Abortion

[Callie]

What are your views toward abortion?

If you believe abortion should stay legal, to what extent do those beliefs go? Eight weeks? Twenty-two? Through the full extent of the pregnancy? Why is your limit the right one?

If you believe it should become illegal, do you think there should be exceptions for extreme circumstances? If yes, which circumstances? Why those? And what should the punishment for women who have illegal abortions be?




I know this is super controversial, but that's what this forum is for, right? I also think it would be very interesting if we could try to discuss this topic without bringing in religion.

[Bowie20049]

I think teenage abortion should be legal and without the consent of the parents unless they're paying for it. The reason I believe that is right is because it makes sense which is what I base my choices off of.

The limit should be in the full extent of the pregnancy because it is their choice and not ours on how they handle it.

Now then, I think it would be nice for people to bring religion in, or else it would just be a one-sided argument.

They say after six months or so, the baby receives a soul or something like that and aborting it would be like murder. I understand that completely, but I stick by my beliefs.

[Callie]

Why would it be one sided if religion was left out? I think you can still believe in the value of life without religion. I just think that it's hard to talk to a person when they're blocked off by their religion. If "the Bible/the Talmud/the Quran/the Old Testament says it's bad" then it doesn't really matter what other facts are brought in, because their home base will be what's already written down.

Not to say that they can't look past it, just that it's easier if you leave it out to begin with.

I just thought it would be interesting, anyway, I wasn't trying to limit the discussion :)

[Bowie20049]

I prefer broader accounts. That way, nobody is left out, people can say what they want to say without feeling oppressed, and we can hear more stories.

Also, I believe it is one-sided because people would most likely agree with me or most of what I say.

[ScottyMcGee]

I'm not gonna lie, I'm going to be a real asshole about this.

Honestly, I don't care.

There are a lot of bigger things happening in the world right now than babies. Sometimes it makes me mad just to see rallies and stuff of people arguing about the same crap over and over, about gay marriage and abortion and capital punishment. Let's face it, people are always going to be arguing about these things.

That's just how I see it.

[jordanisonfire]

Legal until the baby actually receives nerve endings. Then its just as bad as animal cruelty, really. I used to believe all that crap Ron Paul spouts about foetal rights, but if we promote foetal rights, we're taking away women's rights, which I think is more important. Plus, think about if the woman's been raped, then its just cruel to her for not allowing her the choice to abort her baby. I agree with Scotsman that there are bigger problems, but abortion is a major issue in other countries, where the population is spilling to the brim.

[ScottyMcGee]

Hrm, yes.

There are three countries experiencing population issues.

India - too many young people.
Japan - too many older people.
Africa - big gap between the very young and the very old.

Each of these countries' cultures affect their population. With India, everything is family oriented. Babies just boom by the millions. Women don't have much rights and just. . well. . make babies.

In Japan, it's entirely the opposite. Women want to do more with their lives than raise families. And it's happened so much that there's an actual school in Japan, I forgot where, that has only one student in a class. As in, graduating class. No joke.

And Africa of course has the issue with AIDS, which kills off many of the men and women in between like the twenties up until menopausal age.

[jordanisonfire]

Hrm, yes.

There are three countries experiencing population issues.

India - too many young people.
Japan - too many older people.
Africa - big gap between the very young and the very old.

Each of these countries' cultures affect their population. With India, everything is family oriented. Babies just boom by the millions. Women don't have much rights and just. . well. . make babies.

In Japan, it's entirely the opposite. Women want to do more with their lives than raise families. And it's happened so much that there's an actual school in Japan, I forgot where, that has only one student in a class. As in, graduating class. No joke.

And Africa of course has the issue with AIDS, which kills off many of the men and women in between like the twenties up until menopausal age.




Africa's a country? Not the last time I heard. xP

And those three, I think we can agree, aren't the only ones having population problems. The most obvious is China, but there's also Italy (which, like Japan, has too many old people, to the point where a man has to support his own family and a pensioner that would have no relation to him whatsoever, no matter what his salary is), Bangladesh (which is a lot like India, no racism intended) and a country that isn't experiencing population density issyes, but needs abortion, would be Vietnam, as the number of babies with disorders is staggering.

And the world's population is set to double or something in the next few decades or so, apparently. India's set to have even more of a population than China. I know we can't stop culture, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep abortion legal so that any unwanted pregnancies happen and so slow down the world's population increasing. I know you'll be wondering why I'd know this, but 2000 couples start have sex every second, which means something like 20 million people have sex per day. Imagine how many of those will end in pregnancies.

[ScottyMcGee]

Africa's a country? Not the last time I heard. xP




*smacks face*

Oh. Duh. Yeah I mean...shut up.

I don't know where exactly but you know what I mean.

[Crocolyle]

Just because there are other important issues, doesn't make this issue invalid or unimportant. I guess our governments (since we're from different countries) should only focus on one issue at a time. It's not like our governments have bureaucracies... >.>

Though I am personally against abortion, I'm not entirely sure if Roe v. Wade should be overturned mainly because of problems with the inner cities of the United States.

Shaun will talk about how science "proves" that an embryo can only be considered a unique human when it attaches to the wall of the uterus, because that's when the cell can no longer divide (and therefore form identical twins), science does no such thing. The attached embyro is virtually indistinguishable from the embryo that is non-attached, the only difference is that it can no longer divide. A new human life formed at the moment of conception, so to destroy that human life is homicide, by definition. The life would have to be considered human, because humans can only sexually produce other humans.

But the main question would not be of humanity, but of personhood. To point at any random moment in pregnancy and say that "Aha! This is when the fetus becomes a person!" would be completely arbitrary. It makes no sense when people say, "It becomes a person when it's heart beats" because the heart's only purpose is to pump blood. I can understand that when the brain/nervous system begins to work people can say it's a person, because then it can feel pain and respond to stimuli.

Another common argument is saying, "when the fetus can live on its own, outside the mother." Unless you want to deem a bunch of prematurely born fetuses "not human," you have to realize the flaw in this argument is that as medicine improves, so does the mortality rate of the prematurely born. So what is a person today, could not be considered a person 20 years ago. That argument is completely ridiculous.

Birth is really the only other non-arbitrary point, but to say a fetus suddenly becomes a person when it takes its first breath of air is also ridiculous. That would mean a fetus a minute before its born is not alive, even though the main differences between it and a born fetus is that 1) it is still connected to its mother by the umbilical cord 2) it hasn't had a breath of air. I don't think those two factors really warrant personhood. As I have said, since the develop of the fetus is so gradual, really deciding any point besides conception or birth is rather arbitrary.

If the problem involves preventing a Malthusian apocalypse, if we can kill the very young, why not kill the very old, the retarded, the retired, the senile, criminals, etc.? Clearly they're not going to benefit society and are just a waste of space?

Unless you can prove that WITHOUT A DOUBT an embyro is not a person, then you're okay with killing people. And that can be fine for you, but it's not fine for me.

[Shaun]

Nope, not going to make the arguments you think I'm going to make. I've largely already talked about this issue. I'm not really going to get into it here, though, because I've had enough of arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong. The issue never should have been whether it was right or wrong, but what we can do to prevent them from occurring in the first place. We can wax lyrical about how it's evil and murder to abort embryos, yadda yadda, or how it's for women's rights, etc., but ultimately what it comes down to is preventing the pregnancy from happening in the birth place. The problem is that a lot of anti-abortionists (and not all) are also against teaching safe sex, using contraceptives such as birth control or condoms (or, good lord, both, for that matter, because you should use both if you're not a dumbass or don't have a medical reason for it, or aren't using a more sure method such as some of the minor surgeries which can be done).

If you don't want to have to deal with the problem of abortions, then be more proactive in getting teenagers and stupid people from getting pregnant when they don't want to be. Obviously that will never be 100%, but at this point we have a problem: there are not enough people adopting kids, which makes the whole "just give it up for adoption" idea pointless, because it's essentially saying "well, let's stick kids in orphanages so they'll have shitty lives, and then nobody has to give a shit about them because, hey, they're orphans." And adoptions are a pain in the ass in the U.S., sometimes more difficult than adopting kids from foreign countries.

And then you have the people who, if they have abortion stripped from them, will do whatever they can to abort embryos, fetuses, etc. Most of them won't be caught, because it's not that hard to hide a "natural" abortion. Really, it isn't, and the information is freely available on the Internet, and banning abortions will essentially make that information more important.

So, the arguments never should have been about right or wrong, but about what we can do to stop people from being in that position in the first place.




P.S.: And science does, in fact, offer a perspective on "person-ness" that has proof. The problem always rests on the other side to prove their position that "conception = personhood/life/etc." Because at this point the folks who say these things tend to have nothing to support their claims (with rare exception, though even then it's a scientifically unsound claim). This is why it's generally impossible to separate this issue from its religious roots.

[Fiction]

Hear hear.

[Crocolyle]

Nope, not going to make the arguments you think I'm going to make. I've largely already talked about this issue. I'm not really going to get into it here, though, because I've had enough of arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong. The issue never should have been whether it was right or wrong, but what we can do to prevent them from occurring in the first place. We can wax lyrical about how it's evil and murder to abort embryos, yadda yadda, or how it's for women's rights, etc., but ultimately what it comes down to is preventing the pregnancy from happening in the birth place. The problem is that a lot of anti-abortionists (and not all) are also against teaching safe sex, using contraceptives such as birth control or condoms (or, good lord, both, for that matter, because you should use both if you're not a dumbass or don't have a medical reason for it, or aren't using a more sure method such as some of the minor surgeries which can be done).

If you don't want to have to deal with the problem of abortions, then be more proactive in getting teenagers and stupid people from getting pregnant when they don't want to be. Obviously that will never be 100%, but at this point we have a problem: there are not enough people adopting kids, which makes the whole "just give it up for adoption" idea pointless, because it's essentially saying "well, let's stick kids in orphanages so they'll have shitty lives, and then nobody has to give a shit about them because, hey, they're orphans." And adoptions are a pain in the ass in the U.S., sometimes more difficult than adopting kids from foreign countries.

And then you have the people who, if they have abortion stripped from them, will do whatever they can to abort embryos, fetuses, etc. Most of them won't be caught, because it's not that hard to hide a "natural" abortion. Really, it isn't, and the information is freely available on the Internet, and banning abortions will essentially make that information more important.

So, the arguments never should have been about right or wrong, but about what we can do to stop people from being in that position in the first place.

Unfortunately that's not what we're debating. ;)



P.S.: And science does, in fact, offer a perspective on "person-ness" that has proof. The problem always rests on the other side to prove their position that "conception = personhood/life/etc." Because at this point the folks who say these things tend to have nothing to support their claims (with rare exception, though even then it's a scientifically unsound claim). This is why it's generally impossible to separate this issue from its religious roots.

Personhood is more of a philosophical issue.

Whether or not something is biologically human is a scientific one, and by the law of biogenesis (I think), human embyros are by definition human.

Find a scientifically accepted source that proves your opinion...

[ScottyMcGee]

I just had to post this.

And I shall go to hell for it.

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s185/ScottyMcGee/1168391946709.jpg

[Bowie20049]

I remembered that

[Shaun]

Personhood is more of a philosophical issue.

Whether or not something is biologically human is a scientific one, and by the law of biogenesis (I think), human embyros are by definition human.

Find a scientifically accepted source that proves your opinion...

I would generally agree that personhood is a philosophical issue. I think what I was trying to get at was the difference between human and human being, since they are different things. For example: a skin cell is certainly human (if it's on a human, I mean, obviously, because not all skin cells are human skin cells), but it is not a human being. It's only a piece of something larger. So the loss of a skin cell is not necessarily the loss of what defines one as a human being (and thats largely a nebulous construct to begin with, and it would be incredibly difficult to accurately say what is a human being outside of some sort of biological spectrum).

So certainly embryos can be human, but are they human beings? It's essentially a bunch of cells, but does that mean it is a human being? I don't think it does, and science would certainly tend to agree, particularly since most scientists do not acknowledge that life begins at conception (life in the "human being" form, rather than life in its most general sense, since clearly any cell is "alive" in some sense or another).

My problem with embryos being people is that an embryo is not, generally speaking, all that different from other cells. It's potential outcome certainly differs, but the processes are not drastically different and the body has as much loyalty to an embryo as to a skin cell. Potential for life doesn't equate to life itself. "Potential" as a mode of identification is too loose, too easily perverted.

This is why I think brain activity is a particularly accurate measurement of life in its "human being" sense.

[Inkweaver]

Yea, there are bigger problems in the world. But... I do believe a woman should have a choice at all possible stages (I obviously don't know much about pregnancy). It's her baby, it's her responsibility, and all options should be open to her. I mean she is the one who has to carry it for nine months and have to go through the unimaginable pain of childbirth.

[Shaun]

There should always be limits on things. There's no reason why someone pregnant should be unaware of the downside to pregnancy at 3 weeks, when the embryo is still developing from its cellular form. That doesn't seem like a good reason to me to have partial-birth abortions: cause birth hurts. If you don't know that before getting knocked up, then you're been living in a box.

I have huge issues with partial birth primarily because it is a conscious being at that point.

[Callie]

^ This is kind of what I was hoping someone would bring up. By the time a baby gets to the stage that would be considered "partial birth abortion" or "late term abortion"... the percentage of people doing it for "leisure" so small that it's not even worth mentioning. The incredible majority of late term abortions are of babies that were very, very much wanted -- but the baby was not going to live outside the womb, or continuing the pregnancy would kill the woman or at the very least destroy her health. The problem with legislating "no late term abortions" means that it's just harder for women who really did want their children, but cannot continue the pregnancy, to get the procedure done. And imagine how heartwrenching it is to have to go through that procedure by itself - and then to have to put up with all the legal stuff?

For example, Angela Carder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Carder (if you don't trust wikipedia, go ahead and just google her name.)

[Shaun]

I'm against partial-birth in principle, but exceptions must always be made. I think better procedures need to be developed to deal with such things, though. Some of the procedures done in certain states are barbaric in my opinion and I honestly don't see any reason why we cannot painlessly deal with these situations.

[listophergreene]

I don't agree with abortion at all, but I realize that there are medical exceptions. Although they are rare, they do seem to deserve permission to abort the unborn child.

Religiously (in the eyes of a Christian anyway), I think that it's better to lose an innocent child than a possibly unsaved mother. That doesn't mean that we can just kill unborn babies though, that just justifies killing the baby to save the mother. Still wrong, but she lives through it.

Also - I don't recall the Bible saying you can't use birth control. I do recall a man getting in trouble for 'pulling out', but that was because he was cheating the system, and trying to manipulate the heir. Catholicism, as always, doesn't count in this. (Their views do not correlate with the Bible.)

[Shaun]

The problem with that opinion is that it's based on belief, not reality, which is fine, until you try to use belief to take away the rights of others.

[ReccyV]

Also - I don't recall the Bible saying you can't use birth control. I do recall a man getting in trouble for 'pulling out', but that was because he was cheating the system, and trying to manipulate the heir. Catholicism, as always, doesn't count in this. (Their views do not correlate with the Bible.)

Are you saying we should follow the bible literally.
Fuck me I'd move to Mars.

But yes, any mode preventing the development of a fetus is condemned in the bible, I'll look it up when I can find the damned book. (hah irony)

If aborting a fetus is wrong because it's endangering potential life than the same can be said about the menstrual cycle and any form of sperm ejaculation-- including Nocturnal Emmisions which are not under the male's control.

Sperm= Potential life
Egg= Potential life
Bleed or shoot 'em out and it's just as good as smacking a preggers with a baseball bat.

If we illegalize abortion the only thing that would come from this is an imense boom in the underground abortion clinics. Where clotheshangers are used to pull the fetus out like spaghetti.

[Jack]

I don't agree with abortion at all, but I realize that there are medical exceptions. Although they are rare, they do seem to deserve permission to abort the unborn child.

Joined this debate slightly late, but it is something I feel strongly about.

Do you mean to say then, that if an eleven year old child is raped by her abusive step-father, and she becomes pregnant. And wants to get rid of the baby. That she should be denied that right?

The thing about the big 'potential life' idea is; that fertilised egg in the females womb is genetically identical to any other cell in your body. We lose millions of skin cells a minute. They die. Is that the same as terminating a fertilised egg with the morning after pill?

Unfortunately, not everything is as black and white as you would like it to be. And in an area of debate like this, almost everything is grey.

[Shaun]

ReccyV and Draxzar have pretty much said what I was going to say, so refer to them :P.

[listophergreene]

The problem with that opinion is that it's based on belief, not reality, which is fine, until you try to use belief to take away the rights of others.

Shaun - I completely understand. The reason I tell people this anyway is because I live in a democratic country, where the laws reflect the people, even if it is indirectly. For this reason, I have a say in those laws, and my say is a reflection of my beliefs. If the laws aren't reflecting a certain person, then they aren't part of the majority, so yes, they will feel like they're getting cheated out of their rights.


Are you saying we should follow the bible literally.
Fuck me I'd move to Mars.

But yes, any mode preventing the development of a fetus is condemned in the bible, I'll look it up when I can find the damned book. (hah irony)

If aborting a fetus is wrong because it's endangering potential life than the same can be said about the menstrual cycle and any form of sperm ejaculation-- including Nocturnal Emmisions which are not under the male's control.

Sperm= Potential life
Egg= Potential life
Bleed or shoot 'em out and it's just as good as smacking a preggers with a baseball bat.

If we illegalize abortion the only thing that would come from this is an imense boom in the underground abortion clinics. Where clotheshangers are used to pull the fetus out like spaghetti.

ReccyV - Some parts of the Bible were what we call the "Mosaic Law", which is a collection of rules that God gave the Israelites in the Old Testament. That law was removed by Jesus' ministry. So no, not all of the Bible's rules apply literally to our lives today. (Example: We can eat anything, there are no longer superficially unclean foods like Pork.)

Also: whether or not you follow the bible is your choice. I choose to follow it, but I'm not shoving it down your throat.

I do not recall the Bible ever condemning all sorts of birth control, if you could supply the scriptures when you find them that would help. Also, an unborn baby is still a baby, it has a soul. (This is my understanding, anyway. You could give me other religious opinions.) Sperm and Eggs are sex cells, they don't have souls. They don't even have half souls. The soul is created/provided/whatever at the time of conception, so the cells themselves can be stopped before they meet.


Joined this debate slightly late, but it is something I feel strongly about.

Do you mean to say then, that if an eleven year old child is raped by her abusive step-father, and she becomes pregnant. And wants to get rid of the baby. That she should be denied that right?

The thing about the big 'potential life' idea is; that fertilised egg in the females womb is genetically identical to any other cell in your body. We lose millions of skin cells a minute. They die. Is that the same as terminating a fertilised egg with the morning after pill?

Unfortunately, not everything is as black and white as you would like it to be. And in an area of debate like this, almost everything is grey.


Draxzar - "Grey Area" is the mother of debate. I realize exactly where you're coming from though. I do have to disagree with you on the fertilized egg thing. Yes, it has DNA like every other cell, but it is not like every other cell. The different tissues in the human body are composed of different types of specialized cells. The fertilized egg is the entirety of an undeveloped human being, not just another cell designed to perform a single specific task.

-----------------------

I related my viewpoint on this matter to my religion. We're not supposed to oppress and manipulate people through our views, although it has been done before. All I want to do is promote understanding, your understanding of me, and mine of you. If people have questions, I'll try to answer them, but this isn't my cup of tea, I just have a viewpoint with a few details and I already shared those.

Don't try and hold that against me though, I'm not a specialist in that field. That would be like asking a normal, everyday evolutionist to describe how fireflies developed their light through evolution.

[Shaun]

Shaun - I completely understand. The reason I tell people this anyway is because I live in a democratic country, where the laws reflect the people, even if it is indirectly. For this reason, I have a say in those laws, and my say is a reflection of my beliefs. If the laws aren't reflecting a certain person, then they aren't part of the majority, so yes, they will feel like they're getting cheated out of their rights.

Except the majority of the country supports abortion laws...and it is also illegal to fashion laws from a religious perspective. We live in a democracy, yes, but that democracy is secular, not religious. Unfortunately people with "beliefs" often ignore that and force their ways of life onto others. At one time it was deemed immoral for black people to be married, and it was only until recently that a black man/woman could marry a white woman/man.

We'll solve so many more problems in this country if people stop reacting and voting based on "beliefs" and more on what's actually right.

Draxzar - "Grey Area" is the mother of debate. I realize exactly where you're coming from though. I do have to disagree with you on the fertilized egg thing. Yes, it has DNA like every other cell, but it is not like every other cell. The different tissues in the human body are composed of different types of specialized cells. The fertilized egg is the entirety of an undeveloped human being, not just another cell designed to perform a single specific task.


Umm, you just proved Draxzar's point that the embryo is just another cell to perform a single specific task. The only purpose of the embryo is to grow or die. Unfortunately, it's not a "human being," since that is a construction that requires far more than cellular physiology. It is human, sure, but not a "human being." It lacks all the functions that make us more than just a collection of cells. To say otherwise is to make arbitrary decisions on how life comes to be.

Don't try and hold that against me though, I'm not a specialist in that field. That would be like asking a normal, everyday evolutionist[/I][I] to describe how fireflies developed their light through evolution.


And someone studying fireflies or insects could certainly tell you how that works. Just because it's beyond your understanding doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are a lot of things that science has proven to exist that I don't fully understand...but they still exist.

[Jack]

. Also, an unborn baby is still a baby, it has a soul. (This is my understanding, anyway. You could give me other religious opinions.) Sperm and Eggs are sex cells, they don't have souls. They don't even have half souls. The soul is created/provided/whatever at the time of conception, so the cells themselves can be stopped before they meet.


HANG ON A SECOND! Your referring to 'the soul' as if you are professor on the subject. All this about an unborn baby still having a soul and sperm and eggs not having souls is COMPLETELY based upon your beliefs. Are you aware that a lot of people don't believe in souls, I don't. I am not sure where you are getting all these soul facts from, but I don't think they are a valid argument for your side of this debate.

'Half Souls', 'Souls' and 'souls being created through conception' is all a matter of beliefs, and your stating these things as though they are hard fact.

[listophergreene]

HANG ON A SECOND! Your referring to 'the soul' as if you are professor on the subject. All this about an unborn baby still having a soul and sperm and eggs not having souls is COMPLETELY based upon your beliefs. Are you aware that a lot of people don't believe in souls, I don't. I am not sure where you are getting all these soul facts from, but I don't think they are a valid argument for your side of this debate.

'Half Souls', 'Souls' and 'souls being created through conception' is all a matter of beliefs, and your stating these things as though they are hard fact.

If they were hard fact we wouldn't have a debate, as the unborn would obviously have sanctity of life and it would be an offense against humanity to kill them.

At the same time, I realize where you're coming from. I still think it's immoral to destroy a human once the sex cells have joined. I also don't think that sex cells are sacred. They are naturally spent with the rest of the body, but an unborn child is naturally meant to develop. If we can't talk about 'souls', then let's talk about what's natural and what isn't. Abortion isn't natural, when it happens in nature, it's a mistake.

[Bowie20049]

If they were hard fact we wouldn't have a debate, as the unborn would obviously have sanctity of life and it would be an offense against humanity to kill them.

At the same time, I realize where you're coming from. I still think it's immoral to destroy a human once the sex cells have joined. I also don't think that sex cells are sacred. They are naturally spent with the rest of the body, but an unborn child is naturally meant to develop. If we can't talk about 'souls', then let's talk about what's natural and what isn't. Abortion isn't natural, when it happens in nature, it's a mistake.

Actually, abortion is natural. Some animals can't eat enough when they're pregnant and are forced to abort the baby by some means that I have completely forgot, but I saw it in a documentary about dolphins or something.

[Shaun]

If they were hard fact we wouldn't have a debate, as the unborn would obviously have sanctity of life and it would be an offense against humanity to kill them.

At the same time, I realize where you're coming from. I still think it's immoral to destroy a human once the sex cells have joined. I also don't think that sex cells are sacred. They are naturally spent with the rest of the body, but an unborn child is naturally meant to develop. If we can't talk about 'souls', then let's talk about what's natural and what isn't. Abortion isn't natural, when it happens in nature, it's a mistake.

Anything humans do is natural. I don't know why that is so hard to grasp, but we seem to think that what animals do is natural and what we do must either be unnatural or natural. Anything we do as a species is natural to us. Some of us may not like it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

[Midsummernightsdream]

OK.... Well, first of all, I agree with abortion completely... But I do agree there should be more "prevention" of pregnancies, especially unwanted ones. I don't think its fair to force anyone to bear a child. Imagine how awful it would be to give birth to a terminally ill child and watch it suffer and wither in pain until it dies at a young age, having lived no life at all. Or a young girl, raped and tortured or whatever horror, having to rear a child, at an age of 13, 15, 17. If this child's father was psychotic or mentally deranged in some way, there is a chance that his (or hers, I suppose) child could inherit perverted tendencies or be violent or have some terrible mental disability.
Second of all, girls are born with a thousand eggs, and men produce sperm throughout most of their lives. So, you abort one of those sperm, and one of those eggs.... There is still chance for 999 more babies.
Finally, "killing an innocent child" who might be perfectly normal, and or killing the mother? Well, the mother has many more loved ones, you might say. A partner, parents, siblings.... Whatever. She will also have the chance to produce as many children as she wants, when she is ready. What kind of upbringing and life would a child have if born to a 15 year old mother? Or a drug addict? Or a prostitute?

[listophergreene]

I expected people to object to my 'natural' argument by saying that medicine and science in general are performed as unnatural occurrences by man. Instead of clarifying those, I'll have to point out that abortion is a destructive act in most instances. When it is creative (saves a life) then it is a good thing, but abortion in most instances is destructive and unnatural in humans. Yes, animals abort in some natural instances. We are not the same, we are meant to live. (we don't naturally abort for normal biological instances)

[Shaun]

Except it's not unnatural to humans...your argument completely ignores human nature.

[Mercy]

I am also against abortion, mainly because it destroys a potential human life and I consider it murder. However, I do consider it a possibility under certain circumstances. For example, if the mother has a chance of dying, I believe she has that choice.

[Quietus]

For example, if the mother has a chance of dying, I believe she has that choice.

Why is the mother always more important than the baby's life? If giving birth was going to kill my wife, but the baby would be born perfectly normal, honestly, I'd take the baby. The mother has lived in this world, why should we deny the child life?

I also believe that abortion should be done on a case-to-case basis. If you accidentally get pregnant with someone you had a one-night-stand with, then tough shits. If you are raped, and it can be proven in a court of law that you were raped, and you get pregnant, the you should have the choice. If a teenager gets pregnant, no matter what age, though shits again. Don't have sex if you can't take the potential circumstances.

*I think this may be the first time I've stated any of my beliefs on the website...*

[Mercy]

Why is the mother always more important than the baby's life? If giving birth was going to kill my wife, but the baby would be born perfectly normal, honestly, I'd take the baby. The mother has lived in this world, why should we deny the child life?

I say the mother because it is her life. And more likely than not, I would think that the mother would choose to let her baby live.

[Bowie20049]

Why is the mother always more important than the baby's life? If giving birth was going to kill my wife, but the baby would be born perfectly normal, honestly, I'd take the baby. The mother has lived in this world, why should we deny the child life?




Are you serious?

[Shaun]

Why is the mother always more important than the baby's life? If giving birth was going to kill my wife, but the baby would be born perfectly normal, honestly, I'd take the baby. The mother has lived in this world, why should we deny the child life?

I also believe that abortion should be done on a case-to-case basis. If you accidentally get pregnant with someone you had a one-night-stand with, then tough shits. If you are raped, and it can be proven in a court of law that you were raped, and you get pregnant, the you should have the choice. If a teenager gets pregnant, no matter what age, though shits again. Don't have sex if you can't take the potential circumstances.

*I think this may be the first time I've stated any of my beliefs on the website...*

Generally I would agree with your sentiments. It should be tough shits, but at the same time you're offering up the basis for the abuse and improper raising of countless children. Some will end up in foster care and then get booted out of the system at 18, with absolutely no foundations whatsoever. Others will be raised by people inadequate to the task of, well, raising children. Is this fair to them?

You find solutions to those problems and you'll end up with more people on your side, but the way things are now, I think it's better to destroy the embryos before they have reached the point where they are conscious of their surrounding than to allow them to grow up deprived of the things they need in life. The way the system works now, thousands of kids end up jumping from group home to group home, never being adopted, never having even one parent, and then when they become adults they're booted out into the real world, with no skills to survive there, hardly any education, etc.



And then we get into the ridiculous debate over what murder actually is. If it's murder to destroy an embryo (which, by the way, is what happens even outside of abortion, by the way, because we destroy embryos every day by discarding them in fertility clinics, etc.), then we also have to face facts that we have an entire culture of murder. Every war, every death penalty made real, every slaughtering of an animal produce murders. Humans seem to think that we get to make the determination on what murder is (it's only murder if you kill someone outside of war, or it's only murder if it's human, or whatever the faulty reasoning is). We either have to face the reality that murder is acceptable in some instances, or not, but then we have an enormous rupture in the social and cultural fabric of human civilization, because so many of the cultures on this planet create morality around the subject of murder, and to break the pact with civilization and it's factors (religion, etc.) would literally deconstruct civilization itself.

But that's fun philosophical crap. Reality dictates that an embryo is not a human being. I would argue that life begins at the moment of consciousness (i.e. significant brain activity). You can't really base murder on the "potential for life" argument, because then we would be murderers on a regular basis. Since most of us have no qualms with pulling the plug on someone with no brain activity (i.e. in a vegetative state), I don't see why we have a problem destroying embryos that are, quite literally, nothing more than a bunch of cells with a single, unidirectional function.

Edit: Now this makes me want to write a story on abortion...hmm.

[Mercy]

Generally I would agree with your sentiments. It should be tough shits, but at the same time you're offering up the basis for the abuse and improper raising of countless children. Some will end up in foster care and then get booted out of the system at 18, with absolutely no foundations whatsoever. Others will be raised by people inadequate to the task of, well, raising children. Is this fair to them?

And some are born to parents who want children, but do not love them. That is the way the cards fall and struggles are meant to be overcome. Children, however, are not meant to be killed.


You find solutions to those problems and you'll end up with more people on your side, but the way things are now, I think it's better to destroy the embryos before they have reached the point where they are conscious of their surrounding than to allow them to grow up deprived of the things they need in life. The way the system works now, thousands of kids end up jumping from group home to group home, never being adopted, never having even one parent, and then when they become adults they're booted out into the real world, with no skills to survive there, hardly any education, etc.

Yet they are alive and have a chance to make something of themselves. If something is wrong with the system, fix the system, don't kill the children.



And then we get into the ridiculous debate over what murder actually is. If it's murder to destroy an embryo (which, by the way, is what happens even outside of abortion, by the way, because we destroy embryos every day by discarding them in fertility clinics, etc.), then we also have to face facts that we have an entire culture of murder. Every war, every death penalty made real, every slaughtering of an animal produce murders. Humans seem to think that we get to make the determination on what murder is (it's only murder if you kill someone outside of war, or it's only murder if it's human, or whatever the faulty reasoning is). We either have to face the reality that murder is acceptable in some instances, or not, but then we have an enormous rupture in the social and cultural fabric of human civilization, because so many of the cultures on this planet create morality around the subject of murder, and to break the pact with civilization and it's factors (religion, etc.) would literally deconstruct civilization itself.

Of course we have a culture of murder. Our country was founded on war. But that doesn't mean we can't fight against it. What good does abortion do? What does it create, what does it offer the world? What is the point of killing children that could be born?


But that's fun philosophical crap. Reality dictates that an embryo is not a human being. I would argue that life begins at the moment of consciousness (i.e. significant brain activity). You can't really base murder on the "potential for life" argument, because then we would be murderers on a regular basis. Since most of us have no qualms with pulling the plug on someone with no brain activity (i.e. in a vegetative state), I don't see why we have a problem destroying embryos that are, quite literally, nothing more than a bunch of cells with a single, unidirectional function.

How does reality dictate this? I have heard no proof that an embryo is not a human being. It is the first stage of a human being and it should be allowed to evolve and be born. I think more people have qualms pulling the plug than you realize. I, personally, have a problem with it because it is a human life, just as that brain dead person is a human and deserves the remainder of their life. No one deserves to have their life taken from them.

[Callie]

So for those of you who think abortion is murder: If we made abortions entirely illegal, what punishment seems adequate to the mothers who would still have illegal abortions?

[Eilidh]

Abortion is simply a matter of opinion.
If you don't agree with it, don't have an abortion, don't listen to people who speak about abortion.
If you agree with it, thats fine.
It's one of those topics that are basically a matter of opinion, therefore abortion should be kept legal.

[Mercy]

So for those of you who think abortion is murder: If we made abortions entirely illegal, what punishment seems adequate to the mothers who would still have illegal abortions?

Strangely enough, I don't believe it should be illegal either, because it is a matter of opinion and personal beliefs. I just believe that we should make adoption or care centers the better option and hope that women will choose these over abortion.

[Shaun]

And some are born to parents who want children, but do not love them. That is the way the cards fall and struggles are meant to be overcome. Children, however, are not meant to be killed.

Yet they are alive and have a chance to make something of themselves. If something is wrong with the system, fix the system, don't kill the children.

Of course we have a culture of murder. Our country was founded on war. But that doesn't mean we can't fight against it. What good does abortion do? What does it create, what does it offer the world? What is the point of killing children that could be born?

We don't kill children. That's what partial-birth abortions are. We remove embryos, which are cells with a unidirectional function, just like we remove tumors. You can make the argument that it is the same as you or me all you want, but it's not, and just because it has the potential to be something else doesn't mean that it is murder. To say it is murder is to make an argument based on a scientifically unsound belief.

Abortion actually does a lot of good. It has reduced the number of unwanted, unloved children that would otherwise have clogged the system. Do you have any idea how many kids never have any parents whatsoever every year? Google it. Now add about 50 million to that. No, I'm not joking. That's how many unwanted children would be around. Say what you want about abortion, but these are children that never existed, and never would have known, because an embryo is not aware, feels nothing, and has no connection to what makes us human other than in sharing our DNA. It's a glorified skin cell. But if that's the kind of world you want to live in, get your own country.

The majority of the country supports abortion, by the way. Only 22% of the country is against abortion in its entirety. 78% support abortions. I'm one of the half of those 78% that supports it with restrictions. I agree that partial-birth is murder, but I don't agree that abortions at earlier points are. Being a human being is a package deal. You're not truly alive unless you're able to contemplate your existence, even at a basic level. You can argue that someone is alive, but that's based on an outside perspective, a biased one. An embryo cannot feel, it cannot contemplate its existence, and it quite literally has no function other than to sit there and grow. It's like a person in a vegetative state.

[Shaun]

Strangely enough, I don't believe it should be illegal either, because it is a matter of opinion and personal beliefs. I just believe that we should make adoption or care centers the better option and hope that women will choose these over abortion.

Then what the hell are we arguing about? I agree with you, 100%. We just wasted all that time arguing over something that doesn't matter at all...you goof :P.

[Callie]

I agree that partial-birth is murder, but I don't agree that abortions at earlier points are.

So you believe that... what? That it's murder regardless of the health of the mother or the fetus? Or if not, to what extent does the health have to be in danger for it to be all right? What if there's a good chance that the mother will need a kidney transplant after giving birth - is that enough reason?

Say two in every one-thousand partial birth abortions were just for the hell of it. Is it still worth putting through legislation to banish it? So that mothers who really wanted to have their child, but can't for whatever reason, have to go through legal back flips to be able to get an abortion?

[Shaun]

Let me clarify: I'm against partial-birth unless the mother's health is seriously at risk. And I mean seriously. If she's going to die, then, okay, abort, but it should be done as painlessly as possible. It's still technically murder, but I understand that sometimes killing people is for the best. I don't have to like it though, obviously.

And I'm not against abortion in general, just against people having abortions late in the pregnancy just because they don't want to have a kid. You should be intelligent enough to make the decision early.

[ReccyV]

Shaun - I completely understand. The reason I tell people this anyway is because I live in a democratic country, where the laws reflect the people, even if it is indirectly. For this reason, I have a say in those laws, and my say is a reflection of my beliefs. If the laws aren't reflecting a certain person, then they aren't part of the majority, so yes, they will feel like they're getting cheated out of their rights.




ReccyV - Some parts of the Bible were what we call the "Mosaic Law", which is a collection of rules that God gave the Israelites in the Old Testament. That law was removed by Jesus' ministry. So no, not all of the Bible's rules apply literally to our lives today. (Example: We can eat anything, there are no longer superficially unclean foods like Pork.)

Also: whether or not you follow the bible is your choice. I choose to follow it, but I'm not shoving it down your throat.

I do not recall the Bible ever condemning all sorts of birth control, if you could supply the scriptures when you find them that would help. Also, an unborn baby is still a baby, it has a soul. (This is my understanding, anyway. You could give me other religious opinions.) Sperm and Eggs are sex cells, they don't have souls. They don't even have half souls. The soul is created/provided/whatever at the time of conception, so the cells themselves can be stopped before they meet.





Draxzar - "Grey Area" is the mother of debate. I realize exactly where you're coming from though. I do have to disagree with you on the fertilized egg thing. Yes, it has DNA like every other cell, but it is not like every other cell. The different tissues in the human body are composed of different types of specialized cells. The fertilized egg is the entirety of an undeveloped human being, not just another cell designed to perform a single specific task.

-----------------------

I related my viewpoint on this matter to my religion. We're not supposed to oppress and manipulate people through our views, although it has been done before. All I want to do is promote understanding, your understanding of me, and mine of you. If people have questions, I'll try to answer them, but this isn't my cup of tea, I just have a viewpoint with a few details and I already shared those.

Don't try and hold that against me though, I'm not a specialist in that field. That would be like asking a normal, everyday evolutionist to describe how fireflies developed their light through evolution.



You misunderstand. I was saying that it's ignorant to literally follow the bible.
Don't quote Mosaic Law to me, I've taken advanced philosophy on catholic religion for three years.
And I can tell you for a fact that it's the largest contradictory religion in the world.

Your idea about sex cells being from different cells in that it's potential life is flawed.
Currently, an ear cell can be used in certain In-Vitro operations.
So, my ear is just as important as your sperm. Suck on that.

Plus, the belief that the souls exist, and that they begin at the moment of conception... Is biased. Separation of church and state is mandated by the Constitution. I don't care if you don't mean to shove your idealistic bullshit religion down my throat or not, but by taking away the right for a woman to do what she will with her body because of your belief, is in fact, violating the U.S. Constitution.

Secondly. Half-souls? Fuck me do they have a soul divider? Sounds like something Stephenie Meyer would write about.

[listophergreene]

You misunderstand. I was saying that it's ignorant to literally follow the bible.
Don't quote Mosaic Law to me, I've taken advanced philosophy on catholic religion for three years.
And I can tell you for a fact that it's the largest contradictory religion in the world.
No objections there (I'm not Catholic) but really now: you asked for it, so I gave it.


Your idea about sex cells being from different cells in that it's potential life is flawed.
Currently, an ear cell can be used in certain In-Vitro operations.
So, my ear is just as important as your sperm. Suck on that.


Your ear cell isn't biologically capable of naturally reproducing. :P


Plus, the belief that the souls exist, and that they begin at the moment of conception... Is biased. Separation of church and state is mandated by the Constitution. I don't care if you don't mean to shove your idealistic b***s*** religion down my throat or not, but by taking away the right for a woman to do what she will with her body because of your belief, is in fact, violating the U.S. Constitution.

Secondly. Half-souls? F*** me do they have a soul divider? Sounds like something Stephenie Meyer would write about.

Doesn't it now? I do believe I said that 'half-souls' were nonsensical, did I not? Also, you seem to quite often get a wee bit out of hand with your language. I don't care if it's just slang where you come from, there are times to hold your tongue. Other than that, re-read for clarification before you post something that agrees with what I said and attempts to refute it ^_^

In the meantime... I already stated that I was no longer considering the religious argument in a previous post. ;)

[Jack]

Your ear cell isn't biologically capable of naturally reproducing. :P




Neither is a sperm cell.

Can I just point something out to all of those that see a fertilized egg as a potential human, and therefore believe that destroying one is murder? Murder is Illegal, therefore if this was true:

The morning after pill would be illegal; Stem Cell research, a research that has helped solve many of mankind's problems, would be illegal; The IUD would be illegal; In-Vitro fertilisation would be illegal because of the wasted eggs and natural attempts to become pregnant would be considered in-voluntary manslaughter because between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. Just through the course of naturally becoming pregnant a woman is likely to abort one or two fertilized eggs...

[listophergreene]

Neither is a sperm cell.

Can I just point something out to all of those that see a fertilized egg as a potential human, and therefore believe that destroying one is murder? Murder is Illegal, therefore if this was true:

The morning after pill would be illegal; Stem Cell research, a research that has helped solve many of mankind's problems, would be illegal; The IUD would be illegal; In-Vitro fertilisation would be illegal because of the wasted eggs and natural attempts to become pregnant would be considered in-voluntary manslaughter because between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. Just through the course of naturally becoming pregnant a woman is likely to abort one or two fertilized eggs...

Sperm + Egg = Zygote + Time = Baby

Yes, a sperm cell is part of natural reproduction. I don't see an ear cell anywhere in that equation.

Also... I'm not going to say what my viewpoint is on that, but a good point would be that morality and scientific progress are two different things. You can't join them and let the end justify the means. Should we be allowed to torture people to study pain and suffering? What if it helps mankind? What if we only torture criminals? You see, there is a definite separation, and because they are not together, either morality or progress must sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of the other.

[Eilidh]

I think, even if you don't agree with abortion you have to agree with me to an extent on this one.
A twelve year old girl gets raped, and becomes pregnant. Wouldn't you think it's right for her to have an abortion?

[Mercy]

I think, even if you don't agree with abortion you have to agree with me to an extent on this one.
A twelve year old girl gets raped, and becomes pregnant. Wouldn't you think it's right for her to have an abortion?
No, because the baby didn't rape her. This is a question of opinion, not fact.

[Eilidh]

No, because the baby didn't rape her. This is a question of opinion, not fact.
I know, still, how is a twelve year old girl suppose to give birth, and look after a child? The parents might help but it is still her child.

[Mercy]

I know, still, how is a twelve year old girl suppose to give birth, and look after a child? The parents might help but it is still her child.
Have you forgotten the possibility of adoption?

[Eilidh]

Have you forgotten the possibility of adoption?
It's always a possibility but, I can't see much more point for debating about it.
If a woman wants an abortion, under whatever circumstances she should be allowed to have one. So my opinion is that it should be legal.

[lango]

I cant answer on this subject because I still don't know whats more cruel. Killing off a cell before it has a chance at a future, or letting it live so it has NO chance at a future.
(Talking about cases where people can't afford to have babies, put them thru school and etc.)

Usually I'd give a moral speech on how it's bad, wrong and badong, but hey: my girlfriend has taken the morning after pill once. Don't see much difference in preventing it 9 months before, or 8 months before. Pregnancy is a very heavy burden to carry, kids last forever. I'm not quite sure if it's better to have a couple forced to complete their pregancy and give the kid hell when they blame the child over their own mistake.

[Jack]

Sperm + Egg = Zygote + Time = Baby

Yes, a sperm cell is part of natural reproduction. I don't see an ear cell anywhere in that equation.



A sperm cell is not naturally capable of reproducing on its own. Which is what you said.

[listophergreene]

A sperm cell is not naturally capable of reproducing on its own. Which is what you said.



Your idea about sex cells being from different cells in that it's potential life is flawed.
Currently, an ear cell can be used in certain In-Vitro operations.
So, my ear is just as important as your sperm. Suck on that.

Your ear cell isn't biologically capable of naturally reproducing.


I did not say 'on its own'. I was pointing out that sperm are a natural part of the reproduction process, and ear cells are not. It shouldn't have been an argument at all.

[Shaun]

I did not say 'on its own'. I was pointing out that sperm are a natural part of the reproduction process, and ear cells are not. It shouldn't have been an argument at all.

A lot of things are part of the natural process that we as humans circumvent on a regular basis. So that argument is really rather pointless.

And, in all fairness, any argument over what's "natural" is pointless, because anything we as a species do is natural to us.

[Midsummernightsdream]

Why is the mother always more important than the baby's life? If giving birth was going to kill my wife, but the baby would be born perfectly normal, honestly, I'd take the baby. The mother has lived in this world, why should we deny the child life?

Er. Are you kidding? The mother and the spouse could have many more children.

[ReccyV]

I did not say 'on its own'. I was pointing out that sperm are a natural part of the reproduction process, and ear cells are not. It shouldn't have been an argument at all.

Actually you said
"Ear cells are not biologically capable of naturally reproducing."

Neither are sperm cells, they require an egg.
Ear cells require an egg as well.

In my book, they're the same.

[Jack]

In my book, they're the same.


They are the same. A fertilized egg merely divides into more of the same thing to eventually create the human body.

[Jack]

Have you forgotten the possibility of adoption?


Think about the trauma and suffering a twelve year old girl would go through everytime she looks at her baby child and it reminds her of the time she was raped in a dark alley by a middle-aged man. Now understand why it IS right for that girl to have an abortion. Ever thought that perhaps a twelve year old girl doesn't want to go through the trauma of giving birth, or maybe doesn't want the spawn of her and her rapist living in this world?

And don't come back with "It's not her right to deny her baby life" crap. When and egg is fertilized, it's not thinking. You can't look at that egg and think "Soon that's going to be a cute baby human being named Timmy," because that fertilized egg is just a cell. Aborting a baby (before it becomes self-aware inside of the womb, which is only the last few weeks of pregnancy) is not denying a human of life. That embryo is not aware that soon it will be alive, it's not thinking to itself "soon I'm going to be a real boy!". Looking on it that way is looking on it the wrong way. Whether that embryo grows and becomes a healthy baby, or is aborted, it doesn't 'care' either way.

[Mercy]

Think about the trauma and suffering a twelve year old girl would go through everytime she looks at her baby child and it reminds her of the time she was raped in a dark alley by a middle-aged man. Now understand why it IS right for that girl to have an abortion. Ever thought that perhaps a twelve year old girl doesn't want to go through the trauma of giving birth, or maybe doesn't want the spawn of her and her rapist living in this world?

Please don't use the "the poor girl was raped" excuse. Such an event is a tragedy, but that's not something you can speak for.

And don't come back with "It's not her right to deny her baby life" crap. When and egg is fertilized, it's not thinking. You can't look at that egg and think "Soon that's going to be a cute baby human being named Timmy," because that fertilized egg is just a cell. Aborting a baby (before it becomes self-aware inside of the womb, which is only the last few weeks of pregnancy) is not denying a human of life. That embryo is not aware that soon it will be alive, it's not thinking to itself "soon I'm going to be a real boy!". Looking on it that way is looking on it the wrong way. Whether that embryo grows and becomes a healthy baby, or is aborted, it doesn't 'care' either way.

It cares, it's still a human life, no matter how small it is. You wouldn't say a brain-dead patient doesn't care or isn't human. In any case, I'm just against abortion personally, not against it being legal.

[Jack]

It cares, it's still a human life, no matter how small it is. You wouldn't say a brain-dead patient doesn't care or isn't human. In any case, I'm just against abortion personally, not against it being legal.

There two completely different things. The Embryo is incapable of caring. It lacks the correct functions. It isn't a human in the that state inside the womb. That's how it's different. Saying 'It cares' with nothing to back you up what so ever does not stand as an argument.

[Mercy]

There two completely different things. The Embryo is incapable of caring. It lacks the correct functions. It isn't a human in the that state inside the womb. That's how it's different. Saying 'It cares' with nothing to back you up what so ever does not stand as an argument.

Just because it hasn't developed nerves and can't feel yet doesn't mean that it doesn't have a soul.

[Shaun]

Just because it hasn't developed nerves and can't feel yet doesn't mean that it doesn't have a soul.

And what exactly is a soul? How do you know it exists? How do you know a soul can feel? How do you know an embryo has a soul? You don't, because there is absolutely zero evidence to support your claim. But there is evidence to prove Draxzar's point that an embryo doesn't care about its future.

And yes, I would argue that a brain-dead patient is no longer human, and I have no problem pulling the plug, because they are already dead. People who keep their brain-dead family members alive are selfish individuals with ulterior motives. There's more to life than just existing in a physical form.

[Mercy]

And what exactly is a soul? How do you know it exists? How do you know a soul can feel? How do you know an embryo has a soul? You don't, because there is absolutely zero evidence to support your claim. But there is evidence to prove Draxzar's point that an embryo doesn't care about its future.
I understand that it holds no evidence, yet at the same time, when has science ever created a perfectly functional individual human who could think for themselves out of nothing?


And yes, I would argue that a brain-dead patient is no longer human, and I have no problem pulling the plug, because they are already dead. People who keep their brain-dead family members alive are selfish individuals with ulterior motives. There's more to life than just existing in a physical form.
No, there's always hope they could recover. They are still humans, there's no reason to kill them.

[jordanisonfire]

No, there's always hope they could recover. They are still humans, there's no reason to kill them.

We had a debate about euthanasia at school, and it turns out that te princicple argument against it, that the victim may recover, rarely happens. Anti-euthanasia people also pull the same argument every time that Stephen Hawking was given a few weeks to live when he was diagnosed with his motor neurone disease (I think that was it), but is still living today. He is but one of the rare cases. Keeping these people alive is a drain on resources that could be used to help younger, more promising people who have a greater chance to live.

[Shaun]

I understand that it holds no evidence, yet at the same time, when has science ever created a perfectly functional individual human who could think for themselves out of nothing?

This doesn't make any sense.

No, there's always hope they could recover. They are still humans, there's no reason to kill them.

Actually, not true. Once the entire brain is clinically dead, there is absolutely zero possibility of recovery. The instances where there has been recovery did not involve a complete brain death, but a deep coma. People don't return from complete brain deaths. The brain itself has no function, the body cannot survive without machinery, and there's no possibility of jumpstarting the process again. It's over.

[Mercy]

Okay, this will be the last post from me on this thread, simply because I know that I lack evidence and that I am too emotional to debate, at least right now. I do agree that it should remain legal, with some restrictions, however, I am more concerned about the morality and the humanity behind the act than I am about the law.

When you abort a child, you are devaluing human life. There are no "if"s, "and"s or "but"s about it, you are killing a child. It might not be fully developed, but it is a child. And when you kill someone who is brain-dead, you are still ending a life. What right do we have to kill another human? What is our right to take our brethren away?

Do you know what happens when people start making exceptions to humanity? Things like the Holocaust happen. You may not take me seriously, but it's true. People start to look more like disposable objects, at least certain ones. Oh, those old people? They don't matter! That unborn child? Hell, it can't even feel, let's get rid of it! That's what I can see happening, those sorts of things. And that's why I'm so against the damn thing, evidence or not.

You see, I've been on both ends of the spectrum, and everywhere in-between. I understand what you mean and your line of thinking, on both sides. I'm not a stupid Christian, either and I refuse to join the Pro-life group at my school, because I'm not one of those people who wants to shove a cross in peoples' faces. But honestly, how can you say a life doesn't matter?

In any case, that's my thoughts. A little fanatical, yes. But that's because I care more about preserving human life than finding solutions that are more convenient for one person and lethal to the other. I apologize if I offend anyone with this, but it's my view on the subject.

[jordanisonfire]

But honestly, how can you say a life doesn't matter?


I find it very easy, sometimes, actually.

/spam

[Shaun]

When you abort a child, you are devaluing human life. There are no "if"s, "and"s or "but"s about it, you are killing a child. It might not be fully developed, but it is a child. And when you kill someone who is brain-dead, you are still ending a life. What right do we have to kill another human? What is our right to take our brethren away?

Clearly there are "if"s, "and"s, and "but"s about it, since we're having this debate. And in neither instance are we killing another person. A brain-dead person is already dead. All we're doing is allowing nature to take its course by unplugging them. We're not killing them. An embryo is not a child; it is a collection of cells. Humans beings are made up of much more than just cells.

Do you know what happens when people start making exceptions to humanity? Things like the Holocaust happen. You may not take me seriously, but it's true. People start to look more like disposable objects, at least certain ones. Oh, those old people? They don't matter! That unborn child? Hell, it can't even feel, let's get rid of it! That's what I can see happening, those sorts of things. And that's why I'm so against the damn thing, evidence or not.

The Holocaust? Are you shitting me? You're connecting abortion to the Holocaust? They're not even analogous by a long shot. The Holocaust is not what happens when we make exceptions to humanity; it's what happens when hate consumes us, and we've been doing such things for generations. Genocide is part of the human condition; it sucks, but is still a part of it. Abortion is not genocide.

But honestly, how can you say a life doesn't matter?

None of us are saying this. Most of us are more interested in the quality of life than life itself. If I had the choice between living with AIDS or being dead, I'd go with dead. If I had the choice between living a fairly comfortable, if not perfect life, or living in a dumpster with warts and smelling like shit and urine, I'd take the former over the latter, and would rather be dead than the latter. Sometimes life isn't all that great.

[listophergreene]

Abortion isn't genocide but it does end with a lot of deaths, many of which are unnecessary.

I would take crap life over no life at all, so stating one's opinion on that matter, while revealing their point of view, shouldn't give direction to the debate. Plenty of people would rather live rough than be dead in peace. We shouldn't enforce our opinion on that matter on someone who is incapable of making their own decision. I think plenty of children who were born into bad circumstances are thankful they are alive, and don't wish that they were dead because their life isn't good enough. The mother and father and whoever else is affected might not think so, but we aren't talking about their lives. The focus is on the life of the child, and killing it because someone else thought it would be better is equivalent to murder.

There are medical cases where the child is affecting the health of the mother, sure, but those are few and far between. Taking those cases and bringing emphasis to them is like pointing out the 1-in-a-million chance that your seatbelt will get you killed. Yes, it matters, but it is hardly relevant because it rarely happens. As a case-by-case matter, that would be taken into consideration during those occasions, but otherwise we still need to consider the 99% of pregnancies that are normal enough for everything to work out.

The 'golden rule' that we often hear is based on putting ourselves in another person's shoes. That baby could grow up and cure cancer, or that baby could become a mass murderer. Now, look at the number of murderers and the number of scientists and doctors and tell me which is more likely. This is an unknown child, and if it is a matter of choosing between the child's life, and the quality of the parents lives, the child's life is more valuable.
Put yourself in the shoes of an unborn child, and think (they don't have logic, but if they looked back after being born they would have something to say) about whether you would want to be born or not. Your parents don't want you. Could you deal with an orphanage or adoption or a foster home? Could you deal with living with grandparents? You probably could.

On a personal note, I know of several children born outside of their parents' intentions. One is being raised by his grandparents, who are still capable of childbearing themselves. This is a happy child with very responsible and experienced guardians.

Another child has parents who simply dealt with his birth, and realized that it was time to get on with their lives. They now have two happy children.

These cases end happily, and many do. When we think about these, abortion is like asking "Life or death?". It should be a rhetorical question.

[Bowie20049]

Abortion isn't genocide but it does end with a lot of deaths, many of which are unnecessary.

I would take crap life over no life at all, so stating one's opinion on that matter, while revealing their point of view, shouldn't give direction to the debate. Plenty of people would rather live rough than be dead in peace. We shouldn't enforce our opinion on that matter on someone who is incapable of making their own decision. I think plenty of children who were born into bad circumstances are thankful they are alive, and don't wish that they were dead because their life isn't good enough. The mother and father and whoever else is affected might not think so, but we aren't talking about their lives. The focus is on the life of the child, and killing it because someone else thought it would be better is equivalent to murder.

There are medical cases where the child is affecting the health of the mother, sure, but those are few and far between. Taking those cases and bringing emphasis to them is like pointing out the 1-in-a-million chance that your seatbelt will get you killed. Yes, it matters, but it is hardly relevant because it rarely happens. As a case-by-case matter, that would be taken into consideration during those occasions, but otherwise we still need to consider the 99% of pregnancies that are normal enough for everything to work out.

The 'golden rule' that we often hear is based on putting ourselves in another person's shoes. That baby could grow up and cure cancer, or that baby could become a mass murderer. Now, look at the number of murderers and the number of scientists and doctors and tell me which is more likely. This is an unknown child, and if it is a matter of choosing between the child's life, and the quality of the parents lives, the child's life is more valuable.
Put yourself in the shoes of an unborn child, and think (they don't have logic, but if they looked back after being born they would have something to say) about whether you would want to be born or not. Your parents don't want you. Could you deal with an orphanage or adoption or a foster home? Could you deal with living with grandparents? You probably could.

On a personal note, I know of several children born outside of their parents' intentions. One is being raised by his grandparents, who are still capable of childbearing themselves. This is a happy child with very responsible and experienced guardians.

Another child has parents who simply dealt with his birth, and realized that it was time to get on with their lives. They now have two happy children.

These cases end happily, and many do. When we think about these, abortion is like asking "Life or death?". It should be a rhetorical question.

You're making it seem like we are killing a five year old boy. No, this is an unborn cluster of cells. It's the mother's choice on whether she should abort or not. It won't be fair to put her up with something she wouldn't want to do or cannot handle.

What happens if she gives birth a child that she doesn't want? Assuming she keeps it for some reason, she would have to feed two mouths now, while also putting up with the needs and wants of this newcomer. Some people can't handle so much stress at once.

[Shaun]

The whole argument is absurd, Bowie. Let's all play the "what if" game...

If you don't like abortion, don't have one, but leave other people to do as they wish with their bodies.

[Jack]

That baby could grow up and cure cancer, or that baby could become a mass murderer. Now, look at the number of murderers and the number of scientists and doctors and tell me which is more likely.

Actually, based on all evidence you could possible gather, it is MUCH more likely that this baby will grow up to be a mass murderer than grow up to cure cancer...



If you don't like abortion, don't have one, but leave other people to do as they wish with their bodies.

And on that note.... lets end this debate. I feel we're simply going round in circles. Neither side is going to change there mindset so why carry on?

[listophergreene]

Actually, based on all evidence you could possible gather, it is MUCH more likely that this baby will grow up to be a mass murderer than grow up to cure cancer...

I wanted to say that the child would be more likely to help the world than to hurt it.


And on that note.... lets end this debate. I feel we're simply going round in circles. Neither side is going to change there mindset so why carry on?

Most debates end with neither side changing their mindset.
Most debates also end with both sides more informed.
If there are no more points, the debate can be ended, until then: we learn.

[Alex]

None of us are saying this. Most of us are more interested in the quality of life than life itself. If I had the choice between living with AIDS or being dead, I'd go with dead. If I had the choice between living a fairly comfortable, if not perfect life, or living in a dumpster with warts and smelling like shit and urine, I'd take the former over the latter, and would rather be dead than the latter. Sometimes life isn't all that great.

Really? Living with AIDS in a humane environment, at least in my opinion, doesn't compare to living in a dumpster with warts. I think you were implying in an African desert with a lack of food and such as well.

/hijack/

sorry for hijacking the thread

Continue =]

[Meghan]

I'm going to post my sob story because I lack scientific reasoning. Forgive me.

My mother had a one night stand with a black man -- and when she was younger, that kind of thing was frowned upon, at least in her family. Shortly after she discovered she was pregnant, my mother aborted the baby as opposed to giving birth to a mixed child.

All my life, my mom has been super overprotective of me. I didn't find out why until she told me about the abortion after my grandmother passed away. My mom told me that ever since she had me, she's beenwracked with guilt. She used to watch me sleep in my crib and cry. To this day she still wonders what would've happened if she hadn't had the abortion.

One of my best friends was almost aborted, and she has won countless awards for her artwork at my school. Another of my friends was a rape baby, and her advice and comfort has gotten me where I am today. Both of them are inspirational to me. Thinking about a life without them gives me a terrified, empty feeling.

I consider abortion a selfish thing, even if you don't consider the early stages of the baby to be alive. The mother is thinking about herself, not the unborn child. I know an eighteen year old girl who is starting on her ninth month. In these past nine months, she has grown from an overdramatic girl who, well, got around the block a few times into a loving, happy person.

Isn't this a site for young writers? I don't think we deserve to have an opinion on this. We don't know what it's like to be a mother and love the child growing inside of us. Becoming a mom is a huge step from being the center of our own universe to devoting all of our time and affection to a tiny, helpless being. As teenagers (well, most of us are teenagers), we have the time to sit around and not worry about settling down with someone, finding a job, and supporting and raising a family, so right now our lives are very me-centric.

[Callie]

I'm going to post my sob story because I lack scientific reasoning. Forgive me.

My mother had a one night stand with a black man -- and when she was younger, that kind of thing was frowned upon, at least in her family. Shortly after she discovered she was pregnant, my mother aborted the baby as opposed to giving birth to a mixed child.

All my life, my mom has been super overprotective of me. I didn't find out why until she told me about the abortion after my grandmother passed away. My mom told me that ever since she had me, she's beenwracked with guilt. She used to watch me sleep in my crib and cry. To this day she still wonders what would've happened if she hadn't had the abortion.

One of my best friends was almost aborted, and she has won countless awards for her artwork at my school. Another of my friends was a rape baby, and her advice and comfort has gotten me where I am today. Both of them are inspirational to me. Thinking about a life without them gives me a terrified, empty feeling.

I consider abortion a selfish thing, even if you don't consider the early stages of the baby to be alive. The mother is thinking about herself, not the unborn child. I know an eighteen year old girl who is starting on her ninth month. In these past nine months, she has grown from an overdramatic girl who, well, got around the block a few times into a loving, happy person.

Isn't this a site for young writers? I don't think we deserve to have an opinion on this. We don't know what it's like to be a mother and love the child growing inside of us. Becoming a mom is a huge step from being the center of our own universe to devoting all of our time and affection to a tiny, helpless being. As teenagers (well, most of us are teenagers), we have the time to sit around and not worry about settling down with someone, finding a job, and supporting and raising a family, so right now our lives are very me-centric.

You do realize you wouldn't exist if your mother hadn't had an abortion, because her life would have taken an entirely different route?

And that's the thing -- we are teenagers, we want the time to "not worry about settling down with someone, finding a job, and supporting and raising a family" -- and that's why many teenagers get abortions. Because they aren't ready to raise a human being. Because they aren't ready to nurture a fetus in their womb. Because they would like to grow up before having to go through all of that.

We do deserve to have an opinion. There are several people my age, that I personally know, who have children or are pregnant. It affects us very much, to have the option of abortion available.

I can understand why you think it's selfish. But part of surviving as a human being is, sometimes, being selfish.

[jordanisonfire]

I don't think we deserve to have an opinion on this. We don't know what it's like to be a mother and love the child growing inside of us.

Well, I don't think around half the population of the world will know, seeing as they're guys.

And abortion, "selfish"? So, you'd have the teenage mother, who could be something like 12, ruin their life by having a baby at such a young age? To have her education dramatically affected, even destroyed, to be frowned upon by her peers, to always have the reminder of the rape (if that is indeed what happened) when they look at their child.

I see not condoning abortion as a selfish thing.

[listophergreene]

Well, I don't think around half the population of the world will know, seeing as they're guys.

And abortion, "selfish"? So, you'd have the teenage mother, who could be something like 12, ruin their life by having a baby at such a young age? To have her education dramatically affected, even destroyed, to be frowned upon by her peers, to always have the reminder of the rape (if that is indeed what happened) when they look at their child.

I see not condoning abortion as a selfish thing.

If you condone it, it becomes selfish from the mother toward the child, as she is thinking only of herself. If you disallow it, it becomes selfish toward the mother, whose life may be continually traumatized. We can't really say that pro/anti abortion overall is selfish, because there are two parties involved, the mother and the unborn, and it affects both of them.

This also goes back to the crap life or no life: is it better for the mother to have a crap life with the child, or for the mother to have a nice life but to completely deny the child its life? That isn't always the case though, as I said earlier, I know of several families who have let the child live and gotten past it, and the child is growing up like any child grows up. There will always be problems, it doesn't matter where they come from, they are inescapable.

And is it better for the mother to say "I wish you were never born, my life would be so much better." or "I wish I could've seen my child's face..." ? Part of survival may be selfishness, but we as humans can do so much better than that.

If it was partly the mother's fault that the child was born (she wasn't forced) then she shouldn't be able to just get rid of it. She knew she was capable of bringing a new life into the world if she didn't take enough care - it was her own lack of foresight. With the one-in-a-million twelve year old raped girl it's different, but in most cases we're speaking of a selfishness that shames our humanity.

Imagine a boy putting a chicken egg into an incubator, just for fun. Twenty days later, he knows it's about to hatch. He realized that he will have to feed, water, and shelter the chick, and he is terrified of the responsibility and time it will take from him. He crushes the egg. Would it have been any less of a life a few days before? And we're talking about humans.

[Callie]

I kind of don't like that this has turned into "But what if she was raped?!" The majority of abortions aren't rape cases. I want to know what you think of a woman who is with a steady boyfriend, is using contraception, gets pregnant, and knows it's not the right path for her. Or a girl who "sleeps around" a lot and gets pregnant and knows she can't handle it.

Because to me, if you're saying no to letting a woman have an abortion, you're saying, "You have become an incubator. This is no longer about your right to life, or your pursuit of happiness -- this is about you making a mistake. This is about you becoming the property of the government."

Would I ever have an abortion? I doubt it. But to know the option is not available, no matter the circumstance? I think that's wrong.

And again, would you put me away for thirty years if I had an abortion? Twenty? Ten?

[jordanisonfire]

If you condone it, it becomes selfish from the mother toward the child, as she is thinking only of herself. If you disallow it, it becomes selfish toward the mother, whose life may be continually traumatized. We can't really say that pro/anti abortion overall is selfish, because there are two parties involved, the mother and the unborn, and it affects both of them.

But one party - the unborn - has no idea what's gonna happen to them. They haven't even developed the power to FEEL pain yet. But the mother can, and thats the point.

This also goes back to the crap life or no life: is it better for the mother to have a crap life with the child, or for the mother to have a nice life but to completely deny the child its life? That isn't always the case though, as I said earlier, I know of several families who have let the child live and gotten past it, and the child is growing up like any child grows up. There will always be problems, it doesn't matter where they come from, they are inescapable.

Note that you live in an MEDC. Those who live in third world countries WON'T have to power to give their child a good life. Nor will some people in MEDCs, come to think of it. Plus, those who can't afford to support the child they didn't want get welfare from other people whose fault it is in no way that the child was born? That isn't justice, and it can be prevented with abortions.

If it was partly the mother's fault that the child was born (she wasn't forced) then she shouldn't be able to just get rid of it. She knew she was capable of bringing a new life into the world if she didn't take enough care - it was her own lack of foresight. With the one-in-a-million twelve year old raped girl it's different, but in most cases we're speaking of a selfishness that shames our humanity.

Wow, that's very caring of you. Here you are, telling us we're selfish, and you come out with this? And they should be given to chance to abort their child.

Imagine a boy putting a chicken egg into an incubator, just for fun. Twenty days later, he knows it's about to hatch. He realized that he will have to feed, water, and shelter the chick, and he is terrified of the responsibility and time it will take from him. He crushes the egg. Would it have been any less of a life a few days before? And we're talking about humans.

That's a terrible example. For one, we're talking about mature, grown-up people, not a naive child. Also, you make it sound so inhumane. Abortion isn't. Plus, you're also making it sound like the child (as a representation of the pregnant woman) would be able to look after the chick (the child). They wouldn't, but a child with a chick would.

[Eilidh]

If it was partly the mother's fault that the child was born (she wasn't forced) then she shouldn't be able to just get rid of it. She knew she was capable of bringing a new life into the world if she didn't take enough care - it was her own lack of foresight. With the one-in-a-million twelve year old raped girl it's different, but in most cases we're speaking of a selfishness that shames our humanity.

Actually people get raped a lot more than you think, especially young people all over the world. Sorry but I strongly disagree with this, it's the mothers body, it's her egg, she can choose what she wants to do with it.

[listophergreene]

I realized several flaws in the chicken example shortly after I presented it. One main point is that it is irresponsible to not finish what you started. It was, perhaps, even more irresponsible to start it in the first place.

I'm not sure if I'm correct in assuming this, but it seems as if pro-life folks are focused on the unborn child, and pro-choice folks are focused on the mother. If we try to take in both perspectives, maybe we will understand more, or be able to think more clearly. However, the child cannot say 'no' nor state any opinion at all. We view the child as a toddler, thankful that his mother let him live. On the other hand, pro-choicers seem more likely to view the child as another step toward life, rather than life itself. To many of them, the 'fetus' is disposable, and hardly the equivalent of a born baby. In reality, the child is unborn and pre-conscious, but it still has life, and we are still taking it from him. The child has everything to lose, the mother has some, but not her entire life.


I want to know what you think of a woman who is with a steady boyfriend, is using contraception, gets pregnant, and knows it's not the right path for her. Or a girl who "sleeps around" a lot and gets pregnant and knows she can't handle it.The steady woman may not see a full pregnancy as her right path, but then she's also deciding the fate of her child. How many of us choose the path of death? It has life, and she's taking it. It may mess with things, but I don't think it's fair to take a life that has barely started, just for the comfort of your own.

The girl had it coming. She has other options than raising the child herself, and she knew a pregnancy could happen. In the USA she would've probably been educated about all of those things.

Everyone should know the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence.

It seems as though some mothers see their pregnancies as STDs... but pregnancies are biologically constructive, not destructive. They give life, not take it. The mother may have to pay a lot of her time and resources, but the baby isn't killing her. Medical excuses could still happen.

Scratch the 'more details' thing, I think I'm done here. I see the same discussions going in circles, so I don't feel like I'm learning, I just come up with creative new ways to say the same old things.

[Jack]

The steady woman may not see a full pregnancy as her right path, but then she's also deciding the fate of her child. How many of us choose the path of death? It has life, and she's taking it. It may mess with things, but I don't think it's fair to take a life that has barely started, just for the comfort of your own.


This is something people keep failing to understand. IT ISN'T TAKING A LIFE THAT EARLY ON! It's not a human, it doesn't care about it's future, and it isn't taking away someone's newly made 'soul'. Having an abortion within the first few weeks denies a child of life about as much as saying: "Actually, honey, let's not have a baby,".

(Oh, and by the way, I also think this debate is pointless and going round in circles. Plus, it's starting to frustrate me.)

[Shaun]

I'm closing this thread guys. It's just going round in circles.