the truth about abortion

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus


1. ruin the lives of the parents
2. put the child through a life of poverty because the parents werent prepared to provide for it (especially teen parents)

Ignoring the fact that there is an answer does nothing. Your argument is not that great because it appeals to emotion, morality, and opinions of civil ethics. By your admission, 2 of those have no place in this argument. But to answer, if a fetus was human, we are pretending now, do you protect the social lives of 2 irresponsible, in most cases, parents, and make sure that a kid is not raised in poverty (which you are wrongly assuming), and therefore kill it, or let social lives go to the bad place, let people be poor, and let someone live? Do social status and money outweigh life? So your argument is dependant upon the argument for or against a fetus's humanity.

I dont care if its human or not, im using my damn head and not appealing to emotion.

And this is???...

And this is what? If you have something to say, then say it. If its a person or not is a stupid little technicality that can be argued until the end of time. So what if it is?

It seems like saying that a fetus should be killed rather than living a sad, poor life, and ruining its parents' lives, is appealing to emotion. It is not rational, or logical.

Thats my personal feelings on the matter, it has nothing to do with whether i think it should be allowed or not.

Given the option, i would choose adoption, but that doesnt mean i should be able to restrict someone elses liberties.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
See the above posts for why I haven't said anything about religion unless others have tried to use it to their advantage.

A fetus is not a part of a woman's body because it is separated, does not share the mother's DNA or any other genetic information, has its own bloodstream, mainly accepts nutrients, and grows on its own, as much as you or I do. Previously, others have made the argument that it is a part of the mother like my arm is of me, and that is wrong. It is attached to the mother, but is completely genetically separate.

wrong, technically. every fetus gets its mitochondria/mitochondrial dna from the mother ONLY.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus


1. ruin the lives of the parents
2. put the child through a life of poverty because the parents werent prepared to provide for it (especially teen parents)

Ignoring the fact that there is an answer does nothing. Your argument is not that great because it appeals to emotion, morality, and opinions of civil ethics. By your admission, 2 of those have no place in this argument. But to answer, if a fetus was human, we are pretending now, do you protect the social lives of 2 irresponsible, in most cases, parents, and make sure that a kid is not raised in poverty (which you are wrongly assuming), and therefore kill it, or let social lives go to the bad place, let people be poor, and let someone live? Do social status and money outweigh life? So your argument is dependant upon the argument for or against a fetus's humanity.

I dont care if its human or not, im using my damn head and not appealing to emotion.

And this is???...

And this is what? If you have something to say, then say it. If its a person or not is a stupid little technicality that can be argued until the end of time. So what if it is?

It seems like saying that a fetus should be killed rather than living a sad, poor life, and ruining its parents' lives, is appealing to emotion. It is not rational, or logical.

EDIT: To eits, I have not said anything about religion unless someone else tried to use it to their advantage. Don't think that I started it at all. Sorry to repeat myself, but I was writing this as you were posting.

fair enough

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Thats my personal feelings on the matter, it has nothing to do with whether i think it should be allowed or not.

Given the option, i would choose adoption, but that doesnt mean i should be able to restrict someone elses liberties.

Ok, so how is killing a fetus a part of anyone's liberty? See, there is an argument here, and your opinion only lasts as long as the fetus is never a human till birth, which is why I am arguing against you.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: fjord

Well I certainly agree with CycloWizard here. God has no place in a debate on abortion or most anything else. God does not exist, there is no objective evidence to support that claim. Any argument based, in part or in whole, on God or any claim of devine inspiration or knowledge is fundamentaly irrational.

Rational thought, rational discussion, rational argument cannot be engaged or sustained if God is invoked.

What we are left with are constitutional rights for living people. Certainly we know any pregnant woman has constitutional rights. The question remains at what point do dividing cells have constitutional rights--and to what degree.


I support the right of a pregnant woman to decide what happens to her body.

The fetus is not a part of the woman's body. Read the thread. And God is a bit above you and me, but He has reasons for everything that He does. You can logically explain most of what God does, and if you can't, you simply aren't smart enough, and don't know enough. But to answer you, I also agree that all people have rights to their bodies.

There is no objective evidence that God exists (God-- meaning a creator/creative force). This is so far, incontrovertible. No objective evidence at all.

I don't state this to offend anyone--but it needs to be understood that any argument that hinges its premise on deity--is 100% irrational.

A woman's body is involved biologically for approx. 9 months in bringing a pregnancy to term. Additionaly, traditionaly in this society--perhaps another 18 to 24 years are spent primarily by the mother caring for the child. Investing time, energy and economics.

So, if you administratively deny a woman pregnancy termination--you've manifestly affected that womens life (e.g. employment opportunities, earning potential, etc, etc., etc.) for at least 20 or so years.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: themusgrat
See the above posts for why I haven't said anything about religion unless others have tried to use it to their advantage.

A fetus is not a part of a woman's body because it is separated, does not share the mother's DNA or any other genetic information, has its own bloodstream, mainly accepts nutrients, and grows on its own, as much as you or I do. Previously, others have made the argument that it is a part of the mother like my arm is of me, and that is wrong. It is attached to the mother, but is completely genetically separate.

wrong, technically. every fetus gets its mitochondria/mitochondrial dna from the mother ONLY.

You are right. So does that make it part of the mother? Are you still a part of your mother? Nope. As soon as sperm meets egg (or close enough), the embryo, or zygote, or whatever, has its own makeup, different from either parents'.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: fjord

Well I certainly agree with CycloWizard here. God has no place in a debate on abortion or most anything else. God does not exist, there is no objective evidence to support that claim. Any argument based, in part or in whole, on God or any claim of devine inspiration or knowledge is fundamentaly irrational.

Rational thought, rational discussion, rational argument cannot be engaged or sustained if God is invoked.

What we are left with are constitutional rights for living people. Certainly we know any pregnant woman has constitutional rights. The question remains at what point do dividing cells have constitutional rights--and to what degree.


I support the right of a pregnant woman to decide what happens to her body.

The fetus is not a part of the woman's body. Read the thread. And God is a bit above you and me, but He has reasons for everything that He does. You can logically explain most of what God does, and if you can't, you simply aren't smart enough, and don't know enough. But to answer you, I also agree that all people have rights to their bodies.

There is no objective evidence that God exists (God-- meaning a creator/creative force). This is so far, incontrovertible. No objective evidence at all.

I don't state this to offend anyone--but it needs to be understood that any argument that hinges its premise on deity--is 100% irrational.

A woman's body is involved biologically for approx. 9 months in bringing a pregnancy to term. Additionaly, traditionaly in this society--perhaps another 18 to 24 years are spent primarily by the mother caring for the child. Investing time, energy and economics.

So, if you administratively deny a woman pregnancy termination--you've manifestly affected that womens life (e.g. employment opportunities, earning potential, etc, etc., etc.) for at least 20 or so years.

Objective evidence is somewhat relative. To save time and Anand's money, you and I disagree on that, and it is for another thread. I have not hinged my premise on God, moreover. And adoption is still an option, last I heard. No one is ever forced by anything to abort a fetus.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus


1. ruin the lives of the parents
2. put the child through a life of poverty because the parents werent prepared to provide for it (especially teen parents)

Ignoring the fact that there is an answer does nothing. Your argument is not that great because it appeals to emotion, morality, and opinions of civil ethics. By your admission, 2 of those have no place in this argument. But to answer, if a fetus was human, we are pretending now, do you protect the social lives of 2 irresponsible, in most cases, parents, and make sure that a kid is not raised in poverty (which you are wrongly assuming), and therefore kill it, or let social lives go to the bad place, let people be poor, and let someone live? Do social status and money outweigh life? So your argument is dependant upon the argument for or against a fetus's humanity.

I dont care if its human or not, im using my damn head and not appealing to emotion.

And this is???...

And this is what? If you have something to say, then say it. If its a person or not is a stupid little technicality that can be argued until the end of time. So what if it is?

It seems like saying that a fetus should be killed rather than living a sad, poor life, and ruining its parents' lives, is appealing to emotion. It is not rational, or logical.

Thats my personal feelings on the matter, it has nothing to do with whether i think it should be allowed or not.

Given the option, i would choose adoption, but that doesnt mean i should be able to restrict someone elses liberties.

i agree. i feel the exact same way, which is why i am pro-choice. i personally am not for aborting (especially in the 2nd trimester), but that doesn't mean legislators have the right to put a clamp on a woman's own body. a fetus in the first trimester is as alive as neoplastic material, in my opinion... the difference is that if you let it keep growing, it will become a human.

also, many women will abort the baby themselves if they can't have it done safely and in a sterile environment, which isn't a good thing because they run the high risk of bleeding to death or becoming septicemic.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Thats my personal feelings on the matter, it has nothing to do with whether i think it should be allowed or not.

Given the option, i would choose adoption, but that doesnt mean i should be able to restrict someone elses liberties.

Ok, so how is killing a fetus a part of anyone's liberty? See, there is an argument here, and your opinion only lasts as long as the fetus is never a human till birth, which is why I am arguing against you.

Because it really doesnt matter if its a person or not.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: themusgrat
See the above posts for why I haven't said anything about religion unless others have tried to use it to their advantage.

A fetus is not a part of a woman's body because it is separated, does not share the mother's DNA or any other genetic information, has its own bloodstream, mainly accepts nutrients, and grows on its own, as much as you or I do. Previously, others have made the argument that it is a part of the mother like my arm is of me, and that is wrong. It is attached to the mother, but is completely genetically separate.

wrong, technically. every fetus gets its mitochondria/mitochondrial dna from the mother ONLY.

You are right. So does that make it part of the mother? Are you still a part of your mother? Nope. As soon as sperm meets egg (or close enough), the embryo, or zygote, or whatever, has its own makeup, different from either parents'.

actually, i wasn't a human until the 2nd trimester (about week 24). i became a living organism at about week 15 (again, in the 2nd trimester). strangely enough, between weeks 15 and 24, i don't believe i was a human. i was human, but not A human.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: eits

actually, i wasn't a human until the 2nd trimester (about week 24). i became a living organism at about week 15 (again, in the 2nd trimester). strangely enough, between weeks 15 and 24, i don't believe i was a human. i was human, but not A human.

Why? So something human should not be protected? Only humans? That is a very fine line that whatever is human doesn't appreciate, and I still disagree. :moon:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: eits

actually, i wasn't a human until the 2nd trimester (about week 24). i became a living organism at about week 15 (again, in the 2nd trimester). strangely enough, between weeks 15 and 24, i don't believe i was a human. i was human, but not A human.

Why? So something human should not be protected? Only humans? That is a very fine line that whatever is human doesn't appreciate, and I still disagree. :moon:

no, it shouldn't be protected. as i argued earlier, a zygote is no more alive than neoplasmic/tumorous/cancerous material. it's up to the patient whether or not they want it removed, whatever their reasons may be.

also, if there were a non-parasitic organism living in your body (for example, a turbellarian), you still have the choice of having of getting rid of it.

you can't be convicted of committing murder for killing a worm, but you can be convicted of committing murder against a living human (unless it's in self-defense). because of this, i feel that if the mother's life is in danger if she carries the baby to term, she should have the option of aborting if she wants.... the same goes for when the fetus still hasn't entered the 2nd trimester. however, because the fetus becomes a conscious human at week around week 24, it really should be illegal anytime after that. between week 15 and 24 is debatable, but i don't see why it should be debatable anytime before week 15 or after week 24.

 

[coomar]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Nah, that would be "hard work". They'd rather take an authoritarian route and just make it illegal. It wouldn't solve anything, just push the procedure underground. They're not "pro-life", they're "pro-coathanger".

that needs to be on a bumper-sticker

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: coomar

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Nah, that would be "hard work". They'd rather take an authoritarian route and just make it illegal. It wouldn't solve anything, just push the procedure underground. They're not "pro-life", they're "pro-coathanger".

that needs to be on a bumper-sticker

haha agreed

 

[xaeniac]

I pray to God that abortion will end; This video is the truth.

 

[railer]

I pray to The Tooth Fairy that abortion will end; This video is the truth.

There ya go. You're welcome.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: xaeniac
I pray to God that abortion will end; This video is the truth.

*rolls eyes*

you didn't read a word in this thread, did you?

 

[railer]

Why would you read ANYTHING, when you can just "pray to god"?

 

[slash196]

I don't believe humans become sentient until about 9 months AFTER they're born. What abortion is is squandered potential. It's too bad it's necessary, but it is.

 

[starwars7]

LOL somone needs to check their facts, that propaganda link at the beginning of this stupid thread said 1.3 million babies killed by abortion, they must be including the morning after pill were the single sperm cell, and the single egg cell get "aborted"

And as far as the first little fetus they show. Is it the sperm of a rapist and the egg of a victim? Gosh, maybe that little fetus was going to grow up and become the next Hittler.

Then they go and show a premature babie that died, and try and pass it off as an abortion. Total propaganda!!

 

[eits]

agreed (minus the "maybe the little fetus was going to grow up and become the next hitler" comment).

 

[ZoomStop]

no way in hell am I working though this whole thread. So if you already said this, thank you:
Legalized abortion, while distasteful, completes two necessary goals:

1. Helps prevents young women from damaging or killing themselves by trying to do an abortion at home or from a non-qualified person.
2. Helps keep the population numbers down.

#1 is one of the major reasons they legalized it in the first place.
#2 is a major reason (IMHO) that the government will never repeal RvW

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: AcidBath
no way in hell am I working though this whole thread. So if you already said this, thank you:
Legalized abortion, while distasteful, completes two necessary goals:

1. Helps prevents young women from damaging or killing themselves by trying to do an abortion at home or from a non-qualified person.
2. Helps keep the population numbers down.

#1 is one of the major reasons they legalized it in the first place.
#2 is a major reason (IMHO) that the government will never repeal RvW

about #2, contrary to popular belief, there's no overpopulation problem in america. even if rvw was repealed, it still wouldn't be an issue.

that said, i am still pro-choice.

 

[engineereeyore]

I can't say that I'm pro-life or pro-choice. I guess I fit in somewhere in between. Abortion has it's purposes, especially in health risk and rape cases. That being said, I think people need to understand that pregnancy is not a choice, it is a consequence. If it was a choice, there would be no fertility problems and no abortions. Taking away abortion does not take away choice, it simply make the person own up to their responsibilities and actions. However, in cases such as rape where choice was not provided, they do deserve the opportunity to make that decision on their own.

In an ideal world, none of this would be a problem. Maybe one day we'll live in one.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I can't say that I'm pro-life or pro-choice. I guess I fit in somewhere in between. Abortion has it's purposes, especially in health risk and rape cases. That being said, I think people need to understand that pregnancy is not a choice, it is a consequence. If it was a choice, there would be no fertility problems and no abortions. Taking away abortion does not take away choice, it simply make the person own up to their responsibilities and actions. However, in cases such as rape where choice was not provided, they do deserve the opportunity to make that decision on their own.

In an ideal world, none of this would be a problem. Maybe one day we'll live in one.

brilliant post. 10 points.