Abortion

[Mehmani]

You pick a ridiculous extreme. But you do mention that it's alright as long as "people don't abuse it". Plus, you seem to be the only one here that even knows what the word "debate" means.

 

 

The problem is, plenty of people will abuse it. Dumb slut 14 year old who gets preggo over the weekend, kills it off and then gets laid again.

 

 

As TDO says, I'm not comfortable with it. What gives you the right to end the life of another? You really shouldn't even be having sex unless you're willing to deal with all possible consequences of it.

 

 

I would say that only in extreme cases, which would be looked over in the court of law (such as your example), should abortion be considered.

 

Time and time again, there have been studies and analysis done on the human fetus and they always show the same result - it isn't alive. It isn't even a true organism yet, more of a growth. It isn't an "unborn child". It's a fetus, one that cannot think and isn't alive. The rape scenario and the unwanted pregnancy scenario are both common. When a condom splits or a woman is raped, they are doomed to having their social status lowered, their income lowered and in third-world countries their life ruined.

[Tentacruel]

Time and time again, there have been studies and analysis done on the human fetus and they always show the same result - it isn't alive. It isn't even a true organism yet, more of a growth. It isn't an "unborn child". It's a fetus, one that cannot think and isn't alive. The rape scenario and the unwanted pregnancy scenario are both common. When a condom splits or a woman is raped, they are doomed to having their social status lowered, their income lowered and in third-world countries their life ruined.

For the last time, you can say it isn't human life, but as long as it contains a single cell, it's alive.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

For the last time, you can say it isn't human life, but as long as it contains a single cell, it's alive.

By that logic, you could say i'm killing humans whenever I scratch my skin.

[Ginko]

well the way i see it is that if you wanna murder a baby, then go right ahead

people make jokes about killing babies all the time, but if you're the guy who does kill babies, hey, not my porrogative

 

i'll start by saying that a prime example of that you should not get an abortion is tim tebow. the doctors said he would be stillborne, and should be aborted, the parents said no, they wanted to birth it anyway, it was alive, and is now the starting quarterback for an nfl team (granted its a bad NFL team but hey, i don't see you people out there making millions of dollars a year for doing what you love (note i said MILLIONS per YEAR))

 

now i think that abortion is only necessarry if either the mother, or the mother and child both will die during birth and a c-section is not an option. kill one to save the other is pretty fair, is it not?

otherwise, when its rape, incest, broken condom, or just a flat out accident, you should not kill a soon-to-be living human person that could become the next JFK, oprah winfrey, Martin Luther King Jr., Franklin Roosevelt, Joe Namath, Wayne Gretzky, Will Smith, Leo Dicaprio, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg ETC. ETC. ETC.

 

VK's Red terror said you could prevent the birth of hitler, or george bush (which i think is a bad thing because i like bush, but that's bringing in politics which really should have no effect on the life of a human fetus) which is also true, but what are the chances in todays world that a maniac like hitler will rise up again and create a WWIII with the diplomatic policies in place today? i mean, if russia, iran, or korea launched nukes, we would all launch them at them and their allies and win easily because, North Korea + Russia + Iran Vs. North America, South America, Europe, the working parts of Africa, and Australia would definitely bring about the end of the world. but i digress...

 

he also said you could use the stem cell research to give new life to mr. mann who became paraplegic in a car accident, but why not use stillborne babies? they're straight up dead without any killing. use them for the stem cell research, not something that WON'T be dead to begin with. plus, he's already 40, and living life like an angry old man. "kill a baby to save me!" he says, and he should get that baby just so the man can walk again? people are born blind, or deaf, or without an arm or a leg and aren't nearly as lucky as this man who has already experienced what he's lost. but once again i ramble...

actually, a new thought just popped into my head! why not abort pig fetuses, or dog fetuses for your goddamn stem-cell reaserch, but oh no, PETA would be all over that saying that "these animals should have rights to not have abortions!" and you know what, so should human fetuses!!!!

 

well sure it helps curb the population, but there are also millions of square miles on this earth uninhabited by humans (not just the oceans smart-asses, lands like alaska, northern and eastern russia, northern north america, the deserts, etc. etc.), and although an undesirable place to live, we could still fit all these people on the earth. so don't talk about over-population until every last square inch of inhabitable land on earth is as overcrowded as NYC or the suburbs of Beijing

 

i think i've ended my rant for the day...

[.Starrk]

Technically, because the supreme court says its constitutional, it's legal.

 

Although the constitution says that people have a right to life, technically, the fetus isn't considered life until 4 months.

 

Therefore, going off about what was put forth abortion, is ok.

 

 

Seriously, its just football. It's just sports. Blah blah blah the parents didn't decide to abort him.

 

Next, it is a woman's right to do what she wishes with her body. She does not need anyone to tell her otherwise.

 

Also, abortion can be a very good thing. Why? Rape and incest. Why? If I were a woman, I dont want to have the child of my attacker. I also do not want to have a child from another member of my family.

 

So, that is a great reason why abortion is good.

[Tentacruel]

By that logic, you could say i'm killing humans whenever I scratch my skin.

Alive =/= a human.

[Hydra of Ages]

well the way i see it is that if you wanna murder a baby, then go right ahead

people make jokes about killing babies all the time, but if you're the guy who does kill babies, hey, not my porrogative

 

You mean prerogative, and it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Also, the question if it actually counts as a baby when it's little more than a parasitic tumor growing within the mother's womb. Therefore, I find 'murdering babies' rather questionable.

 

i'll start by saying that a prime example of that you should not get an abortion is tim tebow. the doctors said he would be stillborne, and should be aborted, the parents said no, they wanted to birth it anyway, it was alive, and is now the starting quarterback for an nfl team (granted its a bad NFL team but hey, i don't see you people out there making millions of dollars a year for doing what you love (note i said MILLIONS per YEAR))

 

Anecdotes aren't evidence. And who cares? We aren't arguing that children who are aborted wouldn't grow up to be regular people, and a certain percentage of regular people do become starting quarterbacks for NFL teams. Thing is, we have a lot of regular people, many of whom would be glad to have taken Tim's spot if he didn't exist; there's not exactly a shortage of people in the world. Quite the opposite, really.

 

now i think that abortion is only necessarry if either the mother, or the mother and child both will die during birth and a c-section is not an option. kill one to save the other is pretty fair, is it not?

otherwise, when its rape, incest, broken condom, or just a flat out accident, you should not kill a soon-to-be living human person that could become the next JFK, oprah winfrey, Martin Luther King Jr., Franklin Roosevelt, Joe Namath, Wayne Gretzky, Will Smith, Leo Dicaprio, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg ETC. ETC. ETC.

 

And exactly what would you do if it's a percentage chance? An 50% chance, for example, they would both die. Would doctors be required to force the woman to carry the child to term if there's a half-chance it'll kill her, even if she never wanted it in the first place? Perhaps even if it was the result of traumatic rape? It's never a clear-cut thing, you know. What percentage of danger would you consider 'reasonable'?

 

And once again, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. People who woman voluntarily carried to term have as much chance of being the next famous-person-of-the-hour as anyone else, and we don't have a shortage of those either. If your argument is that we should maximize the probability of birthing someone exceptional, even at the cost of the parents (especially, once again, if they had no say in having the child in the first place. Rape and the like,) shouldn't we force people to reproduce 24/7?

 

And you can't 'kill' a 'soon-to-be' living thing. If it's not living, it can't be killed. It can be stopped from becoming alive, but that's not killing it, because it was never alive to begin with. I'm not destroying a book when I burn paper for kindling, even though that paper could have became a novel.

 

VK's Red terror said you could prevent the birth of hitler, or george bush (which i think is a bad thing because i like bush, but that's bringing in politics which really should have no effect on the life of a human fetus) which is also true, but what are the chances in todays world that a maniac like hitler will rise up again and create a WWIII with the diplomatic policies in place today? i mean, if russia, iran, or korea launched nukes, we would all launch them at them and their allies and win easily because, North Korea + Russia + Iran Vs. North America, South America, Europe, the working parts of Africa, and Australia would definitely bring about the end of the world. but i digress...

 

Your view on international politics is disturbing. I'd elaborate, but it's off-topic.

 

he also said you could use the stem cell research to give new life to mr. mann who became paraplegic in a car accident, but why not use stillborne babies? they're straight up dead without any killing. use them for the stem cell research, not something that WON'T be dead to begin with. plus, he's already 40, and living life like an angry old man. "kill a baby to save me!" he says, and he should get that baby just so the man can walk again? people are born blind, or deaf, or without an arm or a leg and aren't nearly as lucky as this man who has already experienced what he's lost. but once again i ramble...

actually, a new thought just popped into my head! why not abort pig fetuses, or dog fetuses for your goddamn stem-cell reaserch, but oh no, PETA would be all over that saying that "these animals should have rights to not have abortions!" and you know what, so should human fetuses!!!!

 

We do use stillborn babies. As well as stemcells recovered from placentas. The idea is having more would mean they could hold more tests, and thus have breakthroughs quicker, we already have sources of stemcells, the problem is getting enough of them that all the labs have enough subjects.

 

Also, the idea is to use 'HUMAN' stem-cells. Animal stem-cells, while functioning in a similar manner, are pretty useless in terms of repairing human tissue.

 

Plus, you seem to have forgotten that they aren't running up to babies and slaughtering them for the stem cells, these are abortions that would have happened anyway because the parents didn't want them. It just so happens that in the process is the best opportunity to harvest stem cells.

 

In any case, this argument is largely outdated as labs are getting basically all the cells they need from placentas these days.

 

 

well sure it helps curb the population, but there are also millions of square miles on this earth uninhabited by humans (not just the oceans smart-asses, lands like alaska, northern and eastern russia, northern north america, the deserts, etc. etc.), and although an undesirable place to live, we could still fit all these people on the earth. so don't talk about over-population until every last square inch of inhabitable land on earth is as overcrowded as NYC or the suburbs of Beijing

 

i think i've ended my rant for the day...

 

Lol.

And exactly what would you feed these people? Because, you know, we do need the earth for other things than standing room. I'm not sure if you realize this, but New York and Beijing aren't exactly self-sustaining.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Alive =/= a human.

Fine, you could say i'm killing "things". A cell may be "living", but it is not alive in the sense of being an organism (unless the organism is itself one cell only).

[Dark]

Alive =/= a human.

 

Then you run into a problem. When does a fetus/sperm-and-egg cell/other biological term become classified as a "human"?

 

Are you against killing cells, human cells, or humans?

 

For the first two, clapping my hands is killing both. For the third, you have improperly defined what a "human" is, since one can argue that an embryo is not really a human during the earlier stages of development.

[Tentacruel]

Then you run into a problem. When does a fetus/sperm-and-egg cell/other biological term become classified as a "human"?

 

Are you against killing cells, human cells, or humans?

 

For the first two, clapping my hands is killing both. For the third, you have improperly defined what a "human" is, since one can argue that an embryo is not really a human during the earlier stages of development.

Of course one could argue an embryo is not really a human. One could also argue that it is a human. Personally, I do not believe it is ethical, especially in cases that do not involve rape, incest, or danger to the mother's health. That's just my opinion though, I don't see why this topic generates so much flamerific rage.

[Dark]

That is fine, you can think that it is morally wrong, but you should not restrict other people from getting an abortion. If my wife wants to have an abortion, you should have no say in that. If your wife wants to have an abortion, you should have no say in that. And if you were a woman, you have complete say in whether you want to get an abortion or not. Science has given us this gift, and it should be entirely the woman's right to whether she wants to give birth to a child.

 

Again, don't get involved in other people's lives. That is the same as me saying that eating meat is unethical, therefore no one must eat meat. And from what I can tell, most scientists don't consider abortion killing of a "human", because the word "human" is so ill-defined by pro-life people. Thus, it isn't even murder. I will agree that, for you, it is unethical, but for the rest of us, we should have every right to get an abortion.

 

Pro-choice isn't saying that killing babies is ethically right; it is saying that women should have the option to not have a kid, no matter why they are pregnant. Rape is pretty serious, sure. But so is the breaking of a condom. And so is being drunk. People want abortion to be limited to only rape and similar cases. Why? Abortions are pretty expensive, a lot more expensive than condoms. So if a teenager, for some reason, doesn't use a condom and gets pregnant, she should have the right to prevent her pregnancy because she can't handle the kid.

[Tentacruel]

That is fine, you can think that it is morally wrong, but you should not restrict other people from getting an abortion. If my wife wants to have an abortion, you should have no say in that. If your wife wants to have an abortion, you should have no say in that. And if you were a woman, you have complete say in whether you want to get an abortion or not. Science has given us this gift, and it should be entirely the woman's right to whether she wants to give birth to a child.

 

Well... The pro-life argument is that the embryo is not just part of the mother's body, similar to how it would be illegal for a mother to kill her child that IS born. Also, I understand that second argument, that marriages shouldn't be completely male-dominated, but frankly, I wouldn't want to marry someone that wanted me completely separated from her decisions. (And vice-versa.) Although from a legal standpoint, you are right.

 

Again, don't get involved in other people's lives. That is the same as me saying that eating meat is unethical, therefore no one must eat meat. And from what I can tell, most scientists don't consider abortion killing of a "human", because the word "human" is so ill-defined by pro-life people. Thus, it isn't even murder. I will agree that, for you, it is unethical, but for the rest of us, we should have every right to get an abortion.

 

Again, I understand your point, but if someone where to decide that it's ethical to murder other people based on racial features, should we stay out of his/her way? (I know that the two situations are different, but perhaps you see my point.)

 

Pro-choice isn't saying that killing babies is ethically right; Agreed, a lot of Pro-lifers have that misconception

 

it is saying that women should have the option to not have a kid, no matter why they are pregnant. Rape is pretty serious, sure. But so is the breaking of a condom. And so is being drunk. People want abortion to be limited to only rape and similar cases. Why? Abortions are pretty expensive, a lot more expensive than condoms. So if a teenager, for some reason, doesn't use a condom and gets pregnant, she should have the right to prevent her pregnancy because she can't handle the kid.

 

Not to sound like a complete a******, but you do have the right not to have a kid, just don't have sex. The pro-life argument is that it's not the mother's life to take.

 

On the opposite side, I do find it hard to force someone to have a child when they really don't want a child. That kid's life wouldn't be the greatest you know? And just to be clear, I'm not 100% Pro-Life, I have somewhat mixed feelings on the topic.

 

And on a somewhat unrelated note, I find it absolutely hilarious that a lot of Pro-Lifers consider all Pro-Choicers to be "Pro-Death," while a lot of Pro-Choicers consider all Pro-Lifers to be "Anti-Choice."

[Dark]

Pro-Choice IS Pro-Death from a Pro-Life standpoint,

 

and Pro-Life IS Anti-Choice from a Pro-Choice standpoint.

 

Also, it is different scenario. Killing an "embryo" is MORALLY wrong, but not legally wrong. Killing a person, due to racial reasons or not, is legally wrong.

 

Until somebody proves that abortion is the exact same thing as murder, which is against the law, it should be all in the mother's hands.

[Tentacruel]

Pro-Choice IS Pro-Death from a Pro-Life standpoint,

 

and Pro-Life IS Anti-Choice from a Pro-Choice standpoint.

 

Also, it is different scenario. Killing an "embryo" is MORALLY wrong, but not legally wrong. Killing a person, due to racial reasons or not, is legally wrong.

 

Until somebody proves that abortion is the exact same thing as murder, which is against the law, it should be all in the mother's hands.

That's not exactly something that can be proven, but okay...

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Why should it be a law if it can't be proven?

[Tentacruel]

Why should it be a law if it can't be proven?

 

And just to be clear, I'm not 100% Pro-Life, I have somewhat mixed feelings on the topic.

[The Dark One]

I'm going to clear up a few misconceptions that have been circulating here for a while:

 

1. "Murder" is defined as the unlawful killing of of an individual. Unlawful. This means that abortion is, by definition, not murder.

 

2. I think it's undisputable that a fetus is human. I don't really know how that even came into question. The issue of significance is not whether the fetus is human, but whether we should care.

 

3. "Sentience" is the ability to feel or percieve. In other words, it only refers to an organism's sensory apparatus, and has no relation to said organism's metacognition, which is the traditional litmus test we use to bestow "personhood" upon an organism.

 

4. At no point during a pregnancy is the fetus metacognizant.

--a. This in fact leads to another interesting quandary. As it so happens, a child's brain generally isn't sufficiently developed for this kind of processing until several years into its life. Should young children have rights?

 

5. Shockingly, truly stunningly, there is a separation between church and state in America and most other "civilized" nations. This has tremendous implications. Namely, your quaint little ideas about the soul, while perfectly acceptable in deciding for yourself whether or not to get an abortion, are quite entirely irrelevant in a legalistic debate.

[Tentacruel]

I'm going to clear up a few misconceptions that have been circulating here for a while:

 

1. "Murder" is defined as the unlawful killing of of an individual. Unlawful. This means that abortion is, by definition, not murder.

 

2. I think it's undisputable that a fetus is human. I don't really know how that even came into question. The issue of significance is not whether the fetus is human, but whether we should care.

 

3. "Sentience" is the ability to feel or percieve. In other words, it only refers to an organism's sensory apparatus, and has no relation to said organism's metacognition, which is the traditional litmus test we use to bestow "personhood" upon an organism.

 

4. At no point during a pregnancy is the fetus metacognizant.

--a. This in fact leads to another interesting quandary. As it so happens, a child's brain generally isn't sufficiently developed for this kind of processing until several years into its life. Should young children have rights?

 

5. Shockingly, truly stunningly, there is a separation between church and state in America and most other "civilized" nations. This has tremendous implications. Namely, your quaint little ideas about the soul, while perfectly acceptable in deciding for yourself whether or not to get an abortion, are quite entirely irrelevant in a legalistic debate.

I think you just tore apart all the arguments.