I need a reason for abortion being legal

[JohnOfSheffield]

I think it does personally.

Sure you do, because YOU would never be in that situation and the thought of you getting to decide over a womans body for ONCE in your life gives you a boner.

Why don't the likes of you just go kill yourselves, you are of absolutely no use in a modern society, no better than the Taliban, you are not content with ruling over your own freedoms, you actually think you have the right to say what a woman can do or not with her OWN body.

You might think i'm joking but i'm not, i really want everyone who thinks like you do to be extinct.

The idea that you ... YOU have the right to say what a woman you don't even know has the right to do with HER own body? Are you seriously saying this, are you seriously suggesting that YOU have that right?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

What if the baby is gonna be a halfwit, like downs etc.. Abortion

Otherwise society has to pay. Lots of retarded babies have been aborted that would otherwise put a big strain on society and the taxpayer.

Well, your mum had you so we are paying the price for that right here on this forum.

Ultrasound doesn't show genetic defects and that is what is used, other methods are likely to cause problems and should not be used unless there are emergencies.

"first, do no harm"

Of course, that doesn't apply in the US anymore.

 

[momeNt]

Sure you do, because YOU would never be in that situation and the thought of you getting to decide over a womans body for ONCE in your life gives you a boner.

Why don't the likes of you just go kill yourselves, you are of absolutely no use in a modern society, no better than the Taliban, you are not content with ruling over your own freedoms, you actually think you have the right to say what a woman can do or not with her OWN body.

You might think i'm joking but i'm not, i really want everyone who thinks like you do to be extinct.

The idea that you ... YOU have the right to say what a woman you don't even know has the right to do with HER own body? Are you seriously saying this, are you seriously suggesting that YOU have that right?

Ready my entire post

Edit: Actually I'll do it for you, since apparently you are chomping at the bit to be argumentative and probably are too busy misreading other posts to be bothered.

I support someone's wishes to get an abortion, I don't want social safety nets picking up the tab for children that people don't want. I would just like something supporting my feelings that is logically consistent that allows for abortion, but is defensible against arguments that it allows for infanticide.

Full disclosure: If I was a legislator I don't think I'd be willing to impose my views on society and ban abortion, I simply am just having trouble finding a logically coherent and consistent argument that satisfies both the right to life of the mother, fetus, infant, and the mother's liberty to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

 

[First]

I think it does personally, but I'm willing to hear your opinion, hopefully you can correct what I feel is something that I believe in that is logically inconsistent.

I support someone's wishes to get an abortion, I don't want social safety nets picking up the tab for children that people don't want. I would just like something supporting my feelings that is logically consistent that allows for abortion, but is defensible against arguments that it allows for infanticide.

So, if you're willing to help me, please do, I'll read your response.

Infanticide is defined as the "killing of a child". There are no scientific facts that concretely define the moment a sperm penetrates an egg as a child. Nor are there any scientific facts that concretely define the moment a sperm penetrates an egg as "life", it's merely another stage in the creation of life, just as killing your sperm via masturbation is killing a lower form of "life". Nothing particularly difficult to understand there.

 

[momeNt]

Infanticide is defined as the "killing of a child". There are no scientific facts that concretely define the moment a sperm penetrates an egg as a child. Nor are there any scientific facts that concretely define the moment a sperm penetrates an egg as "life", it's merely another stage in the creation of life, just as killing your sperm via masturbation is killing a lower form of "life". Nothing particularly difficult to understand there.

So the mother owes a fetus nothing, yet owes an infant the protection and nourishment for it to remain viable, is this what you are getting at?

So it comes down to a debate on when life begins for when we decide the mother owes a duty to the child/fetus/ etc.

What I bolded I hope you understand is completely not part of the argument. A sperm and an egg separately are not a zygote and will never be unless they are joined.

 

[First]

So the mother owes a fetus nothing, yet owes an infant the protection and nourishment for it to remain viable, is this what you are getting at?

No, a fetus is too broad a term, it depends on viability outside the womb because, again, there are different stages to life. For example, one stage of life can be considered 18 years of age; another stage, 18 seconds after conception. Are they the same? Not if you're logically, morally and practically consistent with the different capabilities of said life.

So it comes down to a debate on when life begins for when we decide the mother owes a duty to the child/fetus/ etc.

Societies with governments have to make these judgment calls, yes.

What I bolded I hope you understand is completely not part of the argument. A sperm and an egg separately are not a zygote and will never be unless they are joined.

No, sperm is very much a part of the argument. It is a form of life, it's simply not viable. However, neither is a zygote in the 1st trimester stage of life.

 

[bfdd]

i don't think it should be illegal, but we as society should definitely shun/scold those that use it as casual contraceptive.

 

[momeNt]

No, a fetus is too broad a term, it depends on viability outside the womb because, again, there are different stages to life. For example, one stage of life can be considered 18 years of age; another stage, 18 seconds after conception. Are they the same? Not if you're logically, morally and practically consistent with the different capabilities of said life.



Societies with governments have to make these judgment calls, yes.



No, sperm is very much a part of the argument. It is a form of life, it's simply not viable. Neither is a zygote in the 1st trimester.

An infant is not viable without the care of the mother though. So I think I might have to just be willing to allow for my support of it to simply be a judgement call as you say. Knowing that I feel infanticide is worse, even if it is by subjective standards such, we probably need to allow abortions to not risk dangerous abortion procedures as well as infanticide.

 

[First]

An infant is not viable without the care of the mother though. So I think I might have to just be willing to allow for my support of it to simply be a judgement call as you say. Knowing that I feel infanticide is worse, even if it is by subjective standards such, we probably need to allow abortions to not risk dangerous abortion procedures as well as infanticide.

Yes care of the mother is needed, but there are variations in life. Viability is a sound argument, because otherwise masturbation would be outlawed. But I think that might be, um, difficult to practically legislate or morally monitor, let's put it that way. All life is not created equal, even human life, and if we're honest with ourselves we all know this to be true.

 

[ShawnD1]

What if the baby is gonna be a halfwit, like downs etc.. Abortion

Otherwise society has to pay. Lots of retarded babies have been aborted that would otherwise put a big strain on society and the taxpayer

That seems pretty valid. I'm mostly interesting in arguments for abortions of babies that would be mint condition. No flaws, diseases, no dead mother, etc.

This isn't just "convenience", it's common sense and objectively difficult. To act like adoption is some quick 9 month process is patently false and easily documented with examples. Nothing particularly debatable here.

I didn't say pregnancy is easy. It sucking so much is why abortion would be my #1 choice. As for adoption being easy, yeah it kinda is easy. My half brother and my dad we adopted. Putting a baby up for adoption is as easy as leaving it at the hospital. Someone also said something about taking babies to the fire department, but I never understood the logic in that because the baby is not on fire.

I can't tell if this is a serious post. Are you actually saying all women should be on birth control in case they're raped?

Um yes? Not just rape but regrettable sex in general. Don't tell me you've never slept with someone then thought "damn why did I do that?" There's a joke that alcohol causes pregnancy, and this is what that refers to. Birth control is insurance against bad choices or unfortunate events. Sounds a lot like health insurance actually.... Some people risk it and don't have insurance, then they bitch when some random event happens and they're stuck in some medical situation they can't deal with. Well who's fault is that? Who chose not to take proper precautions? Rape Reap what you sow.

What about the women who can't take birth control because they interact dangerously with other medicine they take? (e.g. cancer meds, seizure meds, etc.)

If you're allergic to copper in IUDs and you don't respond well to hormones, then you're that one person in the world god obviously hates. The other 99.9999999999% of women won't have a problem.

What about women against birth control for religious reasons? What about women on birth control that doesn't work?

Are you suggesting that a woman would be against the use of birth control but would be in favor of abortions? That's just weird. I don't think I've ever heard anyone take that position.

 

[TheVrolok]

Sorry bro, but that's her own fault. Rape is not a choice, but birth control is. Choosing not to be on birth control implicitly means choosing pregnancy.

Lots of other things are like that. Welding without a mask even when they are readily available implies that you don't care if you go blind. Driving without a seatbelt means you don't care if you live or die. Not being on birth control tells the world you're willing to accept the consequences of being raped. It's not like rape is a rare thing. Women know how incredibly common it is. It's very likely that you know several people who have been raped. I'm not even 30 and I know at least 3 women who have admitted it. It's as common as crashing a car, and we wear seatbelts because we know how common that is.

Holy shit and I thought your medical related threads were idiotic; you have outdone yourself, sir.

 

[momeNt]

Yes care of the mother is needed, but there are variations in life. Viability is a sound argument, because otherwise masturbation would be outlawed. But I think that might be, um, difficult to practically legislate or morally monitor, let's put it that way. All life is not created equal, even human life, and if we're honest with ourselves we all know this to be true.

Viability OUTSIDE of the mothers womb, with natural care from the mother. Yea i'm sure machines may be able to make a fetus viable outside of the womb at conception to full term today or someday (not too up on that science enough to say for sure). But a first to even early 3rd trimester fetus would not be viable with just natural care from the mother.

Complicated argument and one that too many get caught up on and let other more important arguments go ignored. IMO let state's decide, if you don't agree with what the state decides, move.

 

[First]

Viability OUTSIDE of the mothers womb, with natural care from the mother.

I know. And as I said, zygote viability outside the womb in the 1st trimester is non-existent. Can't happen.

Yea i'm sure machines may be able to make a fetus viable outside of the womb at conception to full term today or someday (not too up on that science enough to say for sure). But a first to even early 3rd trimester fetus would not be viable with just natural care from the mother.

Complicated argument and one that too many get caught up on and let other more important arguments go ignored. IMO let state's decide, if you don't agree with what the state decides, move.

Letting the state decide abortion has a long and failed history, with literally hundreds of years of failure in terms of health of the mother, health of the baby, etc.

 

[First]

That seems pretty valid. I'm mostly interesting in arguments for abortions of babies that would be mint condition. No flaws, diseases, no dead mother, etc.



I didn't say pregnancy is easy. It sucking so much is why abortion would be my #1 choice. As for adoption being easy, yeah it kinda is easy. My half brother and my dad we adopted. Putting a baby up for adoption is as easy as leaving it at the hospital. Someone also said something about taking babies to the fire department, but I never understood the logic in that because the baby is not on fire.




Um yes? Not just rape but regrettable sex in general. Don't tell me you've never slept with someone then thought "damn why did I do that?" There's a joke that alcohol causes pregnancy, and this is what that refers to. Birth control is insurance against bad choices or unfortunate events. Sounds a lot like health insurance actually.... Some people risk it and don't have insurance, then they bitch when some random event happens and they're stuck in some medical situation they can't deal with. Well who's fault is that? Who chose not to take proper precautions? Rape Reap what you sow.




If you're allergic to copper in IUDs and you don't respond well to hormones, then you're that one person in the world god obviously hates. The other 99.9999999999% of women won't have a problem.




Are you suggesting that a woman would be against the use of birth control but would be in favor of abortions? That's just weird. I don't think I've ever heard anyone take that position.

Holy shit, I just realized I've been punk'd. Damn it why did I fall for it, lol!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ready my entire post

Why would i when you said that you think it does imply infanticide?

That is the statement you made, that is what i'm arguing against, anything you say after that is entirely irrelevant if you are not actually supportive of infanticide.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Viability OUTSIDE of the mothers womb, with natural care from the mother. Yea i'm sure machines may be able to make a fetus viable outside of the womb at conception to full term today or someday (not too up on that science enough to say for sure). But a first to even early 3rd trimester fetus would not be viable with just natural care from the mother.

Complicated argument and one that too many get caught up on and let other more important arguments go ignored. IMO let state's decide, if you don't agree with what the state decides, move.

Doesn't matter at all, what matters is whether the fetus is in a stage where the cerebral cortex is active, that is the marker of life in those of us who are born so it should be the marker for those who are not yet born.

If it's not alive, you cannot kill it.

If it's not alive, you can remove it, no life has been taken, this is good for born human beings and the same should be good for unborn human beings.

I don't give a shit how you FEEL on this matter, rational thought and scientific facts dictate this and it's beyond any question.

If you want to fight it, fight organ donation first, then fight the definition of death and lastly, if you make it that far... well, most fetuses will be born in fields because dead people on life support will be taking up all care of all of the hospitals.

 

[lopri]

Why do you need a reason? Are you pregnant?

 

[umbrella39]

I'm very pro-abortion, but someone pointed out that almost every problem related to unwanted babies can be solved by putting babies up for adoption.
I can't afford to raise a baby --> adoption
I don't want my baby to be born in the year of the dragon - -> adoption
I was raped --> adoption
I don't want a baby --> adoption
Centipedes in my vagina --> adoption


The only stuff left is convenience. Being pregnant sucks. Is that what this is about? It interferes with school, it interferes with work, it makes it harder to find random men to sleep with, it means buying a whole new set of clothes, etc. Is that what it comes down to?

You are forgetting the obvious. Not all women can safely carry a child to term. There are legitimate medical conditions as well as just being too old or too young etc...

 

[StrangerGuy]

Doesn't matter at all, what matters is whether the fetus is in a stage where the cerebral cortex is active, that is the marker of life in those of us who are born so it should be the marker for those who are not yet born.

If it's not alive, you cannot kill it.

If it's not alive, you can remove it, no life has been taken, this is good for born human beings and the same should be good for unborn human beings.

I don't give a shit how you FEEL on this matter, rational thought and scientific facts dictate this and it's beyond any question.

If you want to fight it, fight organ donation first, then fight the definition of death and lastly, if you make it that far... well, most fetuses will be born in fields because dead people on life support will be taking up all care of all of the hospitals.

Ding ding ding. I'm sure as hell not wanting to get born into some shithole to parents that aren't going to care about me or my future, miserable life but it's not like I can choose as a fetus right?

 

[Aikouka]

An infant is not viable without the care of a caretaker though. So I think I might have to just be willing to allow for my support of it to simply be a judgement call as you say. Knowing that I feel infanticide is worse, even if it is by subjective standards such, we probably need to allow abortions to not risk dangerous abortion procedures as well as infanticide.

I bolded your post which shows the issue with your reasoning. The biological parent(s) are not required to take care of an infant that is capable of living outside of the womb; however, someone/something is required to care for it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm very pro-abortion, but someone pointed out that almost every problem related to unwanted babies can be solved by putting babies up for adoption.

The problem is that there aren't enough people available to adopt the number of unwanted infants, especially on a worldwide basis.

Here are several good reasons:

1. There's no such thing as a magic sky-God being that "breathes" a "soul" into the egg at conception and even newborn babies do not possess anything close to a conscious personality. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with abortion because there isn't a person inside of the fetus. Abortion is not murder simply because there is no person in the fetus to be murdered anymore than there is inside of a cow. Cows have heartbeats and DNA, too.

2. The interests of actual conscious people take precedence over that of a potentiality. Allowing people to determine the course of their own lives is a value.

3. Abortion is an effective means of birth control and our world is already suffering from overpopulation.

How's that for a couple reasons? Of course, if you believe in a magic God being then those arguments might not be too compelling. At that point, the issue is one of whether a God exists and not really one of abortion or one of whether the God frowns upon abortion and infanticide--maybe he doesn't depending on your religious mysticism.

 

[Capt Caveman]

The OP should be limited to one retarded thread a day.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ding ding ding. I'm sure as hell not wanting to get born into some shithole to parents that aren't going to care about me or my future, miserable life but it's not like I can choose as a fetus right?

Thanks for the ... support? ... but i don't think you read my post at all.

My point is that a fetus without an active cerebral cortex beyond random impulse is basically just as much alive as a brain dead born human being.

IE, a pre week 25 fetus is as much alive as a person they are harvesting organs from right now in a hospital near you.

The cute thing about this is that no matter how religious people are or how anti women atheists they are they still cannot argue against that, it's a cold hard fact and if they want to fight it they should start with those humans who are born and deemed dead, bonus points if their kids need organs and they argue against giving dead people their organs because the dead people need them.

 

[ShawnD1]

You are forgetting the obvious. Not all women can safely carry a child to term. There are legitimate medical conditions as well as just being too old or too young etc...

Fair enough. Would it make pro life people happier if abortion required a doctor's note? We took that same approach with drugs. Amphetamine is illegal unless a doctor agrees you suck at math (ADHD). Abortion could be illegal unless a doctor agrees it's a good idea.

That might actually work in the US. It wouldn't work in Canada though. It takes years for people in Canada to get a proper diagnosis for ADHD, so how long would it take to get a proper diagnosis of "this baby will kill you"? It would probably have a 7 month waiting list and they would only be able to do late term abortions, which would be ironic because those are the most morally questionable.

Ding ding ding. I'm sure as hell not wanting to get born into some shithole to parents that aren't going to care about me or my future, miserable life but it's not like I can choose as a fetus right?

Believe it or not, most adoptive parents are actually good parents, and it's the same reason gay people are statistically better parents - they only have kids when they want kids. My dad's adoptive parents were pretty solid people. Good jobs, well adjusted, active members in the community, etc. People don't accidentally adopt kids at the most inconvenient time possible.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I bolded your post which shows the issue with your reasoning. The biological parent(s) are not required to take care of an infant that is capable of living outside of the womb; however, someone/something is required to care for it.

Says who?

A week 23 fetus might be viable but it's still not alive, it's a brain dead baby.

It cannot feel anything that a Jellyfish cannot feel but since, like a jellyfish, it has a functioning nerve system, it does feel as jellyfish feel, it has reflexes, it has no thought and the entire part of what makes you you is not yet active.. it's clinically dead, if it was a born human being with this level of cerebral cortex activity we'd check the donors card and harvest or send him down...