "it's a murder" and think it's perfectly right to force a woman to carry a child who can be a result of rape.
If I got pregnant now by accident, I WOULD do abortion with a good conscience. It's my body and my life. I'm not ready to be a mother and I don't want to be one of those people who just gives birth to a child and then gives her/him up for adoption. When I would actually BE ready to be a mother, I couldn't bring myself to get any new children with the knowledge that I abandoned the first one. In any case I couldn't keep the baby now. I would feel awful about abandoning the child for strangers but keeping it would honestly ruin my life. Nobody could point a finger at me and claim they have a right to order me around with this. I'm the one who's pregnant.

Of course there has to be some restrictions. Abortion should be done when it's still early and the child isn't developed too far but my overall opinion stands: I accept abortion. That's my final comment to this and it won't change. I have heard all those arguments before and they honestly can't affect my opinion in any way at all. I keep the pregnant woman in higher value than the unborn child.

[Xunixeon]

Thinking about my choice as the mother, I don't want to give the child up for adoption to abusive parents or even fanatical parents. I know about open adoptions in which you can give up the child to those that you know but that is the another story. Since I'm in class right now and working on being the scientist, I can't let the child ruin my chance at being the physics engineer. It has to be when I am out of college and married/ living together with the person that loves me dearly when I could have a child that I would keep. I would have two and adopt about two to three more from other countries so that I can have a family.

In this state right now, I don't have enough money or resources to start a family apart from the hamster, which is technically my only child pet.

If you have a child and you don't have money for psych services, how would you feel if the child that grew up in poverty with you starts acting abusive and eventually dangerous? Another thing, Medicare and Medicaid won't pay for those with inborn mental illnesses and other developmental disabilities. It would be nice if people have services from medicare for autism here in Missouri so they don't have to wait for psych services or even autism related services.

That is one of the things why you abort because if you don't have the means to take care of the child, why search for jobs that might reject you? And why take care of him when he is going to be a burden on the society that doesn't want to deal with the poor and the underprivileged members of society?

[robokitty]

Splurgy, does one sperm have 46 chromosomes, the equivalent to any living human? Nope. They have 23. Eggs only have 23 as well. When they meet, that is when the zygote is formed and has all the genetic material that makes up this new human being. That's why sperm and eggs are not considered human lives that are allowed their own rights.

And I have yet to see any scare tactics, which in my opinion, are an extremely cheap way to debate.

Technically, by that definition, a single brain cell or liver cell would contain all the genetic material required to make up a new human being. In fact, some cells are still undifferentiated (such as in the bone marrow), and could be classified as "adult stem cells." That is, cells within your body that [theoretically], upon being extracted and put in the right lab conditions, independently have the potential to create a new human being. Should these cells be granted the same rights as an adult?

[Mistermook]

My DNA wants a sandwich and a new home.

Just as a thought experiment for the anti-abortion folks:
For the women whose bodies aren't able to properly sustain an embryo or fetus for an entire pregnancy for one reason or another, if it's murder, then how long should we put those women in prison compared to the women who've been raped and had abortions, since they'd technically be committing at least reckless endangerment or manslaughter in many jurisdictions? How long should we put the women who have a glass of wine in prison for versus the ones who smoke, or the ones who just wear tight clothing that might restrict blood flow to the uterus.

Also, how many adopted children do you have and what percentage of your income do you commit to sustaining low income children outside of your household?

[lilliandulcia]

Zoxell, too bad that's not true, huh? Many people get abortions early on because they're not in the right circumstances to raise a child but later on they have more children. Some people get abortions after they already have children (I know one woman who got one recently because she didn't want to give her already living son a bad life by bringing a new child into the world too soon after he was born). Many pro choice people never have abortions but will still raise pro choice children. I'm pro choice and I'll be having/adopting 6 children, all of which will hopefully realize how important it is for abortions to be legal and thus be pro choice themselves. Some pro life people have abortions ("The only moral abortion is MY abortion"). Some pro life people raise pro choice children (I know quite a few). Just because people abort doesn't mean they don't end up having children, and just because people think abortion should be legal doesn't mean they have or will abort. Rape will always happen, unplanned pregnancies will happen (unless a miracle birth control is released at a tiny price or for free), medical conditions that require abortions will always happen. Unless all of the things that are reasons to get an abortion are eliminated, there will be people who want abortion to stay legal.

[Splurgy]

Splurgy, does one sperm have 46 chromosomes, the equivalent to any living human? Nope. They have 23. Eggs only have 23 as well. When they meet, that is when the zygote is formed and has all the genetic material that makes up this new human being. That's why sperm and eggs are not considered human lives that are allowed their own rights.

And I have yet to see any scare tactics, which in my opinion, are an extremely cheap way to debate.
I know gametes are haploid, but that's not the point. If a ball of eight cells have the potential to become a human (but could just as well not "take" and be menstruated out/miscarry at some later point/be stillborn) and so should be treated as actual humans, then surely everything with the potential to become a human should be treated as such. The zygote can only become a human if it remains in the womb. A spermatozoa can only become human if it successfully fertilises the egg cell, and manages to see itself through to full term.
Leading on from this, couldn't you then argue any woman who isn't TRYING TO GET PREGNANT AT ALL TIMES SINCE HER MENARCHE killing unborn humans, because those egg cells could have been fertilised and become people? They certainly had the potential.

[el_flel]

And as a final point from me, It will only take a couple generations for those who celebrate and practice abortion to weed themsevles out of the gene pool, while those who celebrate and practice responsibility and child-rearing will replace them. I love how nature works itself out.
That's really not how it works. There isn't some gene that decides whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, it's not something that can be bred out of life. It's a personal opinion and choice. The majority of people born into this world are done so by parents who "celebrate and practice responsibility and child-rearing", and just because a couple are against abortion does not mean that their kids will also oppose it. Not all parents discuss their views on abortion with their children, therefore their kids will make up their own mind about it. People don't grow up and have the exact same views as their parents, there are an endless amount of things that can happen in a person's life that can affect their opinions.

Abortions have been going on for centuries. If it was going to be bred out it would have happened already.

[SirVictory]

Would you have a child grow up to be a maniacal killer because you have no money and resources to care for his mental illness as well as state of poverty?

Think about this man when you have a baby out of wedlock and in poverty...



This mad freak would be your son. Killing his father and disposing it in the sewers.

Why do you support the murder of innocent children?

[Xunixeon]

Why do you support the murder of innocent children?

Nothing to do with innocent children actually. I support the killing of parasites that are potential humans. It's the woman's right to choose if she wants that parasite or not. Did you know that dogs have unborn puppies as parasitical hosts?

You liken murder of fetuses and embryos with the murder of a child. What if your mom gave you up for adoption and you hated her for it?

[longears15]

Why do you support the murder of innocent children? We don't. We don't consider the embryo or early term foetus to be a child. You'll notice, I think, that all of us who are pro-choice have said that we do not support late-term abortion (i.e., when the foetus could potentially survive as a premature baby) unless there are extenuating circumstances.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

banking on things that cant be confirmed [ whether the mother is good or bad, whether the child is born and ends up being another Hitler..crap like that ] is pretty useless for this discussion, IMO.

personally, as a woman... id like to have the option if ever there came a time that i needed it. little do most people know that women do not often run around having abortions like its a joke. a lot of women who have had abortions are ashamed or regret having to do it, but it is those same women who mulled it over for longer than ten minutes before doing it.
personally i would get an abortion if i knew that i couldnt provide for my child at least the love and care that it deserves and expects. there are far too many children in adoption systems as it is; we can truly respectively view adoption as a good alternative the day adoption runs out of kids for people to adopt.

not to mention i would NOT tolerate birthing the child of a man who raped me, if that had been the case. birth control costs enough by itself, so usually i dont use it...since im not sexually active, and when i am, he uses a condom and i use the pill. however. should there ever come a time that a man leaps out unexpectedly at me, throws me down and has his way with me, and his wretched sperm results in a fetus... i would abort without so much as a glance behind.

ultimately its my body and its up to me what i do with it. nobody has the right to monopolize anyone elses' life; telling you who you can and cant marry, telling you if you can or cant have sex, telling you what you can and cant buy or can and cant do. nobody enjoys living under other peoples thumbs, so personally i think everyone should just mind their own business.

[ a lot of my views i get from George Carlin. he makes sense, to me. so if you want more on what i may think about abortion, do check him out. since im not going to say anything else past this...abortion being such a touchy subject. ]

[Eidolon]

Oh how do I love the abortion debate?

Well, I am pro-choice. I don't really care about not everyone agreeing with me, as long as they don't remove my rights then people can believe what they want. Still I think everyone should get their beliefs tested and prove they can back up their point rationally. I am completley ignoring religion in this because religion has no right to dictate the non-believers. It is invalid to me and many others.

Pro lifers claim that the embryo is alive and human and therefore as valid to life as a grown person.

So, a person who is declared brain-dead and doctors say there is no hope, that this person is basically a vegetable. What happens? Do they leave this person on a life support machine and have the tax payers fun their care till they die naturally? Or do they end up switching it off? It shows that life of someone unconcious and unable to feel pain is put below those who can.

Well, an embryo won't always be unconcious and unable to feel pain. This is why I disagree with late term abortion unless there is a medical reason. At the early stages of development a foetus cannot feel pain. How could it feel pain when unconcious with an undeveloped nervous system? Even if it could, it wouldn't be able to recognise it. An embryo is what I'd call a potential person. It is human, it is alive, but it has no characteristics of personhood. An unconcious person has them but has lost use of them to a disease or by external interferance, not because of a natural state of development. Even a newborn can feel emotions and pain. An embryo is simply a developing person, I find people romantacise them too much. This is why when you put these two lives together I see one as more important than the other. I see the person as more important.

In an abortion scenario with have two lives to decide between. You can't side with both, it is impossible. When a woman wants an abortion, to remove that right is to side with the embryo and against her. I don't exactly think abortion is nice but it is necessery. The implications of terminating the embryo is the ceasing of development of a potential person. They have never wanted anything from life, they feel no fear and they have no wants. The implications of denying a woman the rights to an abortion could include extreme depression, self harm (self-abortion attempts included), suicide, accidental death from self harm, trauma, alcohol/drug abuse for some, permanent family damage, relationship failures, career failures, and this is not including the effects of forced motherhood as I am assuming such a woman would give the baby up for adoption. Her life could be ruined. The life of a person. She can feel misery and pain and I see forced pregnancy as something horribley cruel. Especially for a rape victim, that is like a form of torture to *force* a woman to carry a rapist's baby in my eyes. Therefore when we have two lives to chose between, I feel the mother is the one suffering because the embryo can't suffer. When the embryo is a foetus that could survive outside of the womb if born prematurely it's a different matter. I think people should really do their best to get any abortions done in the first trimester because when it's in the second the lines begin to blur. At the embryo stage however, I think we need to look at the lives as present. The embryo would grow into a person, but the mother is already a person with a life to be ruined and could go through hell. That's how I see it at least.

Why do people think that waiting for marriage would be helpful? I have seen this before in abortion debates. What about people like me who would like to get married one day but *never* want children? We can't get our tubes tied when we're young, healthy and childfree. The doctors won't do it. I didn't wait for marriage, I have no reason to feel that I should seeing as I don't follow any religion that tells me I should. Even if I get married, if I got pregnant I wouldn't want to keep it. And I am sorry but to expect people to go celibate is unrealistic. I know it may be an ideal in the eyes of some pro-lifers but it is not realistic. As soon as humans discovered how babby is formed they have been trying to find ways of preventing it when they don't want a baby. Humans by instinct have sexual urges and they can be very hard to resist, many people could not be strong enough. You may believe they should be celibate but it isn't realistic. There are a lot of theories in life that would be ideal but are not realistic. Unwanted pregnancies will always exist untill a 100% safe and compulsary birth control exists. Even abstainance can't be 100% because there is the very small but possible chance of rape.

Without legal abortion it could not only harm the women who could turn to desperate measures to abort it themselves or illegally...but it could harm the foetus. A woman unwillingly pregnant isn't very likely to give up any habits she may have that could damage the embryo's health. If she smokes, she'll probably keep on smoking. if she drinks she'll probably keep on drinking and if she takes drugs then she'll probably carry on too...maybe even more because of the mental stress. Abortion attempts could damage the health of the embryo too.

As for babies being put up for adoption. Why should other women be *responsilble* for providing babies? It is not our duty, it is a very brave choice and can bring joy to childless people who want a baby but it is nobody's duty to provide babies for the demand. Also, it seems that this would really be more accurate if people wanted abotion illegal for only healthy white females with healthy white partners because healthy white newborns are the ones getting snapped up. Babies and children with disabilities or who are of different ethnicities have a harder time finding homes and there are pleanty of kids still up for adoption who have little chances of finding homes. There was even a program on here in the UK where they were trying a scheme to try and make potential adoptive parents give the less desirable children in the system a chance. Adoption doesn't mean every baby will end up in the arms of a loving family who have been longing for a baby. They could be in the adoption system till they are old enough to be sent out.

Some pro-lifers make pregnancy sould like a walk in the park and that anyone who wouldn't put up with having a big tummy for nine months is selfish. This isn't the sims, in real life babies don't appear in your arms when you spin round. Pregnancy is a long and tough experience and I believe only the willing should go through it. Abortion is another way of taking responsibility for the unwanted pregnancy, it's just not the method pro-lifers agree with. It still is taking responsibility. It is still looking at your mental and physical health, your life situation, your financial situation and your personal feelings before making a choice. It's not an easy choice, I've seen people go through it. It's also not a pleasent experience. It's just the best option for these people. A quote I saw elsewhere (from a pro-lifer believe it or not) sums it up when I say "A woman doesn't want an abortion like she wants an ice cream cone, she wants one like a trapped animal wants to chew off its own leg". That's not to say every woman is miserable about having an abortion, it's just to say that it is a difficult choice and an unpleasent experience. Women who have abortions are not heartfelt. They don't cackle evilly during the procedure and rub their fingers together in glee at the thought of it. They also don't think "oh, 'kay think I'll just get an abortion because I can't be bothered". Stop villianising these women. It is a very biased opinion.

An embryo is not a child. An embryo is a potential child. And a potential child is not a person like a child is. I use embryo because it is the correct term for that stage of development and I see to many people using "baby" for sentimental arguement. I am trying to remove all sentiment and point out that the first trimester foetus isn't like the little newborn who stares and you and grabs your fingers. It will be in time but to chose between a life in the present and a potential person in the present my alliance will always be with the woman.

This is a long post yet I still feel I have missed something. Please excuse any bad typing, I type way too fast for my own good and in long posts it's hard to notice.

[Zoxell]

I tried to end this topic and bow out with some resemblence of civility, but it seems there are those who simply refuse to acknowledge that roughly 51% of the United States adult population disagrees with statements of so-called fact presented by the supporters of abortion. The truth is that the differences between people who argue for and against abortion is so extreme that there is little hope the the sides can have a meaningful discussion without leaning mostly on supposition and hyperbole. I have clearly made my argument that

1. Sex, and all of its realated anatomy, is a bioligical sytem built into the human body for reproduction of the species. In evolutionary terms, our primary purpose in life is to propegate. Therefore, unborn children are not parasites - and pregnancy is not slavery. It is the natural means for preproduction of the human race.

2. A human is a human from the time of conception to the time of natural death. Applying simple Term Logic we can duduce that

I am a human
I am alive
I have always been alive (I am not, and never have been, dead)
I have always been human (DNA should prove that)
I was once an zygote inside my human mother.
Therefore - a zygote must be a living human.

There is little room for denying the simple logic displayed above. Refuting this seems contrary to reality.

3. Finally, having established that a human is a living human from the time of conception, it can clearly be deduced that killing a living human is morally, socially, and fundimentaly wrong and evil... unless of course we begin to argue the legitimacy of "Thou shalt not kill" as a religious ideal imposed upon us by an imaginary God... Then I suppose all bets are off.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

ive said it in a different topic and i'll say it in this one: different people have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong. good or bad. evil or saintly.
not all people view death as the end of the world, nor do they view killing the unconscious as a moral degradation. so with that in mind, i completely agree with eidolon. there is more to life than just the facts. there are circumstances to consider.
see now i wouldnt be so willing to accept abortion if i knew for a solid fact that women everywhere were abusing the privilege and getting knocked up JUST so they can abort. but it doesnt work that way, so...no. i think everyone should have the option to determine for themselves what they do or dont give life to. nobody else really should be bothered by it... they arent involved. unless theyre the father/mother. but trying to govern your neighbors is just plain...well...unsavory. [ i hesitate to say wrong because although i do believe it to be wrong, theres no solid written in stone writing anywhere that says it is. just like there is no solid, written in stone writing anywhere that says that abortion is wrong. and even if there were it would still be a personal choice. ]

edit: not to mention, we arent exactly facing a population crisis because theres so few of us. i think we can stand to just manage what we have before attempting to play the " our survival is at stake " card.

[Xunixeon]

I tried to end this topic and bow out with some resemblence of civility, but it seems there are those who simply refuse to acknowledge that roughly 51% of the United States adult population disagrees with statements of so-called fact presented by the supporters of abortion. The truth is that the differences between people who argue for and against abortion is so extreme that there is little hope the the sides can have a meaningful discussion without leaning mostly on supposition and hyperbole. I have clearly made my argument that

1. Sex, and all of its realated anatomy, is a bioligical sytem built into the human body for reproduction of the species. In evolutionary terms, our primary purpose in life is to propegate. Therefore, unborn children are not parasites - and pregnancy is not slavery. It is the natural means for preproduction of the human race.

2. A human is a human from the time of conception to the time of natural death. Applying simple Term Logic we can duduce that

I am a human
I am alive
I have always been alive (I am not, and never have been, dead)
I have always been human (DNA should prove that)
I was once an zygote inside my human mother.
Therefore - a zygote must be a living human.

There is little room for denying the simple logic displayed above. Refuting this seems contrary to reality.

3. Finally, having established that a human is a living human from the time of conception, it can clearly be deduced that killing a living human is morally, socially, and fundimentaly wrong and evil... unless of course we begin to argue the legitimacy of "Thou shalt not kill" as a religious ideal imposed upon us by an imaginary God... Then I suppose all bets are off.

Then how come we have unwanted babies that feed off the system that our society has?

How come the woman must bear the child and raise it until it was full grown even if it was an accident?

Then how come we have more criminals in the system due to poor parenting or unplanned parenting than we have by chance?

Humans also have the biological lust for sex as well as the desire to survive. If they don't want the child, abortion and birth control has been for thousands of years to provide that comfort for the childless life. I think you say that the reproductive system is for reproduction only and to have abortion undermines mating. We're not cats and dogs. We spay and neuter them for that to be controled The world is too overpopulated to have more children with no food and shelter. I was thinking about overpopulation as the sure-fire way to know that abortion is still going to be around in this world, even if you ban it because of women doing self-harm to get rid of pregnancies and even herbal abortions because of unwanted children around the globe. It's more than sex or greed. You have to know where the woman is coming from. One aborts because she is not ready. Another aborts because she's poor. Still another aborts because she is the carrier of the genetic trait that would end the life of her child early if it's not aborted.

Speaking of the parasite part, you have to understand it in scientific terms. A parasite is simply a being that feeds off another living being. There are two parasites, symbiotic and predatory. The embryo is both symbiotic and predatory and feeds off it's mother. It's darwinism in pure form if you think about the child first depending on it's mother for all needs then rebels against her.

[Zoxell]

Then how come we have unwanted babies that feed off the system that our society has? How come the woman must bear the child and raise it until it was full grown even if it was an accident? Then how come we have more criminals in the system due to poor parenting or unplanned parenting than we have by chance?
Answering your questions in order-
Because our culture values self indulgence, upward mobility, conspicuous consumption, and accumulation of wealth over the value of human life; and for the most part, people are either too irresponsible or too ignorant to protect against the reproductive nature of sex.

Because, from the beginning of time, the female gender of nearly every living organism that ever existed on Earth has been the bearer of the species' young. I wish I had some better answer for you than, "That's just the way it is", but I don't.

This is answered, in part, my explanation to your first question. Poor parenting is a combination of selfishness, irresponsibility, and ignorance. There really is no such thing as accidental pregnancy, much the same way there is not such thing as an accidental DUI.

Where I do agree with the pro-abortion supporters is in teaching young adults the biological facts about sex. Simply put, it is the mechanism for reproduction. Precautions can be taken to prevent conception, and if a woman does not desire pregnancy, then they should be practiced. It is incumbent upon the couple engaging in sex to protect against conception, because justifying the death of an unborn child by attempting to dehumanize him/her is abhorrent.


Humans also have the biological lust for sex as well as the desire to survive. If they don't want the child, abortion and birth control has been for thousands of years to provide that comfort for the childless life. I think you say that the reproductive system is for reproduction only and to have abortion undermines mating. We're not cats and dogs. We spay and neuter them for that to be controled The world is too overpopulated to have more children with no food and shelter. I was thinking about overpopulation as the sure-fire way to know that abortion is still going to be around in this world, even if you ban it because of women doing self-harm to get rid of pregnancies and even herbal abortions because of unwanted children around the globe. It's more than sex or greed. You have to know where the woman is coming from. One aborts because she is not ready. Another aborts because she's poor. Still another aborts because she is the carrier of the genetic trait that would end the life of her child early if it's not aborted.
You are correct in many of these observations. But to justify the death of a person who has already been given life is not an acceptable solution. The only humane solution is through abstinence or contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
Invariably, the argument of rape and/or imminent death of the mother and/or child come into the forefront. While I agree that rape is among the wost crimes a person can commit against another... I maintain that murder is worse yet. And some of our most brilliant and talented humans were born with congenital defects and/or illnesses. Our world would have been a lesser place had they been selfishly aborted.
Speaking of the parasite part, you have to understand it in scientific terms. A parasite is simply a being that feeds off another living being. There are two parasites, symbiotic and predatory. The embryo is both symbiotic and predatory and feeds off it's mother. It's darwinism in pure form if you think about the child first depending on it's mother for all needs then rebels against her.
You are incorrect.
par·a·sit·ism (pr-s-tzm, -s-)
n.
A symbiotic relationship in which one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

Reproduction is not parasitism. It is reproduction.
re·pro·duc·tion (rpr-dkshn)
n.
3. The sexual or asexual process by which organisms generate others of the same kind.

[robokitty]

I tried to end this topic and bow out with some resemblence of civility,

And as a final point from me, It will only take a couple generations for those who celebrate and practice abortion to weed themsevles out of the gene pool, while those who celebrate and practice responsibility and child-rearing will replace them. I love how nature works itself out.

Uhh... by "civility" do you mean elitist condemnation and insinuation that pro-choicers are a pox upon the gene pool?


I am a human
I am alive
I have always been alive (I am not, and never have been, dead)
I have always been human (DNA should prove that)
I was once an zygote inside my human mother.
Therefore - a zygote must be a living human.


If your DNA proves that you're a human being, does a single bone marrow cell removed from your body qualify as a human being? What if that bone marrow cell is totipotent--that is, capable of differentiating into all the different specialized cells in the body? Is a single totipotent cell with human DNA a human? These cells EXIST and could theoretically with the right lab conditions, divide, grow, and ultimately create a human.

At what point does such an entity become "human" and not simply a ball of cells?

[Zoxell]

Uhh... by "civility" do you mean elitist condemnation and insinuation that pro-choicers are a pox upon the gene pool?
Becoming over-emotional and insulting about a logical observation is counterproductive . Stating that evolution removes the weak organisms from the gene pool is not an insult. It is a statement that coincides with the dominating theory of how life exists on Earth. You don't agree that organisms that willfully kill their young are incapable of long-term survival?
If your DNA proves that you're a human being, does a single bone marrow cell removed from your body qualify as a human being? What if that bone marrow cell is totipotent--that is, capable of differentiating into all the different specialized cells in the body? Is a single totipotent cell with human DNA a human? These cells EXIST and could theoretically with the right lab conditions, divide, grow, and ultimately create a human.
At what point does such an entity become "human" and not simply a ball of cells?
Those bone marrow cells have a purpose in the human body, wholly separate from reproduction. Sex is the natural means by which humans create new humans. The product of sex, by definition, is individually human... neither the mother or the father, but a third human being.
The bone marrow claim fails Term Logic in that bone marrow cells are not now and ever were a living human being. When manipulated and inserted into another human reproductive cell, scientists have created ...something. The ethical implications are complex and make my head hurt. But my initial thought is that yes, this a new human life of some kind ...and if created, it ought to be protected as a living human.

[robokitty]

Becoming over-emotional and insulting about a logical observation is counterproductive . Stating that evolution removes the weak organisms from the gene pool is not an insult. It is a statement that coincides with the dominating theory of how life exists on Earth. You don't agree that organisms that willfully kill their young are incapable of long-term survival?

Ah, so you were aloof in your slight against pro-choicers?

And yes, I do disagree with your statement about evolution given that MOST of the women who have abortions plan to have children later in life. Additionally, the children they do have when they feel "ready" for it are more likely to have better health, a more stable homelife, and therefore higher fitness. Fitness being an evolutionary term that indicates an organism's ability to go out and reproduce to create healthy offspring.


Those bone marrow cells have a purpose in the human body, wholly separate from reproduction. Sex is the natural means by which humans create new humans. The product of sex, by definition, is individually human... neither the mother or the father, but a third human being.
The bone marrow claim fails Term Logic in that bone marrow cells are not now and ever were a living human being. When manipulated and inserted into another human reproductive cell, scientists have created ...something. The ethical implications are complex and make my head hurt. But my initial thought is that yes, this a new human life of some kind ...and if created, it ought to be protected as a living human.

Your term logic falls through because you fail to properly define what a "human being." That's the whole crux of this debate isn't it? Pro lifers consider X (genetic identity/"soul"/etc.) to be the defining characteristic of a human being , and pro choicers couch their definition of what a "human being" is in terms of autonomy/self awareness/etc.

Therefore, I question the assumption that you have always been a human being. You cannot convince anyone using your "term logic" if the assumptions you base your propositions on aren't universally accepted.

[kennyinbmore]

Ths Supreme Court of the United States already settled this issue

[Zoxell]

Ths Supreme Court of the United States already settled this issue
Make no mistake... it will be re-addressed. When it is, it will be with fact rather than suppsition, and value of human life rather than value for self indulgence. Murder is not a choice, and killing a child is not a woman's right.

[kennyinbmore]

Make no mistake... it will be re-addressed. When it is, it will be with fact rather than suppsition, and value of human life rather than value for self indulgence. Murder is not a choice, and killing a child is not a woman's right.

It'll never change. The SC ruled the ban a violation of a woman's civil rights. When in the history of this country has a ruling for civil rights ever been overturned by the Supremes?

[longears15]

Becoming over-emotional and insulting about a logical observation is counterproductive . Stating that evolution removes the weak organisms from the gene pool is not an insult. It is a statement that coincides with the dominating theory of how life exists on Earth. You don't agree that organisms that willfully kill their young are incapable of long-term survival? I would reiterate exactly what robokitty said. And for the record, any number of species kill their own young. This includes maternal infanticide, where the young is killed by the mother. In my experience, this most commonly occurs when the mother is too young to cope with pregnancy and offspring - young bitches who savage their pups, mares who kill their foals, etc. It's also extremely common, for example, in young female rabbits. I don't think anyone could argue that rabbits as a species are "incapable of long-term survival"...

Make no mistake... it will be re-addressed. When it is, it will be with fact rather than suppsition, and value of human life rather than value for self indulgence. Murder is not a choice, and killing a child is not a woman's right. I don't think so. Nobody is going to take away a woman's right to choose. And as I pointed out to you earlier, which you conveniently ignored, we are finally moving towards better recognition of those rights.

[Zoxell]

Ah, so you were aloof in your slight against pro-choicers?
And yes, I do disagree with your statement about evolution given that MOST of the women who have abortions plan to have children later in life. Additionally, the children they do have when they feel "ready" for it are more likely to have better health, a more stable homelife, and therefore higher fitness. Fitness being an evolutionary term that indicates an organism's ability to go out and reproduce to create healthy offspring.
Women are ready for reproduction when a child is conceived as a result of sexual activity. If a woman does not want a child, then it is wise to protect against conception. Anything else is irresponsible, and to kill a child due to personal preference is unacceptable.

Your term logic falls through because you fail to properly define what a "human being." That's the whole crux of this debate isn't it? Pro lifers consider X (genetic identity/"soul"/etc.) to be the defining characteristic of a human being , and pro choicers couch their definition of what a "human being" is in terms of autonomy/self awareness/etc.
Therefore, I question the assumption that you have always been a human being. You cannot convince anyone using your "term logic" if the assumptions you base your propositions on aren't universally accepted.
You are incorrect. My logic is sound.
I am, and have always been alive. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been dead. It is a binary state. Unless you claim to know of another state of being outside of life/death, your logic fails. Therefore, any child conceived is an independent, living individual.

I don't think so. Nobody is going to take away a woman's right to choose. And as I pointed out to you earlier, which you conveniently ignored, we are finally moving towards better recognition of those rights.
Abortion is not a right, and it is not a choice. The Supreme Court will eventually and rightfully grant the right of an unborn child to live, however.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Abortion is not a right, and it is not a choice. The Supreme Court will eventually and rightfully grant the right of an unborn child to live, however.

try giving birth sometime to a child you dont even want. you may see things differently after doing so.

[Zoxell]

try giving birth sometime to a child you dont even want. you may see things differently after doing so.
Not "wanting" a living child does not excuse its murder. Take precautionary action to prevent pregnancy.

[el_flel]

Yes it is a right and a choice, and it won't suddenly be made illegal again. And due to the fact that it's legal it isn't murder.

ETA: and as I previously mentioned, many people do use contraception which fails. It's not 100% failproof.

[robokitty]

You are incorrect. My logic is sound.
I am, and have always been alive. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been dead. It is a binary state. Unless you claim to know of another state of being outside of life/death, your logic fails. Therefore, any child conceived is an independent, living individual.



The problem isn't with your conclusion per se. It's with the propositions you make. You can't start off with an unagreed upon or incorrect proposition and expect your conclusion to be correct. So these propositions are technically incorrect:


I have always been alive (technically not. you weren't alive in 1335, were you?)
I have always been human (technically not, because the definition of what makes a human has not been agreed upon. a butterfly isn't always a butterfly. at one point it's a caterpillar.)



And, technically, the conclusion you reach based upon your propositions is not sound, but that's more due to a disregard for accuracy in your language. Observe:

I am a human
I am alive
I have always been alive (I am not, and never have been, dead)
I have always been human (DNA should prove that)
I was once an zygote inside my human mother.
Therefore - a zygote must be a living human.

All robokitties are female
All robokitties are alive
All robokitties have been alive through time
All robokitties have been female through time
All robokitties were once zygotes inside a female mother.
Therefore, all zygotes are female & alive.

[Zoxell]

Yes it is a right and a choice, and it won't suddenly be made illegal again. And due to the fact that it's legal it isn't murder.
ETA: and as I previously mentioned, many people do use contraception which fails. It's not 100% failproof.
It is not presently consdiered murder due to the fact that a rabid special interest goup pushed it's way through a liberal court to achieve it's political goals. And I beg to differ that it will not again be made illegal. There are strong grass-roots movements that are already making strides to challenge roe v. wade using the legal language of "Personhood"
Rep. Dan Ruby, (R-Minot), sponsored the pro-life legislation, known as the “Personhood” bill, which affirms the rights of pre-born humans and states: “For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens.”
You may not like it, but it is a reality. And I will my vote to elect officials who agree with me.

[Zoxell]

The problem isn't with your conclusion per se. It's with the propositions you make. You can't start off with an unagreed upon or incorrect proposition and expect your conclusion to be correct. So these propositions are technically incorrect:


I have always been alive (technically not. you weren't alive in 1335, were you?)
I have always been human (technically not, because the definition of what makes a human has not been agreed upon. a butterfly isn't always a butterfly. at one point it's a caterpillar.)

Acutally, I have been human from the point of conception according to DNA. My language was kept brief as not to bog the point down with a wall of syntax. I will do better next time, but I belive my point was taken and understood.

All robokitties are female
All robokitties are alive
All robokitties have been alive through time
All robokitties have been female through time
All robokitties were once zygotes inside a female mother.
Therefore, all zygotes are female & alive.
Cute, but not a sustainalbe argument :lol:

[longears15]

I'm not going to try to debate with you about Supreme Court actions. Thankfully I live in Australia, and know that my rights (yes, my rights) are cemented in parlimentary legislation. Anything your Grass Roots movement does in America has no relevance to me.

However:

Not "wanting" a living child does not excuse its murder. Take precautionary action to prevent pregnancy. Okay, leave aside what you seem to imagine are 'abortions of convenience' - so what about rape? What about incest? What about ectopic pregnancy? What if a pregnancy will result in the death of both, but abortion will save the life of the woman?

I posted a debate (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=336200) on a nine year old girl a while back - she had an abortion because she was pregnant with twins after years of sexual abuse by her stepfather. She was unlikely to have been able to carry a single foetus to term, never mind twins, and the pregnancy would almost certainly have killed her. I suppose that you'd also call that poor wee girl a murderer, would you?

[Zoxell]

I posted a debate (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=336200) on a nine year old girl a while back - she had an abortion because she was pregnant with twins after years of sexual abuse by her stepfather. She was unlikely to have been able to carry a single foetus to term, never mind twins, and the pregnancy would almost certainly have killed her. I suppose that you'd also call that poor wee girl a murderer, would you?
Okay, here is another moral dilemma -
You wake up in the middle of the night. Your house is on fire. Your children, twins, are in a different room upstairs. Should you walk three steps and exit the house and allow your children to perish, or do you risk your life to try and save them, KNOWING that you may die trying.
I know what I would do. Your answer may just reveal exactly the kind of person you are.

[robokitty]

Acutally, I have been human from the point of conception according to DNA. My language was kept brief as not to bog the point down with a wall of syntax. I will do better next time, but I belive my point was taken and understood.


Has a caterpiller been a butterfly since the point of its conception due to its DNA?


Cute, but not a sustainalbe argument :lol:

Just demonstrating the "soundness" of your logic :lol:


Also, Zoxell, that was totally weak to completely ignore and evade the questions longears brought up about ectopic pregnancy, abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.


To answer YOUR question, I would risk my life to save the lives of my children. I would NOT risk my life to save the lives of my unborn zygotes. Again, we're getting back to the issue of what defines a human being.

[Xunixeon]

Okay, here is another moral dilemma -
You wake up in the middle of the night. Your house is on fire. Your children, twins, are in a different room upstairs. Should you walk three steps and exit the house and allow your children to perish, or do you risk your life to try and save them, KNOWING that you may die trying.
I know what I would do. Your answer may just reveal exactly the kind of person you are.

That's different from this.... A rapist breaks into your home and rapes you. You don't have a morning after pill so since you're Catholic, you won't have a abortion because it's a sin that would in the past be punishable by excommunication. 9 months later you have a child who died young due to the fatal genetic disorder and later, you commit suicide because of that grief. How does that define sancity of life here if you kill both the child and the mother by the act of pregnancy that would ultimately kill the mother and the child by problems with the human body and the fetus? I'm not suggesting kill those with down syndromes, I'm just know that some genetic disorders can and will be deadly.

[Zoxell]

Also, Zoxell, that was totally weak to completely ignore and evade the questions longears brought up about ectopic pregnancy, abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.
To answer YOUR question, I would risk my life to save the lives of my children. I would NOT risk my life to save the lives of my unborn zygotes. Again, we're getting back to the issue of what defines a human being.
Clearly, you missed the subtlety in my response in the form of another moral dilemma. You have decided that an unborn child is not human, roughly half of the adult population disagrees with you, including me.

[longears15]

Okay, here is another moral dilemma -
You wake up in the middle of the night. Your house is on fire. Your children, twins, are in a different room upstairs. Should you walk three steps and exit the house and allow your children to perish, or do you risk your life to try and save them, KNOWING that you may die trying.
I know what I would do. Your answer may just reveal exactly the kind of person you are. A completely different situation, but I will answer nonetheless. They are children, and I would do what I could to save them.

By my definition, indeed evidently by medical definition (since abortion is legally acceptable, whatever your moral stance), an embryo is not a child. By the way - my emphasis on twins was because she was unlikely to have survived a single pregnancy, never mind a twin pregnancy.

I hope that you can be big enough to now answer my question in return.

[robokitty]

Clearly, you missed the subtlety in my response in the form of another moral dilemma. You have decided that an unborn child is not human, roughly half of the adult population disagrees with you, including me.


I find it somewhat ironic that you would accuse me of missing your subtlety when I have repeatedly been bringing up the point of what defines a human as the major crux of pro-life/pro-choice decisions. Indeed, even in my response to your question I made sure to indicate that I believed there was an intrinsic difference between how I would value the life of a child versus the life of a zygote.



And again, you ignore questions posed by longears. I can only assume you are incapable of articulating your responses, uninterested in actual discourse, or embarrassed by those responses.

[Doddibot]

Okay, here is another moral dilemma -
You wake up in the middle of the night. Your house is on fire. Your children, twins, are in a different room upstairs. Should you walk three steps and exit the house and allow your children to perish, or do you risk your life to try and save them, KNOWING that you may die trying.
I know what I would do. Your answer may just reveal exactly the kind of person you are.
Ok, and I imagine you'd risk your life even if you had just one child?

And therefore you're against abortion with absolutely no exceptions?

[Xunixeon]

It's like you focus on the child part than to deal with the questions like a civil adult. Civil adults agree to disagree as well as debate peacefully. It's like the child is the most important piece of evolution for you when I think it's the brain that we use as well as freewill.

Philosophers often debated about abortion as well as early societies, which based on their population needs, either allowed or banned abortion. I don't think that it is a short term problem to be solved by either Evolution or Execution. Abortion has been there for centuries even after the Catholic Church used the Inquisition to scare midwives away from medicine because it has to do with Witchcraft and stereotypical Gnostics are shown to be fetus murderers (those are Simonites actually). So your view that evolution will take care of pro-choicers into non-existance is faulty based on the assumption that we are mammals and mammals give birth to young after the time in their belly. Reptiles on the other hand, leave their young to look out for themselves.

I am dealing with the hamster right now. Even though Dwarf Campbell hamsters will sometimes take care of the females' young, if a female was disturbed or if she is a new mom, she'll eat her young more likely, even if the male isn't around. Most animals prefer natural selection over breeding, even though these two may work together.

Evolution is about natural selection and the ability of the parents to raise the fittest creatures as well as allowing them to survive the environment filled with dangers.

[HaphazardSim]

For those who are anti-choice, where do the male contributers to this stand in your eyes?? Because I'm reading a lot of "it is not a womans right to kill a child" but no mention of the mans involvement

[longears15]

For those who are anti-choice, where do the male contributers to this stand in your eyes?? Because I'm reading a lot of "it is not a womans right to kill a child" but no mention of the mans involvement I'm pro-choice - I think it depends somewhat on the situation. A fairly casual partner - e.g. a one night stand or short fling - has no real say in the situation in my opinion. If you're talking about a stable, long-term relationship then I think the woman is obligated to include her partner and discuss the situation with him at length, but ultimately the final choice is still hers to make.

[Zoxell]

And again, you ignore questions posed by longears
I don't have time to respond to every half-baked idea brought forward on these boards. Psychiatrists make pretty good money sorting out these kinds of issues. I'd be happy to charge a fee, if you'd like.

I don't know how to put this in any clearer language, but I'll try.

Every person ever to exist on earth was at one point a zygote. This is without exception; a fact.
No person ever to exist on Earth was ever in their lifetime, dead. That is to say there are two states of existence - alive and dead. If I am alive I cannot also be dead and/or not alive. And there is no returning to life from unlife. Therefore it can be proven that every human ever to live was alive from the very beginning of his/her existence, which was conception. This again, is without exception; a fact.

Denying these facts shows either ignorance, stupidity, or dereliction of the truth.

Some would argue that since a child cannot exist outside of its mother's womb that it is not technically alive. I say that a developing human was designed by nature to develop in its mother's womb, so there is no better or more proper place for the child to live during this time.
Look people, the life fairy does not come around during childbirth to wave her fairy dust over them to make a plumbob appear over the baby's head then decree him/her alive. Life happens at the instant of conception when the sperm and egg fuse to form new DNA. It is time to drop the infantile "it does not look human, so it can't be human" argument.
At the very least admit that you are willing to throw away the life of an unborn child to protect the lifestyle or in come rare cases, health, of the mother.

[longears15]

Nobody is arguing that an embryo or foetus is not alive - obviously they are composed of living cells. We debate the point of personhood.

There is no point in attempting to debate with you any further. Regardless of opinion, a debate should be a mature exchange of ideas. You retreat instead to infantile argument and an apparent inability to respond to any point put to you. I find it somewhat ironic, and rather childish on your part, that you expected us to respond to your irrelevant hypothetical, but can't respond to my very relevant one.

[Chelleypie]

Let me just say that I'm sure I'll be called a hypocrite for this, and I'm prepared for that.

I am not anti-abortion - I believe some situations DO call for it - thus I am not militantly pro-life.

The following situations would, in my mind, call for an abortion:
~Rape (with the victim's consent - don't make it automatic.)
~Incest, especially involving minor children. (Those of age can make the choice. Laura's example is a classic 'do it and do it quickly'.)

The following situations can be solved with adoptions as opposed to abortions:
~Teenage pregnancies (If you're old enough to do the deed, you're old enough to see it through.)
~One night stands (again... old enough to do the deed, you're old enough to see it through.)
~Babies that are the result of an affair.
~Babies who aren't 'perfect' (IE Downs Syndrome, and YES, some couples will take a special needs baby and may even prefer one)

And no, I don't really care that the woman in the above-mentioned situations is 'forced' to carry a pregnancy to term - adoption is a better solution than abortion. I'm a bit of an oxymoron - a pro-life realist. I believe, in my heart of hears, that 99% of abortions are wrong. The other 1% consist of underage girls impregnated by their fathers/stepfathers and ectopic pregnancies, which won't carry to term anyway and will kill a mother if she tries it. I also know in my heart of hearts that abortion will never be outlawed. I also don't believe that parental rights regarding minors and abortions should be changed - they should have to get parental consent, just as they do to pierce their ears.

Bottom line: I'm a pro-life realist. I believe it's a thousand different kinds of wrong, but I also know that I'm in the minority and that abortion will never be illegal.

[Splurgy]

I am a human
I am alive
I have always been alive (I am not, and never have been, dead)
I have always been human (DNA should prove that)
I was once an zygote inside my human mother.

I, as the zygote, was produced by the fertilisation of an egg cell by a sperm cell.
I was once a sperm cell and an egg cell.
Therefore, sperm and egg cells are human and alive.

[Xunixeon]

I, as the zygote, was produced by the fertilisation of an egg cell by a sperm cell.
I was once a sperm cell and an egg cell.
Therefore, sperm and egg cells are human and alive.

That's right and if the sperm and the egg is from the hamsters, would you still be a hamster when you're a zygote? Yes. Then why are you saying it as a part of pro-life elitism instead of dealing with biological and emotional issues dealing with abortion?

[Diana Prallon]

Oh, the good old abortion debate. It reminds me of those days when I used to administrate/moderate forums, it was a banning/punishing/deleting-party each time such thread appeared, people have some trouble upon being reasonable and educated.

Well, back to the point of the thread:

I'd be considerate a pro-choice, even if I'm not pro-abortion. I simply think that making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening and will only increase the number of cases where there are physical bad consequences to it and bring a health system overflow with cases that could have been avoided if the abortion had been handled by a professional. Therefore, it being legal is actually saving lives, not only taking them.

Whether it is morally acceptable or not having an abortion, is completely a matter of personal belief, it morality change from culture to culture, social environment to social environment, and a number of other things, and is another debate all together, and still, I think that's the major problem with pro-lifers -- they are "Kantists", while humanity has clearly shown otherwise.

Someone said, up in the thread, that they thought that rape was one of the worst possible crimes, but that thought that murder was worse. I disagree, for when someone goes over such a situation, their previous "personhood" is deeply changed, and essentially, killed. Their bodies are still there, but the person they once were, isn't. So, for me, those are equal crimes, one isn't worse than the other, except that rape will hunt and torment the victim for the rest of their life, as for murder... Well, even if there is an afterlife, I sincerely doubt it you'd suffer more for being killed.

Two years ago, I had to call the police on a friend of mine because she was trying to attempt suicide because she could not conceive a child no matter what she tried.

It only shows me that nature is, indeed, wise. This friend of yours clearly shouldn't have a child, she can't handle herself and her own failures, let alone one of another person. It is sad, really, that she couldn't have a child, but I can't even begin to think that she's fit for the job.

[Splurgy]

That's right and if the sperm and the egg is from the hamsters, would you still be a hamster when you're a zygote? Yes. Then why are you saying it as a part of pro-life elitism instead of dealing with biological and emotional issues dealing with abortion?
No, I'm highlighting the inherent flaws in the argument. You can't use that reasoning to say a zygote is a human without saying sperm and eggs are human.

[Xunixeon]

No, I'm highlighting the inherent flaws in the argument. You can't use that reasoning to say a zygote is a human without saying sperm and eggs are human.

I'm talking about which creatures they come from. If your natural parents are the hamster, then you are the hamster when your mother conceive you. Who knows? A sperm and the eggs are cells that come from a specific species.

Human male sperm + Human female egg = a human zygote

Hamster male sperm + Hamster female egg= a hamster zygote

Snake egg + Snake sperm= Snake zygote in the fertilized egg

Which simply means that all creatures have eggs and sperms to create a zygote.

[Diana Prallon]

It's a bit OT, but I thought most snakes were hermafroditas, and didn't need to copulate in order to reproduce. But I might be wrong, since I haven't even though about snakes in those terms for more than 15 years.

[Zoxell]

Bottom line: I'm a pro-life realist. I believe it's a thousand different kinds of wrong, but I also know that I'm in the minority and that abortion will never be illegal.
You are not in the minority. A recent Gallup poll (May 2009) reported roughly 51 percent of American adults identified themselfes as pro-life.

No, I'm highlighting the inherent flaws in the argument. You can't use that reasoning to say a zygote is a human without saying sperm and eggs are human.
You are incorrect. A sperm cell is a specialized cell inside the human body with DNA identifying it as belonging to one individual. A female egg can be described with the same language. When fused together during fertilization, new DNA is created belonging to a third individual. These facts you highlight as flaws will not simply go away because they are in conflict with your opinion on the subject matter.

you expected us to respond to your irrelevant hypothetical, but can't respond to my very relevant one.
I don't expect you to respond to hypothesis, I ask that you try to comprehend the facts.

[longears15]

No you don't. You ignore anything that contradicts your own beliefs and greatly flawed logic, and refuse to debate with even the slightest hint of maturity or common sense. I am bowing out now, lest I say something that I come to regret.

[robokitty]

I don't have time to respond to every half-baked idea brought forward on these boards. Psychiatrists make pretty good money sorting out these kinds of issues. I'd be happy to charge a fee, if you'd like.


The situation of whether or not abortion should be allowed in cases of RAPE is a half-baked idea? And whether or not abortion should be allowed if the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's health is half-baked???

Like longears, I won't be responding t your posts on the subject anymore (unless you actually decide to directly respond to those questions with your ideas). You're clearly not interested in or incapable of intelligent conversation.

[jooxis]

You are incorrect. A sperm cell is a specialized cell inside the human body with DNA identifying it as belonging to one individual. A female egg can be described with the same language. When fused together during fertilization, new DNA is created belonging to a third individual. These facts you highlight as flaws will not simply go away because they are in conflict with your opinion on the subject matter.

So what if it has its own DNA... yes, a zygote is technically alive, it has its own unique genetic code, it potentially can become a conscious human being... but it isn't. Not at its early stages, it isn't. And the fact that it is completely unconscious, devoid of any feelings, thoughts or even aware of itself, I believe it is okay to terminate it BEFORE it becomes more than that. I feel it is the right thing to do in situations where the mother does not want it, cannot afford to raise it, etc... the adoption argument is insane. There are millions of children without homes, who never will have one. Why would anyone want their own child to live in an orphanage or be shuffled around foster homes? In fact- let me use one of the pro-lifer's favorite arguments - why should the child suffer for its parents mistake?

[Splurgy]

You are incorrect. A sperm cell is a specialized cell inside the human body with DNA identifying it as belonging to one individual. A female egg can be described with the same language. When fused together during fertilization, new DNA is created belonging to a third individual. These facts you highlight as flaws will not simply go away because they are in conflict with your opinion on the subject matter.
Yeah...and the zygote is a collection of cells comprising of the DNA of both the egg and the sperm.
I'm failing to see why the fact two cells have fused and have started replicating somehow imbues them with some magical sanctity that the separate cells don't have.

[Zoxell]

The situation of whether or not abortion should be allowed in cases of RAPE is a half-baked idea? And whether or not abortion should be allowed if the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's health is half-baked???

Like longears, I won't be responding t your posts on the subject anymore (unless you actually decide to directly respond to those questions with your ideas). You're clearly not interested in or incapable of intelligent conversation.
Again, your need to prove me and my opinions wrong are clouding your ability to discern my meaning and intent. I have presented the facts in just about every way I am able, only to be confronted with emotional diatribe. I have explained that I do indeed feel that even in circumstances of rape, abortion is nothing short of execution. I do not see how much clearer I can state it.

This is a passionate topic with passionate convictions attached to it. You had to know going in that the dialogue would be intense. If you choose to quit a spirited conversation simply because I will not bend in my support of the clear-cut facts, then so be it. But please also know that I wish no ill will toward you (or anybody) as a result of any of these exchanges.

[Zoxell]

Why would anyone want their own child to live in an orphanage or be shuffled around foster homes? In fact- let me use one of the pro-lifer's favorite arguments - why should the child suffer for its parents mistake?
And why should the child die for it's parent's mistakes? Just the same, people who have led privileged and comfortable lives are quite capable of becoming monsters. It is not your right to choose who lives and who dies.

If it makes any difference; people who have lived in orphanages or been shuffled around foster homes during their early life are quite capable of becoming brilliant, loving, and amazing people later in life. I couldn't imagine my life without one person whom you would just so easily dispose. But it's just easier to kill the child and move on, right?

[Splurgy]

At what point does the fused egg and sperm cell become human?
When the sperm touches the egg?
When the DNA reaches the nucleus?
When it begins to divide?

[robokitty]

Yeah...and the zygote is a collection of cells comprising of the DNA of both the egg and the sperm.
I'm failing to see why the fact two cells have fused and have started replicating somehow imbues them with some magical sanctity that the separate cells don't have.

Ultimately, I believe that the pro-lifers generally refer back to religion on this issue. There is some sort of intangible "personhood" granted at the moment of conception--the soul. I don't think the question of when "personhood" begins can be answered without either a full acceptance or rejection of mysticism.

Personally, I don't believe it, but I think that's the type of reasoning that makes the most sense for why people would believe that zygotes and adults should have the same rights.

[Safyre420]

Zoxell, the facts dealing with abortion are never ever clear cut, and don't favor pro-choice or pro-life. Also, who says YOU get to decide who lives and dies? Why do you think you have the right to tell women that they HAVE to carry a baby full term? Also, if you choose to answer these questions, please leave religion out of it, it has no place in debate unless it's being debated.

[jooxis]

And why should the child die for it's parent's mistakes?

Because I'm not talking about "children", I'm talking about zygotes. That's where the problem is- I simply don't see how anyone can equate those two things. It's this mystical crap that I just don't get. A fertilized egg has the potential to become a conscious living human if it remains in the womb. Separate eggs and sperm have the potential to become a conscious living human if they're put together, etc... the fertilized egg is not any more alive than the egg and sperm that made it, just seconds before.
Every time you choose not to have sex, you may also have just disposed of a potential brilliant, loving and amazing person. Who cares what theoretically could have happened.

[Elyasis]

Exactly, shouldn't we care more for the kids outside of the womb?

I don't see any right wing nuts hounding down the government for better childcare programs and a better adoption system.

Personally, I think a person who can't afford a child should not have children, but accidents do happen so I'm grateful that there are options in place that stop the pregnancy before it's drawn out to the end where someone would be born into a home that didn't want it. Or worse, given over to the state.

[Zoxell]

Three people now in the last four posts have brought up religion. Religion, and your opinion of it, is irrelevent. Stick to the topic.

[Xunixeon]

Three people now in the last four posts have brought up religion. Religion, and your opinion of it, is irrelevent. Stick to the topic.

Religion does have something to do with abortion. But let's talk about medical, social, and economical standpoints without it. Like if you have a period or masturbate, you get rid of the potential human being. If you do drugs, you are killing the potential human being if you're pregnant. If the US doesn't have enough able bodied men and women to support the economy, China would be ahead of us. That should be the reasons why real pro-lifers should give instead of talking about human greed and injustice as just one of them.

China already have the overpopulation of itself and filled with boys. If we should change their minds by saying girls have every right to be the head of the household as men, then perhaps, their tradition of boys only club will fade. However, that is not going to solve all abortions.

[User Name_SC]

If you're going to have sex then be willing to accept what could happen, a child.
If someone gets raped why not keep that child, the child is half yours and that child could turn out to be someone that may find the cure for cancer.

[Xunixeon]

If you're going to have sex then be willing to accept what could happen, a child.
If someone gets raped why not keep that child, the child is half yours and that child could turn out to be someone that may find the cure for cancer.

Or build killer robots like Dr. Wily? However, a woman may not like having a rape baby because it reminds her of the rapist and loathes it. But if you have a child out of wedlock, it will be called a b**tard by religious freaks and you have to have trouble raising it. Otherwise, the social services might take away your child.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

And why should the child die for it's parent's mistakes? [ blah blah blah ] It is not your right to choose who lives and who dies.

[ blah blah blah ] But it's just easier to kill the child and move on, right?

[ dont be offended by the blah's, theyre meant to allow me to better focus on what i want to respond to in what you said. xD you could do the same for me. ]

anyway.
1) its not a CHILD yet. its a zygote. they are not the same and in no way interchangeable. if ALLOWED to develop FURTHER, it may become a child.
or just another casualty of SADS. then what? charge the mother with murder because her kid didnt pop out the way others expected it to? ridiculous.
2) so its not her right...but it is Yours? because that does cut both ways. you did say its not someones right to choose who LIVES, and as far as i can tell, you ARE choosing who lives.
3) again. not every woman regards abortion as a walk in the park. many, in fact, the MAJORITY of women who have an abortion have spent as much and as little time as possible [ as much because they want to be sure of it, but as little so as not to allow the potential mistake to develop ] THINKING about what theyre considering doing. you make it sound like every woman just thinks of abortion as " oh im going to go shopping today, then afterward an abortion, and then to the movies! ". its not always like that. EASE has nothing to do with it.

and people lets just not go there with the " they could grow up to be potential whatevers ", because that too can cut both ways.

my main argument against abortion is that it will ultimately lead to a rise in population [ drastically, and potentially more than we as a country can afford to provide for ], as well as a rise in hostility, resentment, and possibly rape.

and Xunixeon brings up an excellent observation: ANY woman who has had her period and ANY person who has masturbated, has gotten rid of a potential human being. should they necessarily be charged for homicide? lets face the facts, folks. a zygote is not conscious. it doesnt know what its missing; destroying it before it can become a hindrance is the best solution. or, we could just set it up so that all the people who think that a humans life is so fantastically valuable, get to care for all those children that mothers who would have aborted, were forced to conceive.

and lets face it. its an infringement of how women govern their bodies. its a violation of personal choice, in a land that is supposed to be abundant in personal choice. remember? land of the free, home of the brave?

well. at least vasectomies would become more popular.

the day that pro lifers [ in general, as i know there are ALWAYS exceptions ] wake up and realize what comes AFTER the idea, is the day i open my ears to their distorted line of reasoning. -_- yes, people, there ARE consequences to forcing pregnancy on unwilling mothers.

[VkToriA]

If you're going to have sex then be willing to accept what could happen, a child.
If someone gets raped why not keep that child, the child is half yours and that child could turn out to be someone that may find the cure for cancer.

The thing is that sex has long since became more then just means for reproduction. People have sex for a variety of reasons most of which have nothing to do with actually making babies, so by your logic women who for some reason or another choose not to have children should just be celibate for the duration of their lives? After all no birth control works a 100% of the time.

After going through something as traumatic as rape then having the added trauma of discovering that you're pregnant making a woman go though the pregnancy is just cruel.
"why not keep that child" well here's why, because it's not just half yours. You will have to devote nine months of growing it in your body (which lets face it is nothing to trivialize) with it's costs and intrusive exams. Then comes the painful labor that may actually kill you, all the while trying to heal from this horrible thing that happened to you. And all this is for something you didn't want or even had a choice over.
Does that sound appealing at all? Not all women can go through that and be able to look at their child with the unconditional love it deserves.
Sure it can turn out to find the cure for cancer, it can also turn out to be a serial killer or in most cases it could turn out to be just another unremarkable human on our already over populated planet. But that all hypothetical so why even ask that question.

The why I see it pregnancy and parenting is hard enough for those who want it. No woman should go though it if she doesn't want to. Children should be wanted and loved not a mistake and/or a burden.
Sometimes abortion is the responsible choice.

All I hear from pro-lifers is "it's wrong" well how about instead of judging you come up with solutions how to stop abortions, because even if they were illegal they would still be happening.
With a staggering amount of children that have no one, maybe we should concentrate on helping children that already here not zygotes that only have the potential to be.

[gonebynow]

I don't see anything wrong with it when it's an early abortion. I think it's a bit sick after 13 weeks, though, and even sicker after 15.

One of the main things that come into my mind when abortion is brought up is the girls themselves. I care more for the already living than the little baby in their bellies. I want them to be happy, healthy, safe and succesful in whatever they do. A child is a huuuuuuuuge thing to be pinned to you because you chose to make a silly mistake, or even if you did nothing at all but have safe sex, or be raped. If you can't be responsible enough to protect yourself from STI/Ds and pregnancy, or afford the £3 for a couple of condoms, then I don't really see you as responsible enough to have a kid. :P

I've read and heard some nasty things when girls do abortions on themselves. There was once an article I read written by a nurse who was working during a time when abortion was illegal. She had many young girls coming in with injuries from doing it themselves. I don't know if this is suitable for this board, but there was one girl who put the coat hanger in too far and well.. I think you can guess. Poor girl died, I think. With that, I'd prefer to keep them legal and safe. I don't want women hurting and killing themselves when they could have it done in a safe environment by professionals.

I would also like to know how many pro-lifers are handing out free condoms? Or giving people advice on safer sex? Or adopting the children still in the system? Or doing anything but complaining about something which doesn't effect you in any way, shape or form? I'd also like to know what punishments should be set up for those who have illegal abortions (if you want it to be illegal, anyway), and what should be done with all the kids in the adoption system (have a look here (http://forum.baby-gaga.com/about638766.html) for some interesting facts), and the 1million+ kids added to the population?

Wow never meant to write so much. I don't like getting into abortion debates as it's always just one big cycle, but it's personal to me so I always end up getting into it. :(

[el_flel]

The issue of rape: people have mentioned the effect on the woman for having to have a child that was a result of a rape, but what about the child? How do you think they would feel knowing that they are a result of rape?

[Xunixeon]

The issue of rape: people have mentioned the effect on the woman for having to have a child that was a result of a rape, but what about the child? How do you think they would feel knowing that they are a result of rape?

Basically they're be angry at themselves for being the byproduct of the rape.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

The issue of rape: people have mentioned the effect on the woman for having to have a child that was a result of a rape, but what about the child? How do you think they would feel knowing that they are a result of rape?

OR that their mother resents them if not downright loathes them, or reminds them of something terrible that happened in her past, and that the father didnt care enough about them to even exist in their life...

[brettkeane]

This is my view on abortion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edQVu_77K2Y

[BR_FL]

The rape issue is tricky. There has been only one study of the correlation of rape and abortion, at least to my knowledge, conducted by a Dr. Sandra Mahkorn in the late 70's or early 80's. Basically this study showed that about 80 percent or the women in the study who were raped, chose against abortion. Just throwing that in there.

[Xunixeon]

The rape issue is tricky. There has been only one study of the correlation of rape and abortion, at least to my knowledge, conducted by a Dr. Sandra Mahkorn in the late 70's or early 80's. Basically this study showed that about 80 percent or the women in the study who were raped, chose against abortion. Just throwing that in there.

That was then when their parents told them how wrong abortion is. It's ingraining of the morals based on religion and male dominance. Now most women would want to decide whether to keep a rape fetus or abort it. Most will decide on abortion while others decide to give the baby up for adoption.

[Whatwedobest]

I believe that abortion is justified if (if they want it):

1. Women gets raped
2. Child/Woman would die during birth
3. Child has a serious illness that's incurable (the ones you can tell during the pregnancy)

I mean, if you didn't have safe sex, or even if you did have safe sex, if you don't want the child, give it up for adoption. Abortion shouldn't be used as a alternative for safe sex.

[simtopia]

I will come at this at a different angle. I will not use religion for the fact that it was asked and its too many religious bigots in the world for my taste. But I will tell you why I don't believe in abortion. Its a selfish reason but one that makes sense to me. I am black. At one time in America, the supreme court said that people like me weren't a full human being. They actually had the nerve to even assign what percentage of human blacks were. Now think about it, the same supreme court that has now decided that a person isn't a person in the womb once also decided that blacks weren't real people too. You expect me to take their word as sacred and not challenge their reason why abortion is okay? It wasn't just then and it isn't just now. Wrong is wrong. No human can accurately determine life and because of that, I prefer to side with caution.

I say that if people are more responsible with sex or even if they aren't, accept the risks you take like responsible people. Don't use death as an answer to correct the mistakes. I do hold exceptions for rape, incest or risk of death for the mother, nothing less. Even though I still believe a life is being taken, I view those people with more sympathy when it comes to their pain. Well those are my views and hopefully it can add to a healthy debate.

[urisStar]

I will come at this at a different angle. I will not use religion for the fact that it was asked and its too many religious bigots in the world for my taste. But I will tell you why I don't believe in abortion. Its a selfish reason but one that makes sense to me. I am black. At one time in America, the supreme court said that people like me weren't a full human being. They actually had the nerve to even assign what percentage of human blacks were. Now think about it, the same supreme court that has now decided that a person isn't a person in the womb once also decided that blacks weren't real people too. You expect me to take their word as sacred and not challenge their reason why abortion is okay? It wasn't just then and it isn't just now. Wrong is wrong. No human can accurately determine life and because of that, I prefer to side with caution.

I say that if people are more responsible with sex or even if they aren't, accept the risks you take like responsible people. Don't use death as an answer to correct the mistakes. I do hold exceptions for rape, incest or risk of death for the mother, nothing less. Even though I still believe a life is being taken, I view those people with more sympathy when it comes to their pain. Well those are my views and hopefully it can add to a healthy debate.

To be or not to be, that is the question?

Abortion is a personal decision and while all humans make decisions, they don't all come up with the same answer/conclusion. The problem with this whole Debate is that everyone is not expecting others to come up with their own answers/conclusions, but are expected to act like puppets.

They may have legalized abortion to delay the black population since they had to stop sterilizing them against their will, but the day I stop questioning everything and allow others to be in control of my right of choice to decide for myself what I want to believe or don't believe, I am as if aborted.

Don't believe in abortion, don't abort! Don't like abortions, don't do it!

What you personally believe, like, dislike, has nothing to do with anyone else but you. That should make everyone happy to know that they are free to their own thoughts, in fact, that is where one experience real freedom that no one can take away. This is the freedom that the world did not give to you, and so the world don't have the power to take it away! :lol:

[BR_FL]

Xunixeon, your comment is just speculation. If you look at it, less women have had abortions this decade than within the 70's 80's. However, women's rights have been rising. By your statement, women now are even more and dominated by men and religion.

[Splurgy]

I will come at this at a different angle. I will not use religion for the fact that it was asked and its too many religious bigots in the world for my taste. But I will tell you why I don't believe in abortion. Its a selfish reason but one that makes sense to me. I am black. At one time in America, the supreme court said that people like me weren't a full human being. They actually had the nerve to even assign what percentage of human blacks were. Now think about it, the same supreme court that has now decided that a person isn't a person in the womb once also decided that blacks weren't real people too. You expect me to take their word as sacred and not challenge their reason why abortion is okay? It wasn't just then and it isn't just now. Wrong is wrong. No human can accurately determine life and because of that, I prefer to side with caution.

That's a bit different. Black people are people. We're talking about a ball of cells here, or at most a foetus that isn't viable outside the womb (after that point, I'm with you). It's quite literally not human. It could become a walking talking person but it isn't at that point.

[Xunixeon]

Xunixeon, your comment is just speculation. If you look at it, less women have had abortions this decade than within the 70's 80's. However, women's rights have been rising. By your statement, women now are even more and dominated by men and religion.

That because the religious rights have infiltrated their minds. But we need more birth control and keep the population from rising instead of saying abortion is wrong. I don't find anything wrong with that opinion but the more is forced upon the woman then she wouldn't have a choice to abort the rape fetus and suffer repercussions because of that. You would still see the child as a byproduct of rape instead of the actual human being.

[BR_FL]

That because the religious rights have infiltrated their minds. But we need more birth control and keep the population from rising instead of saying abortion is wrong. I don't find anything wrong with that opinion but the more is forced upon the woman then she wouldn't have a choice to abort the rape fetus and suffer repercussions because of that. You would still see the child as a byproduct of rape instead of the actual human being.

I really don't get why you equate pro-life with religion. Albeit, the obnoxious, unnecessarily vocal ones call themselves religious but that does not mean all are. If a religious person can be pro-choice, an atheist can be pro life (and I know some that are).

Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, which is the primary reason why I am against it. It should only be for those life/death cases.

And how does allowing abortion to rape victims=allowing abortions to everyone? I see this argument often. First of all, pregnancy from rape is rare. 5% is the number thrown around often. Second, if there is so much argument about rape victims and abortion, give them the choice only. If you're going to argue for pro-choice, don't use rape victims as an excuse for everyone.

[robokitty]

And how does allowing abortion to rape victims=allowing abortions to everyone? I see this argument often. First of all, pregnancy from rape is rare. 5% is the number thrown around often. Second, if there is so much argument about rape victims and abortion, give them the choice only. If you're going to argue for pro-choice, don't use rape victims as an excuse for everyone.


The logic behind that goes like this.

The argument for the pro-life side is essentially that abortion = murder. In the case of rape victims, the abortion would still be murder. However, what makes murder okay for a rape victim versus a woman who chooses to have sex?

There are several different ways to phrase the answer to that question. My favorite way is simply to say that the "pro-life except in the case of rape/incest" stance is punishing women for being sluts. Incendiary, I know, but it gets the point across.

[lilliandulcia]

What Robokitty said.. but to add onto it.. Rape takes quite a while to prove, she'd be pretty far in the pregnancy before it can be proven, past when abortions are typically done. Also, what if she isn't found to be raped due to not enough evidence? It doesn't mean she absolutely wasn't but the law saying there's not enough proof would mean she's forced to stay pregnant even though it's from rape. What about the women who are raped and choose to not tell anyone for whatever reason? As of now they can still abort, but if it's for rape victims only they wouldn't be able to. What about the people who consent to sex but say it's rape so they can abort? Innocent men could potentially be put in jail or have their reputations ruined just so she can abort. Pretty much everything is wrong with the ideology of "just make it for rape victims".

Some people only approve of abortions in the case of rape or life or death situations but are smart enough to realize that they can't restrict it to that without harming true rape victims, so they are pro choice to make sure rape victims can abort if they choose to.

[cawdor]

The 5th Amendment in the Constitution explicitly states

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The abortion issue is one of state sanctioned murder since the fetus is a life, The fact that when a criminal murders a woman who is pregnant and the fetus dies then the criminal is up against TWO counts of murder. Thus the fetus legally is defined a living.

To sanction the murder of life becuase it has not reached the status of being born is following the same sort of logic saying that a person cannot be free becuase they are not of a certain color.

Having the state sanction and enforcing the murder leads to the slippery slope that life derives from the state. And if that is so then that would mean the state owns us since it has the decision of whether or not we are allowed to live. And if that is so then we are merely property of the state and not people endowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property

Abortions are worse then the death penalty becuase at least the criminals facing the death penalty had their trial

[lilliandulcia]

cawdor, a fetus isn't legally a person nor does abortion fit the legal definition of murder. It counts as a double murder only if the fetus is at a certain point where it could possibly live outside the womb, almost all abortions are before that point.

[robokitty]

What I really want to know is whether pregnant women are allowed to drive in the car pool lane.

[cawdor]

cawdor, a fetus isn't legally a person nor does abortion fit the legal definition of murder. It counts as a double murder only if the fetus is at a certain point where it could possibly live outside the womb, almost all abortions are before that point.

You are incorrect in that statement ...

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386

[Zoxell]

Our "learning" firewall at work "learned" that this is a download site... "BLOCKED" :(

Thank you, cawdor. Finally a voice I can relate to.

robokitty, lilliandulcia, et. al., The real root cause (in my estimation) behind of the modern existence of abortion is fear. Fear of losing a career, fear of changing a lifestyle, fear of how to provide for the child, fear of the future, and the real and possible fear of death. Fear is a powerful and motivating emotion, albeit an irrational one. And it often drives us into making irrational decisions. But to allow this fear to drive us into justifying the killing of another human by dehumanizing it is... inhuman.

Ignoring the ambiguities of what a newly conceived human looks like, we can make a wide generalization and say for all practical purposes that a human zygote "clump of cells" is indeed a human organism. We have spent the past ten thousand years developing into civilized creatures, only to willfully kill our young in a cold and disposable fashion... To me, it is incomprehensible. This is not about religion, morals, or even ethics. It is about killing unborn children who have every right to exist in the same manner every single one of us had the right to exist when we were "clumps of cells". I just really, honestly, and truly do not get how people differentiate abortion from murder.

I think the real conversation should be about how we can support women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies and give real and substantial support, both materially and intrinsically. How can we take the fear and shame out of unwanted pregnancy, and preserve inalienable rights of the person been given life? How can we comfort that terrified teenage girl so she doesn't see the only solution to self abort, then help her care for the child in a way that she can still succeed as a contributing adult? I know it seems a lot easier to just visit the outpatient center and remove the trouble altogether than it does to practice a huge dose of self-sacrifice, courage, and determination to do the right thing. Then again, nothing worth having is easy.

Happy July 4th! ...and for our UK friends ...sorry about the whole Revolution thing.

[Splurgy]

The 5th Amendment in the Constitution explicitly states

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Murder only applies to people.
We're arguing that foetuses aren't people yet.

[Zoxell]

Murder only applies to people.
We're arguing that foetuses aren't people yet.

Is this your only contribution to the conversation? You have been repeatedly proven incorrect, but still you continue to blindly follow this dogma of yours. Wake up.

[robokitty]

*ahem* returning to my previous, very serious question:



A woman is a person.

In order to drive in the carpool lane, you must be carrying 2 people or more in your car.

A single pregnant woman is not allowed to drive in the carpool lane.

Therefore, a fetus is not a person.


TERM LOGIC WINS THE DAY AGAIN!!!!

[davious]

Murder only applies to people.
We're arguing that foetuses aren't people yet.

Really? Is that why Scott Peterson was tried AND convicted of double homicide for killing Lacy and their unborn "just a fetus" child? Will one of you pro-choice people that doesn't believe the unborn are human, aren't people, please explain how it is possible that an unborn child can be killed by a doctor, and it isn't human, but can be killed by someone else, and it is human? How in the hell is its humanity determined by WHAT or WHO killed him or her? Either it is human, and Scott Peterson was rightly tried and convicted for double homicide, or it isn't human, and Scott Peterson was unjustly convicted for a second murder. How can an unborn child be the victim of murder because it is human legally, but it can be aborted, because it isn't human legally?

[Daisie]

A fetus is human, just like any group of human cells - a piece of skin, an organ, a person. What's sometimes up for debate is whether a fetus can be considered a human being, or a person. Arguments based on current laws or court decisions are moot, like ones based on the definition of murder. We debate what should be law, not what is.

It's not easy to neatly classify the stages of human development. The very subject deals with complicated issues, and final decisions are best made by the people involved in individual cases. Pro-choicers respect your belief that personhood (and the rights that go along with it) begins at conception, and they would fight for your right to make a decision based on what you believe. You, on the other hand, would take away that same right from those who believe differently.

[davious]

Daisie, if a fetus is human, then at least in America, it should be "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", should it not? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say so?

IE, if you acknowledge that a fetus is human, which you just did, then you have to admit that their inalienable right to life is being violated. If a fetus is human, as you admit, then abortion is not only murder, but it is also a major civil rights violation. If it is human, as you admit, then it is entitled to basic human rights, that are being denied. END OF STORY.

[lilliandulcia]

People are given those rights, not humans. A fetus isn't legally a person, although it is a human as it came from a human egg and a human sperm.

[Zoxell]

*ahem* returning to my previous, very serious question:
A woman is a person.

In order to drive in the carpool lane, you must be carrying 2 people or more in your car.

A single pregnant woman is not allowed to drive in the carpool lane.

Therefore, a fetus is not a person.


I believe the law states occupants, not persons. Epic Fail.

[Splurgy]

Is this your only contribution to the conversation? You have been repeatedly proven incorrect, but still you continue to blindly follow this dogma of yours. Wake up.
If you read back through the thread, I've made other posts. It's not a dogma; I honestly can't see how you could classify a fertilised egg as a human being but an unfertilised egg and a sperm cell as just cells.
Really? Is that why Scott Peterson was tried AND convicted of double homicide for killing Lacy and their unborn "just a fetus" child? Will one of you pro-choice people that doesn't believe the unborn are human, aren't people, please explain how it is possible that an unborn child can be killed by a doctor, and it isn't human, but can be killed by someone else, and it is human? How in the hell is its humanity determined by WHAT or WHO killed him or her? Either it is human, and Scott Peterson was rightly tried and convicted for double homicide, or it isn't human, and Scott Peterson was unjustly convicted for a second murder. How can an unborn child be the victim of murder because it is human legally, but it can be aborted, because it isn't human legally?
Well that foetus was terminated without the mother's consent, and was all set in life to become a baby.
I believe the law states occupants, not persons. Epic Fail.
The foetus is occupying the car, it just also happens to be occupying the mother.

[Zoxell]

The foetus is occupying the car, it just also happens to be occupying the mother.

As is quite typically the case, you are incorrect.

[davious]

If you read back through the thread, I've made other posts. It's not a dogma; I honestly can't see how you could classify a fertilised egg as a human being but an unfertilised egg and a sperm cell as just cells.

Well that foetus was terminated without the mother's consent, and was all set in life to become a baby.

The foetus is occupying the car, it just also happens to be occupying the mother.

So you are perfectly okay with the idea that someone's humanity is only determined by someone else's say so? So then Hitler was okay with stating that Jews aren't human, therefore they weren't? Black slaves weren't human then, because their white owners didn't consider them to be? Since when is humanity based on someone else's opinion? Either an unborn child is human, in every circumstance, or it isn't human, in every circumstance.

How is an unfertilized egg not human, but a fertilized egg is? Simple enough. Science. We know that it takes the combined DNA of two people to combine in order to form the DNA of a third human. The entire basis of human reproduction is built around this scientific concept. Sperm only contain half of the genetic code required, eggs only contain half of the genetic code required, only when the sperm fertilizes an egg, thus completing the DNA chain, do you have a complete third human being. By themselves, neither a sperm nor will an egg can be a human being. It takes their combined effort to become a human being.

In it's simplest terms, it is a recipe, and until you combine the ingredients, you don't have the food, you just have the ingredients. If you want to make chocolate milk, you need two things. Milk, and either chocolate syrup or chocolate powder. Each ingredient by itself is not and never will be "chocolate milk". Mix the chocolate syrup/powder with the milk, then you get chocolate milk, but it takes the combination of chocolate and milk to do it, just like it takes the combination of a sperm and an egg to create another human being.

If the fetus is only occupying the mother, then you admit that it is a unique and seperate life form, NOT the mother, so her right to her body ends at the possibility of harming it. A passenger in a car is not the car, is it? Therefore, based on your statement, we can only conclude that you also believe that a passenger in a woman is not the woman as well. If that passenger is different than the woman, then any argument about it being the woman's body, and she can do with it as she chooses is null and void, because you have acknowledged that a fetus is NOT the woman's body. So, if you abort, you are violating THAT human's right to live.

[robokitty]

I believe the law states occupants, not persons. Epic Fail.

The foetus is occupying the car, it just also happens to be occupying the mother.

Ah yes, quite true! The classic russian nesting doll carpooling dilemma!



However, if the law only talks about "occupants" (which is doesn't) then isn't that term a step LOWER than "person" or "human?" A fetus doesn't even qualify as an "occupant?"

Does a dog sitting in a car qualify as an "occupant?" It is clearly occupying the car.


Does a Jedi nestled inside a Ton-Ton count as two "occupants" for driving in the carpool lane?


This is important.


Also, LOL.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u302/vlaboy/carpool.jpg

[Rabid]

Daisie, if a fetus is human, then at least in America, it should be "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", should it not? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say so?

IE, if you acknowledge that a fetus is human, which you just did, then you have to admit that their inalienable right to life is being violated. If a fetus is human, as you admit, then abortion is not only murder, but it is also a major civil rights violation. If it is human, as you admit, then it is entitled to basic human rights, that are being denied. END OF STORY.

Human and human being are not one and the same, from my pro-choice perspective. Any cell can be identified as human/monkey/dog or whatever you will simply because of its genetic code, but the act of being a cell needed to compose that animal does not make it that animal. Human cells are building blocks, not people, and as a fetus is no more than a cluster of cells, it is not yet a person.

[davious]

All a "human being" is, when you think about it, is just a cluster of cells, so I fail to see any substantial difference.

[robokitty]

The only difference is x1 trillion more differentiated cells.


Though if there isn't a substantial difference between the two, it does make me wonder whether or not children and adults should be awarded all the same legal rights. That is, why are children granted less rights under the law than adults, when they are clearly the same genetically and both clusters of cells?



And since we're on the subject of cells again, would you consider human a totipotent bone marrow cell from an adult human, spliced/altered in a laboratory so that it's capable of developing into a fetus-->human? At what point is humanhood (or rather personhood) and the rights included thereof granted? At the moment the single cell is created? At the moment it divides? When its heart beats?

[Daisie]

Well, the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, but I realize that's not the point.

My left thumb is not granted human rights simply because it's made of human tissue. The difference between "human," the adjective meaning "of humans," and a human or a human being or a person, is significant, and it's the distinction Rabid was making.

[davious]

I was referring to human not as an adjective, but as a noun. As in, human being, with its own unique genetic code, different than his or her mother, different than his or her father.

An unborn human being is still a human being. Fertilized eggs are not just thumbs, or just a liver, they are an entire human being, contained within a tiny package.

No, a bone marrow cell scientifically mutated into growing would be a clone at best, nothing more. An abomination, nothing more than a real life Frankenstein's Monster. When that bone marrow cell can do it naturally, then bring it up.

[robokitty]

davious - thanks for your response. It stikes me as a bit quixotic, and I totally disagree with it, but I can see where you're coming from and the reasoning that would lead you to the beliefs you have. The difference in beliefs is on such a fundamental level that I'm resigned to agree to disagree.

[Splurgy]

So you are perfectly okay with the idea that someone's humanity is only determined by someone else's say so? So then Hitler was okay with stating that Jews aren't human, therefore they weren't? Black slaves weren't human then, because their white owners didn't consider them to be? Since when is humanity based on someone else's opinion? Either an unborn child is human, in every circumstance, or it isn't human, in every circumstance.

How is an unfertilized egg not human, but a fertilized egg is? Simple enough. Science. We know that it takes the combined DNA of two people to combine in order to form the DNA of a third human. The entire basis of human reproduction is built around this scientific concept. Sperm only contain half of the genetic code required, eggs only contain half of the genetic code required, only when the sperm fertilizes an egg, thus completing the DNA chain, do you have a complete third human being. By themselves, neither a sperm nor will an egg can be a human being. It takes their combined effort to become a human being.

In it's simplest terms, it is a recipe, and until you combine the ingredients, you don't have the food, you just have the ingredients. If you want to make chocolate milk, you need two things. Milk, and either chocolate syrup or chocolate powder. Each ingredient by itself is not and never will be "chocolate milk". Mix the chocolate syrup/powder with the milk, then you get chocolate milk, but it takes the combination of chocolate and milk to do it, just like it takes the combination of a sperm and an egg to create another human being.

If the fetus is only occupying the mother, then you admit that it is a unique and seperate life form, NOT the mother, so her right to her body ends at the possibility of harming it. A passenger in a car is not the car, is it? Therefore, based on your statement, we can only conclude that you also believe that a passenger in a woman is not the woman as well. If that passenger is different than the woman, then any argument about it being the woman's body, and she can do with it as she chooses is null and void, because you have acknowledged that a fetus is NOT the woman's body. So, if you abort, you are violating THAT human's right to live.
If the woman drinks and miscarries as a result of her boozing, should she be done for manslaughter?

[davious]

In my opinion, yes. Any pregnant woman stupid enough to drink to the point that it could cause a miscarriage obviously shows no concern at all for the life of that child, so, yeah, seeing how that fits the definition of manslaughter, if her drinking causes a miscarriage, she should be tried for it. If it could be shown that she drank intentionally to cause a miscarriage, then it should be upgraded to homicide (feticide, maybe?). The same differences between manslaughter and homicide would apply here too. In this case, it would be voluntary manslaughter, as she would be clearly demonstrating a willful disregard for life, as opposed to involuntary manslaughter.

[Splurgy]

In my opinion, yes. Any pregnant woman stupid enough to drink to the point that it could cause a miscarriage obviously shows no concern at all for the life of that child, so, yeah, seeing how that fits the definition of manslaughter, if her drinking causes a miscarriage, she should be tried for it. If it could be shown that she drank intentionally to cause a miscarriage, then it should be upgraded to homicide (feticide, maybe?). The same differences between manslaughter and homicide would apply here too. In this case, it would be voluntary manslaughter, as she would be clearly demonstrating a willful disregard for life, as opposed to involuntary manslaughter.
What about if she was driving carelessly, and got into a crash causing her to miscarry? Should she be punished as if she'd run someone over?
I'm just thinking that'd be a bit harsh. You know, she'd just lost her baby, and then she gets sent to prison or fined or something.

[el_flel]

Really? Is that why Scott Peterson was tried AND convicted of double homicide for killing Lacy and their unborn "just a fetus" child? Will one of you pro-choice people that doesn't believe the unborn are human, aren't people, please explain how it is possible that an unborn child can be killed by a doctor, and it isn't human, but can be killed by someone else, and it is human? How in the hell is its humanity determined by WHAT or WHO killed him or her? Either it is human, and Scott Peterson was rightly tried and convicted for double homicide, or it isn't human, and Scott Peterson was unjustly convicted for a second murder. How can an unborn child be the victim of murder because it is human legally, but it can be aborted, because it isn't human legally?

Well, I'm from the UK where we have a limit on abortion of up to 24 weeks. The law states this on the basis that a foetus below 28 weeks could not survive outside the womb. In the case of Scott Peterson his wife was eight months pregnant - much, much further along in her pregnancy than 24, or 28, weeks. The fact that her baby could have survived outside the womb makes it a double murder.

[robokitty]

davious - What if the miscarriage happens within the first month or two of pregnancy? Many women do not know they are pregnant during this time and therefore do not realize the consequences of their drinking habits.

[Neerie]

An unborn human being is still a human being. Fertilized eggs are not just thumbs, or just a liver, they are an entire human being, contained within a tiny package.

Fertilized eggs are NOT "entire human beings in tiny package". At first the fertilized egg cell will duplicate, and duplicate exponentially into a ball on still unspecialized cells, there are no muscles, no skin, heck, there is not even a placenta.

The first actual human organ created is in fact the placenta, the one organ that we loose at birth and never carry over. The second organ created is, the anus (I'm not kidding here, I did take embryology classes), followed by the mouth and the rest of the digestive tract (at that point the embryo basically looks like a ball with a tube). Neurons start appearing only at ~40 days (5-6 weeks) of pregnancy, and we're talking neurons alone here, not an actual brain capable of any thought or pain.


IMO, as long as the "baby in the making" is still in the embryo stage (less than 8 weeks), where the organs have not even all started to appear, it can not be considered a human being, because at that stage, ants and bees probably have a higher level on self-consciousness than the embryo.

I'm 100% pro-choice, but I am against abusing the right to abortion. I still believe that people should be responsible in their actions and take all measures possible not to become pregnant in the first place if they do not want to have kids, but accidents do happend, and in a world that is already overpopulated, I really fail to see how we could afford forbidding abortions in those cases.

[davious]

What about if she was driving carelessly, and got into a crash causing her to miscarry? Should she be punished as if she'd run someone over?
I'm just thinking that'd be a bit harsh. You know, she'd just lost her baby, and then she gets sent to prison or fined or something.

What if it were a toddler instead? If it was a toddler, and she was driving carlessly, it would obviously be manslaughter, and she would obviously be prosecuted as such. Just because it would be her child doesn't make it not a crime. Like you said, she was driving CARELESSLY. Meaning, without regard for human life. If she cared about her baby, she would be driving carefully, not carelessly.

Got another hypothetical "what if" situation for you to fail to catch me in an inconsistency with? My answer will be the same...if it would be a crime occurring to a person that has been born, it should also be a crime when it happens to one that hasn't been born yet. My answer will continue to be consistent with that principle. My opinion is that the unborn have just as much legal weight as the born do. Manslaughter is manslaughter, regardless of whether the victim was inside the womb or outside of it.

[davious]

If the woman doesn't know she is pregnant, then it would not qualify as disregard for another human life, and at the worst, would be involuntary manslaughter, that is, without intent to harm. Like if you dropped a penny off of the Empire state building, and that penny struck someone in the head and killed them. You obviously didn't know that the penny was going to hit someone, you weren't aiming at anyone, there was mo malicious intent involved. With Splurgy's example, the woman knows she is pregnant, and still chooses to drive recklessly, which would make it voluntary manslaughter rather than involuntary.

But, the fact that she is driving recklessly at all, regardless of whether she knows she is pregnant or not, shows that she has little regard for other life. She is driving recklessly, she could just as easily kill another motorist. And you want me to be sympathetic?

[Ghanima Atreides]

Dropping a penny carries intent. Unless you're very young or otherwise impared, you're going to realize that dropping any metal object from a great height in a populated area may end up hurting someone. We're talking about women who have no idea they are pregnant.

I would like to point out that spontaneous miscarriages within the first 3 months of the pregnancy are possible and quite common especially in the very early stages, and prosecuting women for miscarrying will make a potential manslaughter/murder suspect out of ANY woman who has a miscarriage, which if anything, will make even more women willing to abort. Like someone earlier in this debate said, women finding themselves with an unwanted pregnancy could use support and options, not more reasons to resent the fetus, such as possible prosecution for something that they may not even be able to prevent.

Plus, it's impossible to prove beyond that someone knew they were pregnant when, to use the same example, driving recklessly or not, one of the many dilemmas that anyone wanting to police this would face when trying to decide if it was voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

Something for pro-lifers to think about.

[robokitty]

If the woman doesn't know she is pregnant, then it would not qualify as disregard for another human life, and at the worst, would be involuntary manslaughter, that is, without intent to harm. Like if you dropped a penny off of the Empire state building, and that penny struck someone in the head and killed them. You obviously didn't know that the penny was going to hit someone, you weren't aiming at anyone, there was mo malicious intent involved. With Splurgy's example, the woman knows she is pregnant, and still chooses to drive recklessly, which would make it voluntary manslaughter rather than involuntary.



Involuntary manslaughter is still quite a serious offense that carries anything from fines to several years of jail time. Would you support penalties like this for women in the scenario I gave you?


And even more to think about, should it be excusable for a woman with any risk of health complications to abort her fetus using "self defense" as justification?

[davious]

I believe I have already answered you, robokitty.

Ghanima, not every death is the result of a crime. Just as not every person alive dies via murder, not every baby in utero is aborted. Miscarriages just sometimes happen, through nobody's fault. In the situations that Splurgy and robokitty have brought up though, there was clearly someone at fault. Whether it was knowingly drinking while pregnant, driving recklessly, or whatever. I am not talking about natural miscarriages. I am talking about situations where a mother is doing something to endanger their child's life, as per the examples given.

robokitty, no, it would not be excusable. First, you can't claim self defense when you put yourself into the situation to begin with. You put yourself in potential danger every time you leave your house. Complications are always a possibility with pregnancy, but that is how nature/God designed it. You can't claim self defense for something that is a natural part of human life. There are women that know their family has a history of difficult pregnancies, and get pregnant and deliver perfectly normal babies after perfectly normal pregnancies, and there are women that die during childbirth, despite no history of it, nor any previous medical indications. But, then again, people drop dead for no apparent reason anyway, people with no history of medical problems. Death is sometimes like that. If you are too worried about health risks from pregnancy, don't get pregnant. Pregnancy is 100% preventable if you are willing to take a little effort.

[jooxis]

What if a pregnant woman attacked you with the intent of killing you - and you act in self defense by harming her physically, and the fetus dies in the struggle! Who's responsible for innocent death!?

[Ghanima Atreides]

Davious, I understand that. However, situations may not always be as clear-cut as a visibly pregnant woman driving recklessly. For example, say that a woman has an accident and is taken to the hospital. There, she miscarries her nearly 3-month old baby and is put under suspicion of manslaughter because, in average, women figure out that they are pregnant by that time. However, not all do - some have consistently irregular cycles and can go up to several months into a pregnancy not being aware of it. How can she prove she *wasn't* aware she was pregnant? How can a prosecutor prove she was, and punish her accordingly? The same goes with drinking, or abortions happening spontaneously - a woman might be accused of having inflicted them herself, and some *would* try to miscarry their unwanted babies and claim it was a natural occurrence.

[davious]

Correct me if I am wrong, but, don't bother since I know I am right, the law of the land in the United States of America presumes innocence until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. It would be the role of the prosecutor to prove she knowingly endangered the child, not the role of the defense to prove she didn't. In both Splurgy and robokitty's examples, the woman was engaging in behavior that would knowingly endanger a child.

Any pregnant woman drinking alcohol, for example, or any pregnant woman driving recklessly would certainly fit that description. Common sense would tell you that a pregnant woman who cared about the life growing inside of her would drive more cautiously, not more recklessly. Everyone also knows that driving recklessly increases your chances of getting into accidents. (That goes for anyone driving recklessly, men, women, teenagers, anyone). In fact, driving recklessly is already against the law, so if a pregnant woman drove recklessly, got into an accident, and killed her unborn child, the prosecutor would already have some legal ground to work with, as soon as the police officers arriving at the scene of the accident can state the cause. If the cops determine that there was no crime being committed, ie, the woman was not driving recklessly, then it would just be an accident, no crime, no prosecution. But, the example given specifically stated she was driving recklessly, so that is what I responded to. Further, everyone knows that women are not supposed to drink while pregnant. If a miscarriage occurred, due to drunkeness, that would be fairly easy to prove, a simple BAC test on the fetus' blood would tell. Can you tell me any situation in which it would be okay for a pregnant woman to get drunk? Can you tell me that such a thing would not be considered endangering the life of the child?

[Ghanima Atreides]

You're still talking about women proven beyond a doubt to be pregnant while doing all these things. I'm talking about women who would be strongly suspected of knowingly endangering their unborn children's lives when they didn't, such as the example I gave you, or even more common, a woman going on a binge, unknowingly pregnant. The prosecution would have no case, because as long as the woman had no medical history to prove she was aware of her pregnancy, they could not prove she did, in fact, endanger her baby, and thus prosecute her, but still, it's a pregnant woman who miscarried because of reckless driving/drinking/whatever else, so she is a suspect, no? Likewise, women aware of this law would claim ignorance to escape the consequences. Again, it would be her word against the prosecution's. I know it's idealistic to think only women in Splurgy and Robokitty's examples would be prosecuted, but if such a law existed, stating that a pregnant woman miscarrying due to her own actions is to be accused of manslaughter, the ones in my examples would fall under the same category as well. What I'm saying is, it's one hell of a slippery slope with more downsides than upsides and in my opinion, it would do no good to the pro-life cause.

[Splurgy]

What if a women couldn't support the child? Would you allow the introduction of an extensive social benefits system to support all these mothers you'd be forcing to bear children?

[Xunixeon]

If you force a woman to bear a child, she will regret it for the long time even after the child grows up and gets hit in the carwreck. Have you hear of the woman who murdered her children because she has postpartum depression? That wouldn't happen if she gets help or two, prevent it via abortion since some people with serious mental illnesses can't afford to take care of the child.

[Doddibot]

Can you tell me any situation in which it would be okay for a pregnant woman to get drunk?
While she is being driven to the abortion clinic?

[robokitty]

While she is being driven to the abortion clinic?

Oh god. I LOLed.

[davious]

that would be drunken driving, wouldn't it?

[Shai Hulud]

Abortion should be kept legal, but monitored.

Such as the mother can only have one if the child is born into a bad family, the family doesn't have enough money to raise a child, the birth would harm the mother, and the like.

Pro choice isn't anti life. The fetus is still part of the mother until it's born. Fetus's are like organs, if you think about it. If you take it out, it can't survive.

If you haven't noticed yet, I'm Liberal.

[Neerie]

that would be drunken driving, wouldn't it?

the verb was "being driven" not "driving", so no ;)

[Neerie]

Abortion should be kept legal, but monitored.

Such as the mother can only have one if the child is born into a bad family, the family doesn't have enough money to raise a child, the birth would harm the mother, and the like.

Pro choice isn't anti life. The fetus is still part of the mother until it's born. Fetus's are like organs, if you think about it. If you take it out, it can't survive.

If you haven't noticed yet, I'm Liberal.

But what would be the criteria of "bad family"? And how would the process of judging what is and isn't a bad family be set? How long would it take? Probably too long for the abortion to even be carried on in reasonable delays.

Unless there is already history of family abuse, it's pretty much impossible to know if the parents will be good or bad ones if they are having a first child. And abuse is not just physical, it's psychological as well, but that often goes unnoticed by anyone outside.

Personally, I wish my mother would have had an abortion (even if she never considered it, and not for religious reasons, she did want kids) instead of having me, then I wouldn't have had to listen to her for years going on about how she shouldn't have had kids and how much of a disappointment I have been.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

But what would be the criteria of "bad family"? And how would the process of judging what is and isn't a bad family be set? How long would it take? Probably too long for the abortion to even be carried on in reasonable delays.

Unless there is already history of family abuse, it's pretty much impossible to know if the parents will be good or bad ones if they are having a first child. And abuse is not just physical, it's psychological as well, but that often goes unnoticed by anyone outside.

Personally, I wish my mother would have had an abortion (even if she never considered it, and not for religious reasons, she did want kids) instead of having me, then I wouldn't have had to listen to her for years going on about how she shouldn't have had kids and how much of a disappointment I have been.

not to mention there are kids born into rotten families whose mothers didnt think twice about bringing them into a horrible environment or not.

so which do you think is more cruel...

aborting the child
or
bringing it into a life a misery?

[ personally i think the second is the most cruel of the choices provided. ]
but then, not many pro lifers consider mercy killings as merciful. sadistic, i say.

What if a women couldn't support the child? Would you allow the introduction of an extensive social benefits system to support all these mothers you'd be forcing to bear children?

...yeah, thats basically what ive been arguing with... well, for. rather.

a lot of what i hear is BRING THEM INTO THE WOORLD but no thought whatsoever about how we're supposed to CARE for them After the fact.
because yknow, babies dont run on air.
they need food, clothing, shelter, health care. and if those things cant be provided, theyre better off aborted, really.

[davious]

So, you are advocating stripping away welfare and WIC, and all of that? You are also advocating EVERY poor family to abort, rather than have children, because in your eyes, they would be better off not being alive anyway. That is absolutely disgusting. So, what does a family's yearly income have to be before you would advocate them having children?

[Splurgy]

So, you are advocating stripping away welfare and WIC, and all of that? You are also advocating EVERY poor family to abort, rather than have children, because in your eyes, they would be better off not being alive anyway. That is absolutely disgusting. So, what does a family's yearly income have to be before you would advocate them having children?
Did you even read that post?

[Xunixeon]

Poor families that have enough income to take care of the child should have them even if it's as minute as social security and wic. We're saying as long as you have enough resources to care for the child, then the child would able to grow up into the civilized adult provided you treat the child with respect. But if the poor mother wants to abort, that's her choice. We're not taking her right to have a family away anyways. And there are rich abusive parents that should've aborted their young.

I mean, different families don't always abuse their kids. Abuse should not matter between income levels or style of living. Even if you have enough money and resources, you'll sure to still be abusive to the kid.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Did you even read that post?

QFT.
[ i even come from a poor family, so, lol..? my parents were nothing but honorable and loving, even if they had their bad moments. but they CHOSE to have us, they WANTED us. and even though they WANTED us ( us being myself and my 2 older brothers ), they werent the most pious of parents. imagine what it would be like for a child whose parents DIDNT want them. ]

[Shikonah]

So I’ve read this topic through, and I've long been debating with myself whether or not to get involved, but as this seems to've been revived a little, and my own contemplations haven’t been addressed yet (or if they have, it wasn’t for long or in any notable way), perhaps its time for something a bit more fresh to be thrown into the brew. Regardless, I have to say… I’ve been rather intrigued.

Make note, I’m a pro-choicer, even going as far as to say I’m pro-abortion, since the two are technically synonymous – to respect the choice, is to say abortion is alright in some shape, manner, or form. I’m alright with that, but nobody else is forced to be, and I admit, I see things in three colors: black, white, and neutral-gray, the latter sometimes replaced with red to add a splash of basic color.

So here’s my thinking. I haven't seen very much consideration for the child that's born after the fetus stage -- the living being that can actually think for itself, feel, and sustain life rather well (up to a point; it IS just a baby or child after it's spat forth from its mother's loins). This main debate seems to be mostly around the woman's rights, whether the unborn creature is/is not alive or even just "a life" and the essence of responsibility for actions and knowledge of repercussions. There’s been a sprinkling of “adoption” and “life quality versus quantity,” and even the psychological effect of rape; but nothing that really gets to my point:

I feel that it’s very easy to say that abortion is wrong, and that every child deserves a chance a life, but what happens to the child that grows up to not appreciate, or want, the chance, wishing that the opposite road had been taken? It’s the same with many suicide victims, and people who come from incompetent and abusive families, or children raised in the system, unwanted and/or passed around from home to home. Obviously, that’s not the case 100% of the time – some of these kids get very nice homes and never have to be the wiser of their pasts. But that’s sadly only the case very little of the time – an estimate I’ve seen these days is near 20% or so. What good does it do, to make a child suffer its life for any reason, whether the mother died, or just didn’t want it? Whether she was raped, or just a genuine whore? The child still has to be born if abortion is made illegal or isn’t accepted as an option, still has to grow up, and still has to deal with all of the consequences of its parents’ actions; the parents are only a catalyst, not the end result. A living person shouldn’t be used as a punishment, nor that kind of risk to be taken. As is normally an argument made by pro-lifers, a child, whatever the stage of life, is a person, not a thing.

So how can we use said child as a mere tool, whatever the purpose?

[davious]

Shikonah, if an "abortion survivor" baby grows up to regret being alive, they have the power to change their status. An abortion victim does not. You can correct being alive, you cannot correct death.

Here is something else to consider...considering the vast majority of these conversations tend to be American-centric, (just because there are far more American posters than any other nationality) all those kids who would be better off being aborted than being brought into their miserable lives would still be better off and wealthier than 90% of the world's population. So, if a person's comfort level is a factor in deciding who has the right to live and who does not, then we have to commit mass genocide of a vast majority of the world's population to match your ideals. The idea that a baby would be better off being aborted than born because of the environment they might grow up in is absolutely ridiculous.

[Shikonah]

Shikonah, if an "abortion survivor" baby grows up to regret being alive, they have the power to change their status. An abortion victim does not. You can correct being alive, you cannot correct death.

Here is something else to consider...considering the vast majority of these conversations tend to be American-centric, (just because there are far more American posters than any other nationality) all those kids who would be better off being aborted than being brought into their miserable lives would still be better off and wealthier than 90% of the world's population. So, if a person's comfort level is a factor in deciding who has the right to live and who does not, then we have to commit mass genocide of a vast majority of the world's population to match your ideals. The idea that a baby would be better off being aborted than born because of the environment they might grow up in is absolutely ridiculous.

Actually, my argument isn't totally American-centric. I'm a strong supporter of abortion all over the planet, especially in that other 90% of the world where living conditions are terrible. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to make an innocent being suffer in the first place, let alone in a way enough so that they'll kill themselves later, or be depressed about life. That's like saying that children in Africa or Asia, who are starving, diseased, and dying, shouldn't have been decided against while there was still time to rectify the problem of the mother's pregnancy -- and indeed, I view that it can be considered a problem. Some people liken carrying children to having some manner of fatal disease, and I'd certainly prefer those people abort, rather than have a child that they view as terrible.

[Syanoko]

I've read a bit on abortion.
If your too poor to afford a baby at the time, or don't want one, like if it's immeadiate.
Within a few days of conception, I'd consider it ok to 'Abort' it.
BUT, long term abortions, I consider murder.
Some people have them at 6-9 months even. If the baby's alive when they do the long-ter abortion, sometimes they even kill it, which I consider murder. So Doctors can kill babies in long term abortions? Why not put them in orpahnages, or get them a foster family? I just find this horrific. They should ban these kind of abortions, to begin with!

[davious]

Actually, my argument isn't totally American-centric. I'm a strong supporter of abortion all over the planet, especially in that other 90% of the world where living conditions are terrible. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to make an innocent being suffer in the first place, let alone in a way enough so that they'll kill themselves later, or be depressed about life. That's like saying that children in Africa or Asia, who are starving, diseased, and dying, shouldn't have been decided against while there was still time to rectify the problem of the mother's pregnancy -- and indeed, I view that it can be considered a problem. Some people liken carrying children to having some manner of fatal disease, and I'd certainly prefer those people abort, rather than have a child that they view as terrible.

So, in your opinion, all of those poverty stricken countries should force abortions on their entire populations? How long do you expect those countries to remain in existence? If we made the abortion of all poverty inflicted pregnancies a requirement, basically, taking your idea and running with it, we end up exterminating pretty much all of Africa, a good chunk of India and China as well within a single generation, because so few of them would fit your criteria for it being okay to keep a child, those countries could not continue to exist. So, not only do you support killing babies, now you support what is essentially mass genocide. Oh, and considering the vast majority of those affected by your beliefs are going to be black, Indian or Chinese, you are also a supreme racist besides, because your beliefs are going to affect them far more than any other ethnic group. Congratulations.

[Splurgy]

So, in your opinion, all of those poverty stricken countries should force abortions on their entire populations? How long do you expect those countries to remain in existence? If we made the abortion of all poverty inflicted pregnancies a requirement, basically, taking your idea and running with it, we end up exterminating pretty much all of Africa, a good chunk of India and China as well within a single generation, because so few of them would fit your criteria for it being okay to keep a child, those countries could not continue to exist. So, not only do you support killing babies, now you support what is essentially mass genocide. Oh, and considering the vast majority of those affected by your beliefs are going to be black, Indian or Chinese, you are also a supreme racist besides, because your beliefs are going to affect them far more than any other ethnic group. Congratulations.
That strawman has so little substance that it's not even a strawman, it's just an air-man.
He's not even saying that it would be better to have a few healthy and well fed children than a squillion starving ones. He's simply talking about a law for western country with relatively high levels of wealth.
If you were to apply some sort of birth cap onto these populations in the third world, ethics aside it would probably do some good. People can't just go around having loads of children and not caring for them. I know it's awful to say, but if someone has 12 children on the brink of starvation on a farm, perhaps not letting them have a 13th is a good idea?
Of course, improving contraceptive methods and weeding out the insidious impact of the Catholic Church's teaching that condoms are wrong (they remember that, and forget the no-sex-outside-marriage part) would go a long way to solving this.
It isn't racist, however. It can be construed as such, but these measures aren't designed to specifically target certain racists. If it was racist, they'd be motivated by this, but the suggestion you're arguing about just happens to affect poorer countries more, and the poorer countries tend to be non-white.
And, as we've said time and time again in this thread, most pro-choicers feel that early foetuses aren't actually alive in a humanistic sense and so no genocide would be committed.

[davious]

How did you get the right to make that determination though? Who gave you the power to control how many children other people have? Are you willing to impose your beliefs on 3rd world countries by telling them they cannot have any more children? You say it would do the world good, are you prepared to say that you have the right to tell them that? You pro-choicers are already saying that unless a child's parents meet a certain standard of living, they shouldn't reproduce. You don't see the very slippery slope you are sliding down by doing that?

[Shikonah]

Splurgy: THANK YOU, for catching my basic point. (Psst -- I'm female. :P)

davious: From your first reply, you come across as very much "extremist" and I'm not so sure you're willing to look at the issue with both eyes open. Some people, whether they be individual or groups, should not be having children, especially if they're in a position where raising said child would be detrimental to the offspring's health. So, in order of notion:

I expect these countries to be in existence for as long as they always have -- especially since I'm not saying "NO MORE BABIES EVER!" just "no more babies if you can't feed it and its going to die, anyway." Are you saying that a dead child or infant is any more a positive contribution to a populous than one that wasn't allowed to get to the birth stage, whatever your view is on a creature yet unborn? I certainly don't, and as a matter of fact, I find it to be blatant cruelty.

How do you know my criteria, exactly? I'm not saying they have to live up to my standards of life with all possible material comforts, but I AM saying that the parent(s) need(s) to be able to sustain their child's life until he or she can support him or herself. My checklist, as it were, follows this:
--Can you protect it?
--Can you feed it?
--Can you put a roof over its head?
--Are you able to teach it how to one day survive on its own?
--Can you love it?
--WILL you do all these things?
No? Then don't have a baby, because these are the basic things that children need to grow and prosper.

Really? Did you really go and throw race in there? That's a useless notion, so I'll essentially ignore it.

As far as the right to make these determinations, I could say the same thing to the opposing side. Who has the right to say that someone HAS to have a child as long as its conceived? It makes no true sense either way, but at least the option being open gives people just that -- options.

Who gave me control? Nobody. But as these countries tend to regulate themselves, this is a system already in place. China has long been saying "no more than X kids per family" because they realize that they aren't able to sustain so many people with so few resources. I don't view it as a slippery slope, because it's common sense, and if more people thought about the children before they were born, perhaps the world wouldn't be as filled with suffering people.

Am I willing to impose my beliefs? Most certainly, and not only in 3rd world countries. If children were meant to be born into terrible conditions, Social Services wouldn't exist, it's plain logic. The fact that people are paid to come take children AWAY is proof that the child shouldn't have been put there in the first place.

[davious]

You advocate entire ethnic groups to stop reproducing, and you call me the extremist? Laughable. Your standards would exclude virtually the entire population of multiple countries from ever being allowed to reproduce, yet I am the extremist?

Look over your standards again, and explain which of them is impossible for American women getting abortions to meet, thus making their abortions permissible.

[Xunixeon]

Look at this in this way. The bible said, "Be fruitful and multiply." Already that has caused more overpopulation and effects of overpopulation than ever. Why are we having more kids than neccessary to survive? Is it because of the threats of the so-called one world government? Is it because the liberals are so anti-life they would create the master race of Americans?

Think about the Native Americans for the minute. In the past people forced the native americans into extinction. Now since most of the Native American nations are banning abortions, there are the lot of deaths and injuries from unplanned pregnancies. I'm the Native American, and I support the livelihood of my children but to force pregnancies or abortions on the person is nothing sort of anti-choice since I am a human rights activist. My friend told me, "If the uncle raped the child and she's pregnant, then how is she going to have an abortion if they banned it?"

You are supporting more deaths of women from homemade abortions than from clinical abortions since you treat women like baby machines. How Neanderthal of you to do that! Treating women like property and expecting them to clean and wash after you...

There's the picture of the humans after they devolved from not having abortions.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/16/photos/flo-devolution-dads.jpg

[Shikonah]

You advocate entire ethnic groups to stop reproducing, and you call me the extremist? Laughable. Your standards would exclude virtually the entire population of multiple countries from ever being allowed to reproduce, yet I am the extremist?

Look over your standards again, and explain which of them is impossible for American women getting abortions to meet, thus making their abortions permissible.

Oh please -- give me a break. I couldn't care less what race someone is, because we're all human, and we're all much too numerous. That's why we have these problems of overpopulation, neglect, and abuse. We're not breeding because we want children, we're having sex for the fun of it, and while I'm not saying people shouldn't be smarter about that, I AM saying that children happen because of it, and because they're obviously the "innocents" in the situation, they shouldn't be made to suffer just because someone says its wrong for them to NOT be born.

For the record, all of those standards can be either entirely possible or impossible to meet, if not some manner of combination. If they can't be met, as is obviously my point, then the child shouldn't be forced into existence, despite its initial creation.

[Daisie]

I think that "pro-abortion," especially if you're talking about women in third-world countries, is a misguided stance. Abortion is not fun, pretty, or ideal, and in places where basic medical care is severely lacking or just plain nonexistent, safe and reliable abortions are not easy to come by. Promoting abortion in those circumstances is likely to do more harm than good. Furthermore, you're addressing a symptom, not a root issue. If rape were eliminated, if people practiced safe sex 100% of the time, then unwanted pregnancy would not be an epidemic problem, and abortion would almost never be necessary.

Yes, abortion should be safe and legal. But our goal should be prevention of unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

[davious]

--Can you protect it?
Anyone can protect a baby. This is possible for anyone, so this is an invalid excuse for an abortion. Virtually all women seeking abortions are capable of protecting a baby.

--Can you feed it?
Thanks to WIC, welfare and other programs, there are very few parents whose children starve to death, even in the most impoverished areas of the country. This is an invalid excuse for an abortion. Virtually all women seeking abortions can find a way to obtain food.

--Can you put a roof over its head?
Unless you are referring to the homeless women who can't afford rent, but can afford to spend 250 bucks on an abortion, this is an invalid excuse to have an abortion. Virtually all women who seek abortions have a roof over their head.

--Are you able to teach it how to one day survive on its own?
There is nothing stopping anyone from teaching a child how to one day survive on its own. This is an invalid excuse for an abortion. Virtually all women seeking abortions can do this too.

--Can you love it?
Who defines what love is? Should everyone who thinks their parents don't love them commit suicide? Are women incapable of loving children? This is an invalid excuse for an abortion. Most parents love their children, even the unplanned ones, even if they show it in different ways.

--WILL you do all these things?
Virtually all women who decide to have abortions are capable of all of the above, therefore this is an invalid excuse for an abortion as well. None of your reasons are impossible to meet for just about anyone, therefore they are poor reasons to justify abortion.

The idea that you are doing the child a favor by not forcing it to be born is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. The defeatist attitude of pro choicers is the problem. You don't have any faith that anyone born under less than ideal circumstances can ever rise above, so you preach a message of quitting. Little Johnny or Janey to be won't have a cushy existence, so lets give up, kill them now, save them some pain, rather than see it through, rather than have to work at improving our situation, rather than try to make the child capable of being better. Easier to just not deal with it, so, we will just kill a human being rather than be responsible for our unsafe sexual practices.

[Splurgy]

Anyone can protect a baby. This is possible for anyone, so this is an invalid excuse for an abortion. Virtually all women seeking abortions are capable of protecting a baby.


Thanks to WIC, welfare and other programs, there are very few parents whose children starve to death, even in the most impoverished areas of the country.
I'm going to stop you there.
You were just criticising pro-lifers for trying to promote the idea of abortions in over populated third world countries. You can't then switch the argument back to only wealthy Western countries.

[davious]

I think you mean I was criticizing pro-choicers, not pro-lifers, and I believe my argument has been consistent...if it is a disgusting premise that it is okay to eliminate entire populations of 3rd world countries (because 99.99% of the population would not measure up to Shikonah's standard of living test) then it is also disgusting to eliminate human babies here citing "poverty" as a reason, because the definition of poverty here is far different than it would be in say, Ghana. The American poor (supposedly those too poor to ever have children according to Shikonah) would be considered well-to-do in other countries, so it is a really weak argument in favor of abortion. I am dead set against forcing the populations of ANY country to have mandatory abortions. If the entire planet followed Shikonah's guidelines, almost all of Africa would be wiped out. An entire continent would see its population drop to less than 1% of what it is currently, because of Shikonah's standard of living requirements. Since when does anyone have the right to judge the value of life based on income? Since when is it okay to tell an entire population that they are too poor to have babies, and that they should be forced to abort? Yet, that is what Shikonah advocates.

[Safyre420]

Since when is it okay to tell women that they HAVE to carry the pregnancy full term?

[Shikonah]

Yeah, because it's totally okay for a starving woman in Africa or Asia with AIDS to have 4 children in 5 years.

And you know, it's absolutely alright for a crackhead in America to have two kids, especially when she'd rather feed her habit than her babies.

Those people in the box on the side of the road? SURE! Let them go ahead and start a family -- it's their right, after all, to birth their child in homelessness. They can work up from that, right? The magic of a baby will instantly give them a welfare house.

You're 15? Well, you shouldn't have had sex, huh? Yeah, yeah, the condom broke and the pill didn't work -- excuses, excuses. Save it for the delivery room when its father doesn't support you and your parents kick you out for being a disgrace.

If the entire planet followed Shikonah's guidelines, almost all of Africa would be wiped out. An entire continent would see its population drop to less than 1% of what it is currently, because of Shikonah's standard of living requirements.

You OBVIOUSLY don't know anybody in/from Africa, or Asia, or any sort of "developing" country. I didn't say anything about a person being rich, or even somewhat poor, since my parents didn't have much money or luxury when I was born. But they were still able to take care of me, and that's the point. LUXURY has nothing to do with raising a child, but unless someone has the bare minimum (food access, shelter, emotional support, and mental stability) then they don't need to have children.

Sure, we can say that the ideal plan and goal is to prevent pregnancy in the first place, but to say people need to stop having sex? Please -- you'd probably be stoned in the street or something, with the importance people place on it around the world.

I can't truthfully deny that it's a good ideology for me, to have a system in place that determines whether a child has even the most minute possibility of growing up healthily and happily in its conditions and regulates potential parents, but that's obviously not the kind of world people want to live in (despite places in the world where it's already being done). Instead, because it's much more plausible, I'd rather force my will upon people to think about their circumstances, and the child(ren) they're going to have -- those who've been tortured, in a sense, shouldn't subject others to their misery no matter how much it loves company.

[davious]

Safyre, nobody forced her to have unprotected sex in the first place. it is about accepting responsibility for your actions. If you help create a new life, you have a responsibility to care for it, not kill it. Pregnancy is 100% avoidable, if you want it to be. If you don't want it to be 100% preventable, don't bitch about it when it happens.

Shikonah, So, what you are saying is that Africans with absolutely nothing to their name are better able to take care of their kids than Americans? Food access and shelter are valuable/scarce commodities in some places in Africa, and not completely taken for granted like they are here. Yet, you are now changing your standards, so that having nothing in Africa is okay, but having far more than nothing in America isn't good enough.

[Safyre420]

So if you aren't raped then yes accept responsibility, but if you're raped and a pregnancy is the result the woman shouldn't be forced to carry that pregnancy at all.

[Shikonah]

Safyre, nobody forced her to have unprotected sex in the first place. it is about accepting responsibility for your actions. If you help create a new life, you have a responsibility to care for it, not kill it. Pregnancy is 100% avoidable, if you want it to be. If you don't want it to be 100% preventable, don't bitch about it when it happens.

Shikonah, So, what you are saying is that Africans with absolutely nothing to their name are better able to take care of their kids than Americans? Food access and shelter are valuable/scarce commodities in some places in Africa, and not completely taken for granted like they are here. Yet, you are now changing your standards, so that having nothing in Africa is okay, but having far more than nothing in America isn't good enough.

Okay, you obviously don't know anybody who has no resources here in America, either, nor anybody who comes from a very troubled home. As this isn't anywhere near a communistic society, everyone does not have access to the same goods and materials. I've not changed my standards, I'm merely acknowledging that other countries and continents don't have the same resources as people do here in this one, whether they take it for granted or not. You seem to think I view the world as America-Land, and it's all the same everywhere. You're blatantly wrong, if that's the case.

A person raised in an African village, for example, may well be more cared for than someone in an American metropolis. Sometimes it can't be compared from place to place, but within individual smatterings of communities. Again, if food access, shelter, emotional support, and mental stability are existent AND able to be provided, then there's nothing stopping someone from having a baby. If they can't, then the child-birth plan needs to be reviewed, and quite probably revised.

[el_flel]

Safyre, nobody forced her to have unprotected sex in the first place. it is about accepting responsibility for your actions. If you help create a new life, you have a responsibility to care for it, not kill it. Pregnancy is 100% avoidable, if you want it to be. If you don't want it to be 100% preventable, don't bitch about it when it happens.

Just re-adding this:

in an abortion debate people should remember that not all women who terminate a pregnancy were stupid and didn't use contraception. Contraception can, and does fail. Most sexually active people will probably experience this at some point in their lives.

Taking the assumption that every woman who has an abortion did so because they didn't use contraception is wrong and extremely insulting to the women who don't fall under that category. Pregnancy is only 100% avoidable if you never have sex.

[davious]

Its insulting to the what, 1%? How about it being insulting to assume that the other 99% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of contraceptive failure? Keep in mind, unprotected sex includes all of those cases where they only use condoms most of the time, where the pill is only taken most of the time, etc. Anything less than 100% usage of contraceptive devices is unprotected. This covers just about every unwanted pregnancy.

[el_flel]

What is your basis for those stats? It's right that couples shouldn't have unprotected sex, it's extremely irresponsible and dangerous and I believe that people shouldn't use abortions as a contraception. However, there is a large proportion of women out there who have fallen pregnant because their contraception failed. This survey found that almost half of unplanned pregnancies occured when the couple were using contraception: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3515400.stm. Out of the three people I know who have had abortions all three fell pregnant because their contraception failed. It's offensive to say that all women who have abortions did so because they deliberately had unprotected sex, because it simply isn't true. Not all women who have abortions are that irresponsible.

[Shikonah]

What is your basis for those stats? It's right that couples shouldn't have unprotected sex, it's extremely irresponsible and dangerous and I believe that people shouldn't use abortions as a contraception. However, there is a large proportion of women out there who have fallen pregnant because their contraception failed. This survey found that almost half of unplanned pregnancies occured when the couple were using contraception: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3515400.stm. Out of the three people I know who have had abortions all three fell pregnant because their contraception failed. It's offensive to say that all women who have abortions did so because they deliberately had unprotected sex, because it simply isn't true. Not all women who have abortions are that irresponsible.

That's true; it's not always because a person was stupid that they accidentally had a baby -- even people who are very careful can chance up on getting pregnant. Hell, even I was born after my mother had "Tubal ligation" (got her tubes tied) which is supposed to be rather permanent, in the interests of her not-dying after a second child. Was she also on the pill? Yep, basic regulation. Condoms? Yep, but I was, obviously, one determined sperm who wanted a date with an egg.

Before you twist it and say that I'm insinuating that I should've been aborted, my true point is that it should be a free decision in case someone in that situation doesn't want to take the high risk road. To condemn everyone to the notion that it's wrong would really eliminate these kinds of choices.

[Shiny Guns]

Fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck I hate people who are excessively happy with the padlock button.

Anyway...

Myself, I absolutely despise abortion. I am an anti-abortion Nazi in a lot of ways.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not religious. In fact, religion isn't even part of my life at all. Heck, I don't even believe in God. This is just my opinion.

I think getting an abortion just because you don't want to have a child is incredibly selfish. Life is a rare and precious gift; there are so many people in the world that would do anything to be able to have a child of their own. No matter what happens, no matter what comes our way, we always have a choice. And when we make a choice, we must be prepared to live with any negative consequences of that decision. You made the choice to have sex, and now you have to live with consequences of that. So live with it.

Unfortunately not matter what you do, someone is going to be denied something. It's either the woman who is being denied the right to choose, or the innocent unborn child is being denied the right to live. Which is sad but there's nothing anyone can do about that.

Also... anyone who says an unborn child is "just a clump of cells" is full of crap. Anyone who thinks of it as anything less than a human being, is full of crap. Your heart started beating just a couple of weeks after you were conceived. Because even though you were tinier than a grain of rice... you were very much a living human being.

I don't agree with it being completely disallowed, though. I think it should be allowed under very limited and very strict circumstances, like if there's something seriously wrong with the pregnancy and it could kill you if it is allowed to continue, or if your health or sanity is at stake, or if there is something seriously wrong with the baby and it'll almost certainly die shortly after birth anyway, or won't ever have a chance of having a remotely normal or healthy life, and so on...

But control over your own body is a basic human right. And that I must respect.

[Frenchie]

Also... anyone who says an unborn child is "just a clump of cells" is full of crap. Anyone who thinks of it as anything less than a human being, is full of crap. Your heart started beating just a couple of weeks after you were conceived. Because even though you were tinier than a grain of rice... you were very much a living human being.However, when are the important parts of the brain formed? That's what would define "being alive" for a fetus in my opinion, the same way as death isn't when the heart stops beating, but when the brain shuts down. I also find you somewhat agressive in your argument, maybe a tid bit more mellowness would be welcome.

(the lock was also kind of kind of justified seeing as the last post on this thread was just a couple weeks ago...)

Life is also not that much of a special gift if you consider the rapidly growing number of those "blessed" with it, yet who cannot live in decent conditions.

[jhd1189]

Fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck I hate people who are excessively happy with the padlock button.



Your thread wasn't locked because anyone is "excessively happy with the padlock button"... if you had stopped to read the rules, you might have noticed that there is an entire section explaining how posting a new debate works. Specifically:

Before posting a new thread in the Debate Room, do a quick search to make sure that someone else hasn't already started a debate with a similar topic. If you find a similar debate that hasn't been touched in a while (i.e., several months), then it's probably safe for you to renew the topic by posting a new thread.

It's been a little over two weeks since someone posted on here... not several months. Your thread was locked because it was essentially a duplicate, not because we're trigger happy with the thread locking button.

[Zeth]

I am going to state my views on abortion, I understand that most everyone else either doesn't care, or will hate me, and want to get into a big argument with me, I am not here for that.

1: I am NOT pro-choice. There is a living being in there, and I'm not about to let a teenage girl be curropted by a bunch of abortion doctors who are money hungry.

2: Assuming you are a christian (if you are not you can skip this), in Jewish culture there was no word for a Fetus. Why? The Jewish people belived that it was a child, just developing, and so they treated it (as best they could) like a regular baby.

3: It is murder, anyway you look at it.

4: If you didn't want it, condom or not, you shouldn't have gotten into that situation.

[mamasita]

Im against abortion 100%

If u enjoyed spreading your legs then take care of what you brought upon yourself, your child, your blood, your baby, just think, would you like to be aborted? Your mother gave you a chance to live, which is why your sitting there now, im glad i wasnt aborted, if its a rape victim, then consider adoption then. But its not ok to fix your "problem" by aborting your baby because you couldnt use a condom, or just because it felt good.

[Cabrini6000]

i just think if you don't want the baby use birth control

[Zeth]

i just think if you don't want the baby use birth control

To me that is also 'abortion.'

Why?

Well what does birth control do? It kills the females eggs, and to have a baby you need two things, and you essentially are killing half of a baby. Does that make sense?

[Frenchie]

To me that is also 'abortion.'

Why?

Well what does birth control do? It kills the females eggs, and to have a baby you need two things, and you essentially are killing half of a baby. Does that make sense?I'm not entirely convinced you know how birth control works. You may want to read on the topic from neutral, rigourously scientific sources.

i just think if you don't want the baby use birth controlBirth control can fail. Condoms can break. I don't believe people should be expected to raise a child when they're not ready to.

Im against abortion 100%

If u enjoyed spreading your legs then take care of what you brought upon yourself, your child, your blood, your baby, just think, would you like to be aborted? Your mother gave you a chance to live, which is why your sitting there now, im glad i wasnt aborted, if its a rape victim, then consider adoption then. But its not ok to fix your "problem" by aborting your baby because you couldnt use a condom, or just because it felt good.Appeal to emotion. I wouldn't like to be aborted, but I wouldn't dislike it either... because I wouldn't be there to care, and having not experienced coherent thought before abortion, I don't know how I'd miss it.
You also make it sound like pregnancy is a walk in the park. It's constraining, and giving birth can be painful, not to mention it messes up your body. Is it ok to make a rape victim endure that on top of the rape, which was already a huge trauma?

[Oaktree]

I think considering birth control wrong is a little extreme. Basically, I think once the fetus starts growing and taking in nutrients, it is alive. Those are two major qualifications for calling something life, and while there are forms of life that people do not have much respect for, it is a human life.

An egg will not spontaneously turn into a fetus, so I think it is okay to go on birth control.


You also make it sound like pregnancy is a walk in the park. It's constraining, and giving birth can be painful, not to mention it messes up your body. Is it ok to make a rape victim endure that on top of the rape, which was already a huge trauma?

It can be argued just as easily that abortion is a huge trauma. There have been many cases of women who became severely depressed after getting an abortion for any reason.

[Wild Missingno]

To me that is also 'abortion.'

Why?

Well what does birth control do? It kills the females eggs, and to have a baby you need two things, and you essentially are killing half of a baby. Does that make sense? By that logic, I'm killing half of a baby every month (menstruation). Should I start breeding like a rabbit? Besides, most forms of birth control I know about (not many, admittedly, since my sex ed classes sucked) affect the sperm. Cue Every Sperm is Sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a__AEUVfbys).
Assuming you are a christian (if you are not you can skip this), in Jewish culture there was no word for a Fetus. Why? The Jewish people belived that it was a child, just developing, and so they treated it (as best they could) like a regular baby. Halacha disagrees: (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm) Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' "

[mamasita]

Well theres no excuse now, with today's science! Theres the pill called PlanB, which means if you had wild crazy good sex or if you were a victim of rape and he left it inside you, you have 72 hours to go to the pharmacy and get this pill which kills the egg or the sperms stopping the conception process. You cant go wrong with that

[Wild Missingno]

Well theres no excuse now, with today's science! Theres the pill called PlanB, which means if you had wild crazy good sex or if you were a victim of rape and he left it inside you, you have 72 hours to go to the pharmacy and get this pill which kills the egg or the sperms stopping the conception process. You cant go wrong with that Not every community has access to birth control and Plan B, especially considering that pharmacists can refuse to dispense it. That, and not every teenager (or hell, even adults) knows about their birth control options, due to crappy, abstinence-only sex ed classes. All of that applies to my area. Gee, any wonder why this county has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Georgia?

Although, you're probably one of the few anti-abortion people I've met that's also pro-birth control.

[Frenchie]

Well theres no excuse now, with today's science! Theres the pill called PlanB, which means if you had wild crazy good sex or if you were a victim of rape and he left it inside you, you have 72 hours to go to the pharmacy and get this pill which kills the egg or the sperms stopping the conception process. You cant go wrong with that
Plan B doesn't kill the eggs or the sperm, it modifies the menstruation cycle slightly. LINK (http://health.howstuffworks.com/morning-after.htm)

Also, what if the birth control fails, but you don't become aware of it until your period is late? For your information, at that time, what's developing in your womb doesn't even count as a fetus: it's an embryo. The heart doesn't start beating till around week 6, and even then, the "brain" is too rudimentary for any proper functioning. Pain is also not felt (lacking a developed enough brain) during the first trimester, which is plenty of time to detect a problem with menstruation without needing to eliminate something that can actually be hurt.

[Zeth]

By that logic, I'm killing half of a baby every month (menstruation). ...

Like I said,

I am going to state my views on abortion, I understand that most everyone else either doesn't care, or will hate me, and want to get into a big argument for me, I am not here for that.


I'm not entirely convinced you know how birth control works. You may want to read on the topic from neutral, rigourously scientific sources.


I probably don't, and add the fact that I am male.


Edit: The best thing that you can do if you don't want to get pregnant, use this great thing called abstinance.

[Frenchie]

Like I said,

I probably don't, and add the fact that I am male.

Edit: The best thing that you can do if you don't want to get pregnant, use this great thing called abstinance.Nobody will ridicule you for your opinion if you have the ability to justify them with arguments, rather than state them and be content with that. Remember it's a debate!
Being male is no excuse not to know how Plan B works; as a matter of face, I'm a guy. Some knowledge of biology has never hurt anyone, though.
Abstinence only works if you happen to have a very low libido and/or consider sex as being something that should be avoided. There was a time when desire was seen as a very acceptable part of human nature, and even worshipped in a form (I'm looking at you, Aph'). I'm not sure when mankind started seeing it otherwise, but to me, it wasn't a good move.

[el_flel]

No contraception is 100% effective, even when taken properly.

Emergency contraceptives are about 90% effective if taken within 12 hours of having sex. After that time it becomes less and less effective, so even though it can be taken up to 72 hours afterwards, it's chance of working is significantly lower the longer it's left.

Contraceptives like condoms prevent the sperm from reaching the egg, and most also contain spermicide for extra protection. They are about 95% effective.

Oral contraceptives (or the patch, injection or implant) contain hormones that prevent women from ovulating, as well as other things to make the chance of fertilisation much, much lower. It's effectiveness is about 99%.

The chance of them failing may not sound high, but you need to apply that percentage across the billions of people who use contraceptives and that will tell you how many people are likely to fall pregnant due to contraceptive failure.

Even if a contraceptive does kill a sperm or an egg, no human being is ever going to use all of the eggs/sperm their body produces, so it's really no big loss, but I believe we've already gone over this earlier in the thread.

I wouldn't like to be aborted, but I wouldn't dislike it either... because I wouldn't be there to care, and having not experienced coherent thought before abortion, I don't know how I'd miss it.
*waves* Exactly how I feel.

[clockworkapple]

One thing I find really interesting is that people who want to ban abortion are usually against the use of contraceptives.

My view is this- Life begins prior to conception. The sperm cell and egg cell must be alive for fertilization to occur. However, someone isn't considered 'alive' until they are born. Therefore, I find abortions before the fetus is viable ethical. However, I do support abortions past this time if the mother or fetus is danger.

It kind makes me wonder if people who are anti-choice even met someone who's had an abortion.

[Frenchie]

One thing I find really interesting is that people who want to ban abortion are usually against the use of contraceptives.I think it stems, as I sad, from the belief, conscious or not, that sex is something "dirty" and/or that if something brings pleasure, it should also bring some sort of bad consequence that you shouldn't be able to avoid, as if it were divine punishment for daring to indulge. In short, I'm under the impression that some people feel sort of guilty for having sexual pleasure without a risk of some sort.

[Doddibot]

just think, would you like to be aborted? Your mother gave you a chance to live, which is why your sitting there now, im glad i wasnt aborted
Also think, how would you have liked it if your mother didn't have sex the day you were conceived? She gave you the chance to live, so aren't you glad your mother and father had sex?

So, that means you must also be against people choosing to not have sex. Every time you have the chance to conceive a child, you should. Because doing otherwise is denying a child the chance to enter the world.

No contraception is 100% effective, even when taken properly.
Sterilisation is 100% effective, or at least one can check afterwards to be sure that it was 100% effective. It's pretty much permanent though.

[mamasita]

Also think, how would you have liked it if your mother didn't have sex the day you were conceived? She gave you the chance to live, so aren't you glad your mother and father had sex?

So, that means you must also be against people choosing to not have sex. Every time you have the chance to conceive a child, you should. Because doing otherwise is denying a child the chance to enter the world.


Sterilisation is 100% effective, or at least one can check afterwards to be sure that it was 100% effective. It's pretty much permanent though.

Im not against people having sex, but at least do it responsibly, taking birth control can help reduce the chances, after morning pill can help, theres so many ways you can reduce the chances of an unwanted pregnancy, abstinence is the best one, but its very hard to achieve because cmon, lets be real, i wouldnt want to be without sex cause i dont wanna get pregnant, i would use borth control and demand the guy to wear a condom just to keep it safe. And i have to disagree when you say sterilizing is 100%, my cousin was after her 3rd child, and 8 years later, she got the surprise of her life when she found out she was pregnant again...

[Neil__]

Okay, leave aside what you seem to imagine are 'abortions of convenience' - so what about rape? What about incest? What about ectopic pregnancy? What if a pregnancy will result in the death of both, but abortion will save the life of the woman?

I posted a debate (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=336200) on a nine year old girl a while back - she had an abortion because she was pregnant with twins after years of sexual abuse by her stepfather. She was unlikely to have been able to carry a single foetus to term, never mind twins, and the pregnancy would almost certainly have killed her. I suppose that you'd also call that poor wee girl a murderer, would you?
I agree,

How could a family possibly survive bringing up the child of a rapist?
Could the mother love the child that bares the face of her abuser?
Could her husband?
To expect that family to be even close to functional is nothing but fantasy.

[Vanito]

Well theres no excuse now, with today's science! Theres the pill called PlanB, which means if you had wild crazy good sex or if you were a victim of rape and he left it inside you, you have 72 hours to go to the pharmacy and get this pill which kills the egg or the sperms stopping the conception process. You cant go wrong with that

Morning after is not abortion? But when the sperm touches the egg it becomes abortion? where is the limit? And how to anti abortion people think about using IVF? In IVF many embroys are created and thrown away. Or is it less bad because they were created out of the womb in the first place?