Abortion is murder, I tells yah!

[capt_weasle]

Technically a newborn baby is wholly dependent upon the mother for survival. In fact, he is still a parasite until he is around 16...

Also, there is a difference between not having conception and a growing embryo after the fetus. At conception, the cells are fused and growing. Until then there is nothing happening. Right now I am not making using of sperm, but there isn't any potential for life. If you go off of the basis that sperm is in of itself potential for life, then every moment of life (where the male body is able to produce sperm), then it is wasted life. So unless sperm and egg meet, it doesn't matter.

[a happy song]

Technically a newborn baby is wholly dependent upon the mother for survival. In fact, he is still a parasite until he is around 16...

You're blurring the definitions of parasite here to suit your point; it doesn't work that way :/

[blue_tetris]

@Brocerius:

In my opinion, anything that prevents a possible human life is murder. If a bitch don't wanna have sex with me, then she's murdering the possible child that we might have had by accident after a wild night of boning.



Also, if sperm isn't the potential for life, what is? It seems to me that both sperm and egg are potential life, and whether you get rid of them on a daily basis or on a monthly one, it's murder. Stop menstruating, bijjiz.

[TribulatioN]

Technically a newborn baby is wholly dependent upon the mother for survival. In fact, he is still a parasite until he is around 16...

You're blurring the definitions of parasite here to suit your point; it doesn't work that way :/

I think he meant it as a child would be under the care of the mother until they could be legally independent, hence the term parasite would correspond to the fact that someone has to care for her child for a chunk of their life.

@Brocerius:

In my opinion, anything that prevents a possible human life is murder. If a bitch don't wanna have sex with me, then she's murdering the possible child that we might have had by accident after a wild night of boning.

I think that right there just ended this debate. And it'll leave it's mark for a while too.

[capt_weasle]

Also, if sperm isn't the potential for life, what is? It seems to me that both sperm and egg are potential life, and whether you get rid of them on a daily basis or on a monthly one, it's murder. Stop menstruating, bijjiz.

Sperm and eggs by themselves are not potential lives. I was saying that you need both for potential life. It takes two, baby.

[a happy song]

I think he meant it as a child would be under the care of the mother until they could be legally independent, hence the term parasite would correspond to the fact that someone has to care for her child for a chunk of their life.

Erm, of course. The definition of parasite I was clearly using was that of an organism that grows and feeds inside another organism with no benefit to its host. Which a fetus undeniably is. Until a certain point, the host should be allowed to rid itself of that parasite.

It's not even a moral issue at the early stages of a pregnancy unless you can assign human values to parasitic life-forms in very basic stages of development, which is as ridiculous as it reads.

[blue_tetris]

Also, if sperm isn't the potential for life, what is? It seems to me that both sperm and egg are potential life, and whether you get rid of them on a daily basis or on a monthly one, it's murder. Stop menstruating, bijjiz.

Sperm and eggs by themselves are not potential lives. I was saying that you need both for potential life. It takes two, baby.

So it's okay to abort half a baby? Like, as long as you only do one half and leave the other in tact?

That sounds mussssssy.

[TribulatioN]

I think he meant it as a child would be under the care of the mother until they could be legally independent, hence the term parasite would correspond to the fact that someone has to care for her child for a chunk of their life.

Erm, of course. The definition of parasite I was clearly using was that of an organism that grows and feeds inside another organism with no benefit to its host. Which a fetus undeniably is. Until a certain point, the host should be allowed to rid itself of that parasite.

It's not even a moral issue at the early stages of a pregnancy unless you can assign human values to parasitic life-forms in very basic stages of development, which is as ridiculous as it reads.

Oh okay, I get what you meant now. And that makes sense to me.
But then that brings up the question of when aborting is getting rid of a parasite, versus getting rid of a life. Like at what point is the potential baby compared to a flushed sperm, or a murder of a child?

[Deathconciousness]

Two things:

1. I find abortion appalling and that if two people are performing unprotected sex, they should live up to their risk and support the baby. However, i find it more important that the man and woman have the right to choose whether they can have the abortion. In essence i discourage all people from having it, but i thoroughly respect their ability to decide and inevitably have the abortion if they so choose.

2. I despise it when people use contraceptives as a comparable counterargument to a pro-life stance. It really isn't. At all.

[blue_tetris]

2. I despise it when people use contraceptives as a comparable counterargument to a pro-life stance. It really isn't. At all.

If the pro-life side says "It's bad if you stop a potential life." then that's a proper rebuttal. Yeah, it's not the only taking point for the pro-choice side. But it's the necessary rebuttal if "potential life" is the present argument. Lots of things end potential life. After realizing that "potential life" can be ended using a variety of non-abortion means, the pro-life side needs to restructure their argument to make it specifically about abortion and not about "potential life".

I was getting at that, at length.

[Deathconciousness]

I understand that, but its still childish. You should instead determine what they mean by "stopping potential life". If they have a broad definition as you illustrated, then you should make fun of them for being idiots. If they are talking about the idea that potential life means that it is already in process, and not just a possibility (differentiating between "you might get pregnant" versus "you actually are pregnant"), then you shouldn't appeal to the contraceptive line of argument.

[blue_tetris]

It's not my job to forumlate their argument or be Socratic for them.

[Deathconciousness]

You could just say "What do you mean by ____". I wasnt really suggesting you should have a dissertation every time the subject came up.

[origami_alligator]

I think it's fine up to about 12 weeks. After that it starts to get a bit sketchy, since the CNS is quite developed and the child is rapidly approaching the point where it can survive outside the mother (with the help of modern medicine, of course). I'd only support abortion after the first trimester in cases where the woman's life would be in danger otherwise.

I have this strange feeling that about 100 years ago your argument would be considerably different. Just because "modern medicine" can keep a 3-month-old fetus alive doesn't mean that the fetus should be once it is outside of the womb. Modern medicine 100 years ago would be pretty hard pressed to keep a 3-month-old fetus alive. Just because we have the means to keep a 3-month-old fetus alive doesn't mean that is when abortion should be illegal.

To begin I am pro-life, and disagree with the termination of a growing fetus before birth. I don't think that this really has a lot to do with women's rights, as we are dealing with a completely different human being, which comes from her and the father. Despite not having rights as a citizen (a person in the US is considered a citizen after birth), but that does not mean it doesn't have rights as a human being. So looking at the definition of life and the definition of a human being (defined as having the characteristics of such and containing the specific DNA and chromosomes as a human - which the fetus does), you cannot say that the fetus is not a human being, or is not alive. *blah blah blah*

Okay, so you're pro-life. I respect that. I'm pro-choice. And here's what I see as a flaw in your argument: "I don't think that this really has a lot to do with women's rights, as we are dealing with a completely different human being, which comes from her and the father."
hmmm... A completely different... huh. As far as I'm concerned the only thing that separates a woman and her child from conception to birth is their DNA structure. DNA isn't enough of an argument to say that a woman doesn't have the right to abort a thing that is as much a part of her as her beating heart.

Around 98% of abortions occur because it is convenient for the woman in question. That I hate. There are several options after birth, such as adoption. ... The child is half hers. Yes, it is growing inside of her body, but what is growing is an entirely different person. Unfortunately most people don't get that sex produces babies. If you argue that the woman was rights granted to her through the government to "choose," that can be used on the other side, too. If the government does not allow discrimination based on sex, gender, location, income, etc., why should it be withheld from a growing fetus? It didn't choose to be conceived, so it should have a fair shot at life. Now we approach the 2% of women who did not consent to sex, and thus do not wish to have the child. Of course it is very rare for someone to get pregnant from rape.

If 98% of abortions occur because it is convenient for the woman in question then I think that is totally fine. Sure, I think that money shouldn't get in the way of a woman having a baby, but if money is the issue and a woman can't support life after birth then why allow life to occur?
I think women who are having sex for pleasure and not for conceiving a child who also get pregnant due to that act should be in the right to abort the fetus. She was going to lose that egg soon and the man involved was either going to shoot his sperm elsewhere or his body would dispose of it somehow. Just because a sperm and an egg meet is not grounds for saying the woman no longer has any rights concerning the next 9 months of her life.
To respond to: "[The child] didn't choose to be conceived, so it should have a fair shot at life." A woman having sex for pleasure and not for baby-making is obviously not choosing to have her egg fertilized, so why have the next 9 months of her life determined for her?
Simply stating women are not impregnated as often from rape as they are from consensual sex is no grounds for saying they shouldn't be allowed to remove something which THEY WERE NOT WANTING IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IF THEY WERE THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IMPREGNATED THROUGH RAPE.

I'm pro life based on the idea that once the seed has been planted, it's already growing, and has the potential to become a human being after its born. Ending its life during this time, despite not being fully developed, is something I take a personal stance on because, barring non-consensual sex, of which there is another option for, engaging in sexual intercourse means the people involved are accepting all potential ramifications of it regardless of any precautions taken. If a woman is raped, then... well, read on.
...
Adoption, in my eyes, is a risky route to take as an alternative to abortion if a baby was forced on the woman, but it seems to be the more beneficiary one. You give the baby a right to living in this world rather than ending that chance early if the baby is actually unwanted or would not receive adequate care in the hands of the birth mother based on poor finances or other extenuating circumstances. A person (or couple) who wishes to adopt a child and are incapable of carrying one would be given such an opportunity, the birth mother who can't take care of the baby would be relieving herself of the possible negative consequences of bringing a child into the world in an inadequate setting, and the child in question is given the chance at living his or her life. The best thing to do in this situation would ostensibly ensure the capability and responsibility of the adopting person (or couple).
...
As for the birth in question: if it poses the risk to the mother that would kill her if the baby was to be delivered... well, that is really sticky for me to answer. It would be up to her at that point because now both of their lives are in jeopardy. If the sex was consensual, then if she really was willing to sacrifice her life for the baby's, that is an option, but that's a large emotional toll on her friends and family in addition to bieng an absurdly difficult decision to make. If rape was the reason for this pregnancy, then... wow. I don't really see any alternative than abortion unless by the grace of God she can actually survive.

Humans are among the few species upon the planet who engage in sexual activities simply for pleasure. Sure, we know that sex has the /potential/ to create a child. We know that people engage in sex for pleasure and not for creating a child. If a child is conceived, why should the parents be burdened with a child? It should be up to them to decide what is best for them until the fuzzy gray line around 6 months.
...
Considering the toll it takes on the female body just to carry a baby, let alone give birth to the baby, I can see how some women would not appreciate being told they have to keep the baby simply because someone thinks the baby has any right to life. Adoption as an alternative to abortion is a great decision but if the woman does not feel like she should be put through carrying a child then she should have the option to remove said developing child.
...
I have not heard of a single doctor who would save the baby rather than the mother in times where the baby threatens the life of the mother during birth. Even if the mother says she would rather die I don't think doctors are allowed to save the baby.


And just to make things clear, I agree with the current United States law on abortion.
That until the 6-7 month mark when a child has the possibility to survive on its own without artificial aid abortion should be legal. That if the child is endangering the life of the mother during birth it is the mother who should be saved from death.
Pro-choice to me supports both a woman's right to have an abortion and a woman's right to not have an abortion. It means that you can have your religious teachings about abortion and impose them only upon yourself. It means that you can remove an unwanted child from your body as the result of rape or the belief that one is not ready to have a child, whether they would give it up for adoption or keep it.

It simply means that you're not imposing your beliefs on anyone and accepting what others believe. I support those who are pro-life. I don't support the idea that nobody can be pro-choice.

[capt_weasle]

Simply stating women are not impregnated as often from rape as they are from consensual sex is no grounds for saying they shouldn't be allowed to remove something which THEY WERE NOT WANTING IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IF THEY WERE THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IMPREGNATED THROUGH RAPE.

The hell? I never even implied that was a concrete reason against abortion. I was simply stating that fact to avoid anyone coming in here thinking that every rape causes pregnancy.

[blue_tetris]

Simply stating women are not impregnated as often from rape as they are from consensual sex is no grounds for saying they shouldn't be allowed to remove something which THEY WERE NOT WANTING IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IF THEY WERE THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IMPREGNATED THROUGH RAPE.

The hell? I never even implied that was a concrete reason against abortion. I was simply stating that fact to avoid anyone coming in here thinking that every rape causes pregnancy.

It's irrelevant to say "Well, not every rape results in pregnancy." It's just plain irrelevant to bring up. If it happens at all, even if it's irregular, you need to decide what must happen in those cases.

[Atilla]

Now we approach the 2% of women who did not consent to sex, and thus do not wish to have the child. Of course it is very rare for someone to get pregnant from rape. For those who do I don't believe that abortion is a good alternative. First off, abortion can be extremely stressful and for many, damaging, after the fact.

...are you implying that giving birth to the child of your rapist is not extremely stressful and damaging for many? Even ignoring the fact that giving birth at all is pretty damn stressful, being pregnant is a reminder, every damn day for nine moths, that you got raped.

I have this strange feeling that about 100 years ago your argument would be considerably different. Just because "modern medicine" can keep a 3-month-old fetus alive doesn't mean that the fetus should be once it is outside of the womb. Modern medicine 100 years ago would be pretty hard pressed to keep a 3-month-old fetus alive. Just because we have the means to keep a 3-month-old fetus alive doesn't mean that is when abortion should be illegal.

How convenient, then, that it is not 100 years ago. I mean, I'm sure that 1000 years ago people believed the sun orbited Earth. That doesn't mean they are currently incorrect in asserting that it's the other way around.

Also, the 12-week limit is based primarily on the development of the brain and nervous system, rather than the child's ability to survive outside the mother. I'm not sure that it's actually possible to keep the child alive separate from the mother at that time - I know that it is at 24 weeks, so presumably it becomes viable as a separate person somewhere during that time, and to be safe I like to set the limit when it's probably not viable.


On contraception: What about the "morning-after" pill (and, to a much lesser extent, the normal contraceptive pill)? They primarily work by preventing ovulation and inhibiting the passage of sperm, making conception unlikely, but they can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, thus causing it to die. Should using such pills also be regarded as abhorrent?

[Brainwasher]

as the name of the topic says, abortion is morally wrong. It is wrong because it is killing. Killing. A fetus and a zygote are both human life. Humanity is defined by DNA, scientifically. Babies have DNA the exact instant the sperm and egg meet. If killing older people is against the law, why isn't killing younger people even a misdomener? Actually, Catholic Social Teaching, the teaching of all other Christian Denominations, the Jewish Religion, and the Islamic Faith all consider abortion killing, and therefore wrong. Killing a baby is the same to them if someone suddenly killed you, and you didn't see it coming. Conscious thought begins in the first trimester, and continues thereafter.

To reiterate: Abortion is wrong, and should be illegal.

And, the worst possible trauma for a rape victim to then undergo is abortion. The buildup of shock causes (in most cases) post traumatic stress dissorder and mental instability. Rape victims also only account for 1% (you can quote me on this) of abortions.

[yungerkid]

given my three views that 1. morality is irrelevant and unnecessary, 2. human beings are objects and should be treated as such, and 3. humans as a whole need to control the population of earth for maximally efficient use of resources, i am a "pro-choice" as y'all call it.

[Brainwasher]

given my three views that 1. morality is irrelevant and unnecessary,

Morality keeps people from doing anything they want, causing anarchy. If you have no morals, you do what ever you want, and cause chaos. Morality keeps the human race in check, and from becoming a free-for-all-looting-and-killing-fest.

2. human beings are objects and should be treated as such, and

A chair is an object. So you would not care of I came to your house, sat on you whenever I wanted to, and threw you in the dumpster when something broke under my weight?

3. humans as a whole need to control the population of earth for maximally efficient use of resources

What people need is to develop new energy sources and better everything to conserve resourses. Or perhaps conserve by recycling, but not by killing.

[NicNac14]

Sadly I live in Africa and an abortion can mean the difference between life and death of the mother...
if the mother does not carry out that abortion, she will have to pay for the care and wealth of that baby with money she does not have.. therefor she will not have enough to support her and the baby and they will starve and die.. or live a misreable life.. although if she carries out an abortion, she will be able to sustain her living and well.. live..
would you rather kill two people than

---

(not even kill, because it is not even a human yet.. ) remove a parasite that is costly and has the potential to kill more in a unnoticed way..
A women should have the choice...
Its like the government is killing... D:
Also.. girls at the age of 15+ are getting babies which adrupts their education and is probably being rejected by the family
so her life is ruined by that baby.. she would not be able to sustain her own living and the babies and we get the same dillema..
should she ruin her life and possibly kill them both or should she abort and get an education so that she can have more babies later and live?
it should be her choice not the governments..
This does not only happen in Africa..


ps: (i'm not black.. and I don't have a lion in my bachyard :P) I'm Danish..

[Kablizzy]

as the name of the topic says, abortion is morally wrong. It is wrong because it is killing. Killing. A fetus and a zygote are both human life. Humanity is defined by DNA, scientifically. Babies have DNA the exact instant the sperm and egg meet. If killing older people is against the law, why isn't killing younger people even a misdomener? Actually, Catholic Social Teaching, the teaching of all other Christian Denominations, the Jewish Religion, and the Islamic Faith all consider abortion killing, and therefore wrong. Killing a baby is the same to them if someone suddenly killed you, and you didn't see it coming. Conscious thought begins in the first trimester, and continues thereafter.

To reiterate: Abortion is wrong, and should be illegal.

And, the worst possible trauma for a rape victim to then undergo is abortion. The buildup of shock causes (in most cases) post traumatic stress dissorder and mental instability. Rape victims also only account for 1% (you can quote me on this) of abortions.

Say it louder next time. I don't think you've convinced the naysayers.

[yungerkid]

Morality keeps the human race in check, and from becoming a free-for-all-looting-and-killing-fest.

Hobbes? Locke? O_o talk about fundamental. wow. ok, to start with, you're assuming that humans do not have reasoning. is it logical to kill everyone around you? no, because they can help you improve yourself. i'll see where this goes from there.

A chair is an object. So you would not care of I came to your house, sat on you whenever I wanted to, and threw you in the dumpster when something broke under my weight?

if that were my purpose, then i would not care about that. but seeing as my purpose is the expansion and development of my mind, i would not tolerate that. a chair's purpose is to be sat on. so if it had rational thought (we don't know if chairs do or do not), then it should behave according with its purpose. assuming that chairs do not have rational thought, we assign chairs their purposes based on our own purposes. a general rule is that entities can choose their own purposes, whereas objects that are no more than objects cannot. we are both objects *and* entities. thus, we can choose our own purposes. but we are still objects. think about it: if we weren't objects, what would we be? a soul is an object. God is an object. there is no deeper meaning to our existence than our purposes; we live, we live to fulfill them.

What people need is to develop new energy sources and better everything to conserve resourses. Or perhaps conserve by recycling, but not by killing.

it seems i misspoke. what i was trying to say was that we need population control. i was addressing overpopulation, not lack of resources. this planet is overcrowded, and if humans are left to their own devices, it will careen out of control and millions will die because of it. applying this to abortion, why not kill the things while they're still unborn? it would be better than population control by killing grown humans (from a moral standpoint). and that is the key. from a moral standpoint. are we evaluating the physical earth (which is governed by mechanized, unfeeling physical laws) according to *morality*? in that case, our purpose for the earth is incompatible with its current method of operation. we need to rethink our priorities. but this goes back to the necessity of morality, and i digress.

[blue_tetris]

2. human beings are objects and should be treated as such, and

A chair is an object. So you would not care of I came to your house, sat on you whenever I wanted to, and threw you in the dumpster when something broke under my weight?

If a chair comes into my house and I don't want it there, I do everything in my power to remove it. What makes you think you have more rights than a chair when you go into someone else's home unannounced?

[Tanner]

I really don't care either way but I'll be damned if that keeps me from sharing my two cents.

My mom had an abortion when she was younger and she says that the only thing she felt, after it was all over, was relief. Now that she's become a Christian, though, she's a staunch pro-lifer and has even worked in a Pro-Life office. I dunno. I guess if there's one thing you can take away from this it's that, while some women have a bad time of abortions, sometimes it's the best thing in the world to them. I couldn't tell you if it has to do with personal values or just personality.