Abortion puzzles me

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

I wonder what percentage of the people posting in this thread have taken a college-level Biology class. It is irrelevant. Even if my post was not 100% accurate scientifically regarding the movement of the baby, the fact is that a embryo is NOT equal to a two year old toddler.

What is your point? A 2 year old toddler is not the same as a 90 year old man either so killing him isn't much of a crime because he is about to die. Your logic is none existent.

You really need that class in Biology.

I took a Honors Biology class last year, BTW.

The difference between a two year old toddler and a 90 year old man is much less significant then it and a embryo. An embryo relies on feeding through a tube in the mothers uterus, while a two year old does not .

What about the newborn? They can't feed themselves either.

Is the newborn living inside of the mothers uterus?

 

[JDrake]

A 90-year old man may rely on a feeding tube... now what's the difference?

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: joedrake
A 90-year old man may rely on a feeding tube... now what's the difference?

What's your point? Is the feeding tube inside another human being?

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

WTF? A embryo is NOT equal to a human life.

So what is the difference between them if they are not both human life? Life beins at conception. Just becaue that life is not viable outside the womb the moment it is formed does NOT mean it is not a human life.

Is a fish not a fish because if you take it out of water it can not sustain life? If you prematurely remove the baby before it is ready to be born and it dies as a result, it does NOT STOP BEING A BABY.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Dacalo

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Tell you what, you worry about yourself and stop carring about what the rest of us do mmmkay?

It's really none of your business.

Put perfectly.

Sweet. I'm gonna go murder 5 people (whom have no friends or close family)... don't worry about them, though, (or me) its none of your business.

This issue is not black/white, zealot. You are a simpleton if you believe that this issue is simplistic as you state.

Although it saddens me to see babies getting aborted especially in later stages, the choice is the mother's alone. It's a choice made between the mother, the doctor, and God/Allah/Buddah (if she is religious).

It isn't the mothers choice. How can any sane person say that it's up to her if she wants to kill a child? She already made her choice.

She decided to risk pregnancy, which has consequences and responsibilities. If she doesn't want those responsibilities then she should abstain from sexual relations or make damn sure that there are two methods of birth control being used. Abortion used as birth control is just sickening.

That sentence is proof that you are the product of misinformation. Please inform yourself of actual facts and statistics before you open your mouth again.

By the wording of your last paragraph, you would support abortion if two methods of birth control are being used. This happens in real life. There is no 100% fool-proof method for preventing pregnancy. Even abstinence is not fool-proof. The successful transfer of semen can occur without intercourse.

How about rape? The woman should make sure that the rapist is using a condom, right?

Don't try to put words into my mouth, fool.

The last sentence proves nothing of the sort, and I don't know how you got that stupid idea in your head.

And no, I don't support abortion if two methods of birth control are used and you still end up pregnant. I know 3 kids - one is "the patch" one is "the pill" and one is "the shot". I know it's not 100%, but that is a risk that you take when you have sex. You need to be prepared to accept the consequences of having sex or you shouldn't be having it.

Abstinance not fool proof? That's bullshit. So semen just magically appears inside a woman and impregnates her? Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Rape is different. It sucks that anyone would have to go through that. I can at least understand why a woman would want an abortion due to that, even if I don't condone it. I know someone who was a product of rape and the world would not be as good of a place if her mother decided to abort her due to her being raped.

 

[Rock Hydra]

My stance on abortion:

I'm pro choice, but do not condone abortion.
If I got a girl pregnant, I would rather help raise the child or let someone else adopt the baby, rather than abort it. If she did want an abortion I would try to get her to reconsider, but accept the fact that if she did, it was her choice.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

False. One is sentient, one is most definitely not.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

Excellent response. I cannot contend with your gargantuan adversarial wit. I bow to you.

As you should, since you obviously couldn't comprehend my statement.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

I wonder what percentage of the people posting in this thread have taken a college-level Biology class. It is irrelevant. Even if my post was not 100% accurate scientifically regarding the movement of the baby, the fact is that a embryo is NOT equal to a two year old toddler.

What is your point? A 2 year old toddler is not the same as a 90 year old man either so killing him isn't much of a crime because he is about to die? Your logic is non-existent.

You really need that class in Biology.

It's sad you failed to see the logic in his claim and had to instead attack a perceived lack of biology education (which is really unnecessary in this argument).

A 2 year old and a 90 year old are sentient beings, a 4 month old embryo is not.

I pity you.

You like that sentient word a lot.

sentient adj. 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

So using dictionaries definition and your opinion about what a life is, a person in a coma ceases being a human. And a child still in the womb has no perceptions or consciousness either.

Pity me? lol

 

[JDrake]

Originally posted by: altonb1
So what is the difference between them if they are not both human life? Life beins at conception. Just becaue that life is not viable outside the womb the moment it is formed does NOT mean it is not a human life.

Is a fish not a fish because if you take it out of water it can not sustain life? If you prematurely remove the baby before it is ready to be born and it dies as a result, it does NOT STOP BEING A BABY.

:thumbsup:
That can be my reply to you, slcentral

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

WTF? A embryo is NOT equal to a human life.

So what is the difference between them if they are not both human life? Life beins at conception. Just becaue that life is not viable outside the womb the moment it is formed does NOT mean it is not a human life.

Is a fish not a fish because if you take it out of water it can not sustain life? If you prematurely remove the baby before it is ready to be born and it dies as a result, it does NOT STOP BEING A BABY.

Do you realize what happens in the first stages of pregnancy? I don't care if it is called a human life, the point is that the embryo (which really, at this point, is just a few cells) think, or even remotely act like a human.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: TBone48

What other legal things involve killing someone?

The war in Iraq?[/quote]

The death penalty? Justifiable homicide? (Killing someone in self-defense.)[/quote]

OK, the death penalty is valid, and many people fight against it. However, it (in theory) involves someone judged to be sane who has committed an act determined to be worthy of death. An unborn child has done nothing to anyone.

As for self defense, that also involves someone taking concious action. I don't see it being applicable here either.

edit: sorry, my quoting skilz aren't.[/quote]

Wrong. The child is syphoning blood and nutrients from the mother without her consent. That's illegal. If you tried to do this and got caught, you'd go to jail. It's a conscious action that the fetus is taking if you're an idiot and believe the fetus is sentient.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Tell you what, you worry about yourself and stop carring about what the rest of us do mmmkay?

It's really none of your business.

Put perfectly.

So said the Nazi guards to curious neighbors of their concentration camps...

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think a ban on all third-trimester abortions, except in cases of rape and incest, is perfectly justified.

The reason why I say first-trimester only is because fetal development occurs so quickly in the latter stages of pregnancy, drawing the line would be an endless struggle. You can make a case for full humanity in the second trimester, but unless you believe humanity (not "life") begins as conception, it's hard to call a 1st-trimester fetus a full-blown human.

I don't see the need for a special law in the case of rape and incest, though...three months seems to me like PLENTY of time to make the necessary arrangements.

Originally posted by: SLCentral
I took a Honors Biology class last year, BTW.

The difference between a two year old toddler and a 90 year old man is much less significant then it and a embryo. An embryo relies on feeding through a tube in the mothers uterus, while a two year old does not .

What if the 90-year old man gest fed through a tube?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: MathMan

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Tell you what, you worry about yourself and stop carring about what the rest of us do mmmkay?

It's really none of your business.

Put perfectly.

So said the Nazi guards to curious neighbors of their concentration camps...

YES, Godwin's law FTW!:evil:

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think a ban on all third-trimester abortions, except in cases of rape and incest, is perfectly justified.

The reason why I say first-trimester only is because fetal development occurs so quickly in the latter stages of pregnancy, drawing the line would be an endless struggle. You can make a case for full humanity in the second trimester, but unless you believe humanity (not "life") begins as conception, it's hard to call a 1st-trimester fetus a full-blown human.

I don't see the need for a special law in the case of rape and incest, though...three months seems to me like PLENTY of time to make the necessary arrangements.

Originally posted by: SLCentral
I took a Honors Biology class last year, BTW.

The difference between a two year old toddler and a 90 year old man is much less significant then it and a embryo. An embryo relies on feeding through a tube in the mothers uterus, while a two year old does not .

What if the 90-year old man gest fed through a tube?

Already answered this. A 90-year old man using a feeding tube is not feeding from a tube in a womans body.

 

[TBone48]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: TBone48

What other legal things involve killing someone?

The war in Iraq?

The death penalty? Justifiable homicide? (Killing someone in self-defense.)[/quote]

OK, the death penalty is valid, and many people fight against it. However, it (in theory) involves someone judged to be sane who has committed an act determined to be worthy of death. An unborn child has done nothing to anyone.

As for self defense, that also involves someone taking concious action. I don't see it being applicable here either.

edit: sorry, my quoting skilz aren't.[/quote]

Wrong. The child is syphoning blood and nutrients from the mother without her consent. That's illegal. If you tried to do this and got caught, you'd go to jail. It's a conscious action that the fetus is taking if you're an idiot and believe the fetus is sentient.[/quote]


What is your problem? Are you capable of intelligent debate at all, or do you only know how to attack like a classless fool? Your "point" is completely moronic, as are you. Good Day, Sir!

 

[SLCentral]

Okay, I'm off. Don't think of my lack of posting as a sign of defeat .

 

[TraumaRN]

Perhaps opening myself to a bunch of flames, but my thought is this. If people want to do something with their bodies then who in the flaming fsck are we to stop them. Their body, their choice between life and death.

And yea I know someone will flame me for that but who am I to tell someone else what to do with their body. In medicine we say a patient always has a choice between going through with a procedure or refusing it, so why do we stop them from making one choice? And please dont answer that it's meant as a rhetorical question.

Two cents.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Wow...

It amazes me the sheer number of morons there are in the world.

Somtimes I pity the human race...we are so dumb.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: MathMan

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Tell you what, you worry about yourself and stop carring about what the rest of us do mmmkay?

It's really none of your business.

Put perfectly.

So said the Nazi guards to curious neighbors of their concentration camps...

YES, Godwin's law FTW!:evil:

without looking it up, i'm gonna wing this:

"whenever the first comparison to hitler or the nazis is mentioned on a forums or in a conversation, the thread is autmoatically over and that person is an instant loser?"

did i get it right -- there abouts? what did i win!

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Perhaps opening myself to a bunch of flames, but my thought is this. If people want to do something with their bodies then who in the flaming fsck are we to stop them. Their body, their choice between life and death.

And yea I know someone will flame me for that but who am I to tell someone else what to do with their body. In medicine we say a patient always has a choice between going through with a procedure or refusing it, so why do we stop them from making one choice? And please dont answer that it's meant as a rhetorical question.

Two cents.

Okay fine...if they get to choose, then the baby must be aborted by stabbing the mother in the head and sucking out her brains.

How selfish! Oh I want MY life and MY life is important but the life of my child isn't as important as mine!!!

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SLCentral
Already answered this. A 90-year old man using a feeding tube is not feeding from a tube in a womans body.

But it's possible. You could set up an exchange membrane for nutrients, and run blood from both patients through the machine.

I'm just saying get a better argument. Being dependent on someone does not absolve them of all responsibility for what happens to you. Quite the opposite, really.

Your best bet is to argue against the a fetus being a real human. Arguing that the woman is "inconvenienced" by pregnancy will NEVER fly.

 

[bigdog1218]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Tell you what, you worry about yourself and stop carring about what the rest of us do mmmkay?

It's really none of your business.

So how's your Anti-SUV brigade doing? Staying out of peoples business? Hypocrites aren't really worth much in any conversation.

Arkitech, totally agree with you, people today choose not to take responsibility for their actions and find it easier to pass them on to someone else. Someone who supports abortion is just saying they they shouldn't be responsible for the choices they make in life. They made bad choices that they led them into a situation, and then use the 1st amendment as an excuse so they can get rid of their problem.

Then, like amicold and SLCentral, they call it a fetus or an embryo because it makes them feel better that their killing nothing, rather than a human being. They come up with absurd reasons to try to justify that they support killing humans. It's a little weird that a baby born at 9 months wasn't a human at 7 months, but a baby born at 7 months is a human. Then they spit out reasons of umbilical cords, sentient life, the babys location, clawing for anything so they can get rid of that responsiblity that they're too scared, or not ready to have.

Then, they cry that even birth control methods don't always work because that's easier then saying, I made the choice to have sex and I'll deal with the responsiblities because of that choice. Instead of actually having reasons fo an abortion, it's just a bunch of excuses so they can live their selfish, irresponsible lives without having the guilt of killing a human.

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

I wonder what percentage of the people posting in this thread have taken a college-level Biology class. It is irrelevant. Even if my post was not 100% accurate scientifically regarding the movement of the baby, the fact is that a embryo is NOT equal to a two year old toddler.

What is your point? A 2 year old toddler is not the same as a 90 year old man either so killing him isn't much of a crime because he is about to die? Your logic is non-existent.

You really need that class in Biology.

It's sad you failed to see the logic in his claim and had to instead attack a perceived lack of biology education (which is really unnecessary in this argument).

A 2 year old and a 90 year old are sentient beings, a 4 month old embryo is not.

I pity you.

You like that sentient word a lot.

sentient adj. 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

So using dictionaries definition and your opinion about what a life is, a person in a coma ceases being a human. And a child still in the womb has no perceptions or consciousness either.

Pity me? lol

I never said an embryo wasn't human, you're reaching there. Even a skin cell is human (as long as it is a human skin cell, obviously).

And yes, since you bring it up, an individual can request the feeding tube pulled when they enter a coma in all but the most backward of societies. What's your point by bringing that up?

I can see a valid argument for conciousness in the third trimester, but arguing that an embryo in the first trimester is sentient is a fool's errand.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: chambersc

without looking it up, i'm gonna wing this:

"whenever the first comparison to hitler or the nazis is mentioned on a forums or in a conversation, the thread is autmoatically over and that person is an instant loser?"

did i get it right -- there abouts? what did i win!

Here's what you win! Text