PDA

View Full Version : What's your view on abortion?


Kawaii Bean
August 29th, 2016, 02:29 PM
Let's say you've gotten pregnant. Unintentionally, or intentionally/planned but you've decided you don't want to have a baby no more.
Are you going to abort the baby or are you going to give birth to it so that you can be a parent/give the baby up for adoption, etc? And why?
Why would you and why would you not abort?

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 02:38 PM
Yay my first abortion debate on ROTW xD I heard this was a big thing a while back :P

I think it is 100% the women's choice, if I got a women pregnant I would support her either way.

Drewboyy
August 29th, 2016, 02:48 PM
If the woman needs to go into an operating room to get it aborted, she shouldn't be able to get one. (So like, what is that? Before the 12th week?)

But yeah, if I got someone pregnant by accident or if we agreed on it and she still wants to have one, I'd be fine with it.

devotionnel
August 29th, 2016, 02:48 PM
It definitely should be the woman's choice. Even though it could have been her fault she was pregnant in the first place, she shouldn't be pressured into keeping the child just so she can conform with social norms and so she "doesn't get looked down on". If the father was willing to raise the child with her, and they have adequate money to do so, then she can keep the child even if it wasn't intentionally planned. On the other hand, if the father of the child wasn't willing to look after it or there isn't enough money to look after it, or for many other reasons, she should be allowed to abort the child.

Vlerchan
August 29th, 2016, 03:21 PM
Woman should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy at any point until birth, up to forty weeks.

The prospective father should have no legally-entitled say.

I heard this was a big thing a while back
There was a stage where I could respond to every comment with a quote from a previous post, if it helps put it into perspective.

Arkansasguy
August 29th, 2016, 03:25 PM
Let's say you've gotten pregnant. Unintentionally, or intentionally/planned but you've decided you don't want to have a baby no more.
Are you going to abort the baby or are you going to give birth to it so that you can be a parent/give the baby up for adoption, etc? And why?
Why would you and why would you not abort?

People who kill (or pay or conspire with others to kill) their children are beneath contempt. Such behavior warrants both complete social ostracization and the harshest penalties available under the legal system.

Ditto for those they conspire with.

EuRo
August 29th, 2016, 03:28 PM
From my current moral standpoint, abortion should only be legal during the embryo stages. Once it becomes an actual fetus it should be illegal to abort.

Honestly you have to think about something: a fetus is a possible human being. It could have a life, it could enjoy life. We were all fetuses at one point. I'm not completely sure about abortion, but I lean towards it being illegal.

Jinglebottom
August 29th, 2016, 03:35 PM
I support it under certain circumstances, for example if the unborn baby has an incurable genetic disorder/birth defect, if the baby was conceived from rape, or if the mother's health is at risk.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 03:39 PM
From my current moral standpoint, abortion should only be legal during the embryo stages. Once it becomes an actual fetus it should be illegal to abort.

Honestly you have to think about something: a fetus is a possible human being. It could have a life, it could enjoy life. We were all fetuses at one point. I'm not completely sure about abortion, but I lean towards it being illegal.
We were all sperm once too, that same justification is used by religious fruit loops that want masturbation to be illegal.

Periphery
August 29th, 2016, 03:51 PM
People who kill (or pay or conspire with others to kill) their children are beneath contempt. Such behavior warrants both complete social ostracization and the harshest penalties available under the legal system.

Ditto for those they conspire with.

So what about medical complications during the pregnancy that threaten the life of the mother? Saying she's not allowed to get an abortion is also murder in my opinion if it is lethal.

Also what if it was an accident and the family is unable to financially support the child? This causes the child to live in a very bad enviroment and may ruin its life. Can parents who know they will be unable to raise/support the child get an abortion?

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 03:59 PM
People who kill (or pay or conspire with others to kill) their children are beneath contempt. Such behavior warrants both complete social ostracization and the harshest penalties available under the legal system.

Ditto for those they conspire with.
I have a few things to say about this. Firstly, why do you consider a couple of cells as children?

Do you think it it right to have a women die during pregnancy for a child?

Do you think it is right to bring a child into this world with severe genetic disorders?

Do you think it is right to not allow the embryo to be terminated when it is the product of rape or incest?

Pazzi
August 29th, 2016, 04:24 PM
I believe it should be legalised on the grounds that woman should have the right to control their own bodies, even though on a personal level, I'd be against it.

EuRo
August 29th, 2016, 04:26 PM
We were all sperm once too, that same justification is used by religious fruit loops that want masturbation to be illegal.

Sperm don't develop inside of a womb. A fetus develops and if you birth the baby then that's a person that is alive. If you really wanted to, you could say the same about newborns, toddlers, etc.

A fetus is a developing child. Would you want to kill a one-year old child? A two-year old child?

I generally have not been a person with many morals, but the fact you have no concern over a baby dying is disturbing.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 04:28 PM
Sperm don't develop inside of a womb. A fetus develops and if you birth the baby then that's a person that is alive. If you really wanted to, you could say the same about newborns, toddlers, etc.

A fetus is a developing child. Would you want to kill a one-year old child? A two-year old child?

I generally have not been a person with many morals, but the fact you have no concern over a baby dying is disturbing.
A fetus is not a child, it is a fetus. Would you consider an embryo a child? A zygote?

Barbara.
August 29th, 2016, 05:02 PM
Let's say you've gotten pregnant. Unintentionally, or intentionally/planned but you've decided you don't want to have a baby no more.
Are you going to abort the baby or are you going to give birth to it so that you can be a parent/give the baby up for adoption, etc? And why?
Why would you and why would you not abort?
Wow thats a tough question to answer. My question is there a right or wrong to abort and feel saddened later in life by the decision you made ,or be sorry you didn't abort.

Endeavour
August 29th, 2016, 05:09 PM
... if the unborn baby has an incurable genetic disorder/birth defect,...

So? In my opinion that's not a reason to abort. Every person should have a right to live, whether they are 'perfect' or not.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 05:15 PM
So? In my opinion that's not a reason to abort. Every person should have a right to live, whether they are 'perfect' or not.
But I wouldn't consider some cells 'alive'. Technically all cells are alive but they're not like a conscious person.

If you could filter out sperm/eggs with defects, would you?

Vlerchan
August 29th, 2016, 05:19 PM
Technically all cells are alive but they're not like a conscious person.

When do human-beings become conscious?

Arkansasguy
August 29th, 2016, 05:25 PM
So what about medical complications during the pregnancy that threaten the life of the mother? Saying she's not allowed to get an abortion is also murder in my opinion if it is lethal.

I don't care about your non-understanding of this. Killing the innocent should not be tolerated by law (and isn't tolerated by law if the person has been born).

Also what if it was an accident and the family is unable to financially support the child? This causes the child to live in a very bad enviroment and may ruin its life. Can parents who know they will be unable to raise/support the child get an abortion?

Getting murdered will also ruin a kid's life.

I have a few things to say about this. Firstly, why do you consider a couple of cells as children?

A child is a human being who is not fully developed.

Do you think it it right to have a women die during pregnancy for a child?

In general, a man should be willing to sacrifice his life for his wife and children, and a woman for her children. Though of course that isn't a matter that should be enforced by law. Though of course no one should be permitted to attack another person aggressively for their own benefit.

So things like e.g. delaying uterine cancer treatment for the benefit of an unborn child is praiseworthy but not obligatory. Refraining from aggressively attacking the kid should be obligatory.

Do you think it is right to bring a child into this world with severe genetic disorders?

People with such disabilities should be protected from scumbags who want to kill them, yes.

Do you think it is right to not allow the embryo to be terminated when it is the product of rape or incest?

It should be illegal for a crime victim to murder their attacker's kids, yes.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 05:27 PM
When do human-beings become conscious?
When they become self aware? I can already foresee your next question, but babies aren't self aware?:D

Tbh maybe able to live outside of the womb might have been a better?

What is life and what isn't is hard to define, especially when people realise our consciousness is only ions and chemicals.
I don't care about your non-understanding of this. Killing the innocent should not be tolerated by law (and isn't tolerated by law if the person has been born).



Getting murdered will also ruin a kid's life.



A child is a human being who is not fully developed.



In general, a man should be willing to sacrifice his life for his wife and children, and a woman for her children. Though of course that isn't a matter that should be enforced by law. Though of course no one should be permitted to attack another person aggressively for their own benefit.

So things like e.g. delaying uterine cancer treatment for the benefit of an unborn child is praiseworthy but not obligatory. Refraining from aggressively attacking the kid should be obligatory.



People with such disabilities should be protected from scumbags who want to kill them, yes.



It should be illegal for a crime victim to murder their attacker's kids, yes.
It seems the main root of this is that you consider zygotes children. Why is this? Religious reasons? Do you consider male masturbation murder too?

Arkansasguy
August 29th, 2016, 06:58 PM
When they become self aware? I can already foresee your next question, but babies aren't self aware?:D

Tbh maybe able to live outside of the womb might have been a better?

What is life and what isn't is hard to define, especially when people realise our consciousness is only ions and chemicals.

It seems the main root of this is that you consider zygotes children. Why is this?

By definition a child is a human being who is not fully developed.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 07:02 PM
By definition a child is a human being who is not fully developed.
True, but because a definition did not include a lower limit, does not prove that you're right. Even if it said a child is everything from a zygote to a human in puberty.

Why do you think this? Religion?

Do you consider male masturbation murder?

Kyle37
August 29th, 2016, 07:04 PM
DISCLAIMER: If you're easily offended don't read whats below:
If neither man or woman planned on having the baby, then I believe either one of them should be able to decide whether to abort the baby. I also believe the baby can be aborted any time during the pregnancy and thats completely okay.
I don't want to start a debate, thats just my beliefs.

Endeavour
August 29th, 2016, 07:06 PM
Do you consider male masturbation murder?

I wouldn't. A 'murder' could only happen if an woman's egg is fertilised. That can't happen just with male masturbation.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 07:09 PM
I wouldn't. A 'murder' could only happen if an woman's egg is fertilised. That can't happen just with male masturbation.
Some people would so that is why I asked :)

What difference is there between a a single cell and a zygote then? Is it one is haploid and the other is diploid?
DISCLAIMER: If you're easily offended don't read whats below:
If neither man or woman planned on having the baby, then I believe either one of them should be able to decide whether to abort the baby. I also believe the baby can be aborted any time during the pregnancy and thats completely okay.
I don't want to start a debate, thats just my beliefs.
Why should the man have a say? It is not his body. A women risks her life giving birth, why should a man force that upon her?

Endeavour
August 29th, 2016, 07:13 PM
Some people would so that is why I asked :)
I just remembered another viewpoint we once learned in RE though. Male masturbation is considered by some to be a waste of sperm, and therefore a lost opportunity for an egg to be fertilised and a baby to be born.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 07:28 PM
I just remembered another viewpoint we once learned in RE though. Male masturbation is considered by some to be a waste of sperm, and therefore a lost opportunity for an egg to be fertilised and a baby to be born.
That is true, there are even some fruit loops that want it to be illegal!

ethan-s
August 29th, 2016, 07:36 PM
Imo, anyone that aborts a baby ought to be shot. If you get pregnant, you better be able to deal with the consequences unless of course it's rape. In that case rapists should be put in jail for a few months and then shot. Seriously. However, I think rape prevention is a huge thing, but that is off topic.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 07:39 PM
Imo, anyone that aborts a baby ought to be shot. If you get pregnant, you better be able to deal with the consequences unless of course it's rape. In that case rapists should be put in jail for a few months and then shot. Seriously. However, I think rape prevention is a huge thing, but that is off topic.
So the women should risk her life giving birth to an unwanted product of rape and deal with the social and economic affects of that?

A zygote is not a child.
A gamete is not a child.

Do you think male masturbation is murder?
Also, is the reason you think this because of a religion?

Drewboyy
August 29th, 2016, 08:53 PM
Why should the man have a say? It is not his body. A women risks her life giving birth, why should a man force that upon her?

Because the fertilized egg is half of the man's doing. The baby is just as much his as it is hers.

I also believe the baby can be aborted any time during the pregnancy and thats completely okay.

Even a week before the due date?

I wouldn't. A 'murder' could only happen if an woman's egg is fertilised. That can't happen just with male masturbation.

Yeah, I always though that a human was considered alive at conception and a murder would be taking the life away from a living being.

PlasmaHam
August 29th, 2016, 09:17 PM
So the women should risk her life giving birth to an unwanted product of rape and deal with the social and economic affects of that?


Risk her life? Last I heard, babies from rape weren't any worse for wear than your average baby. And unlike some third world countries, most of the West actually helps rape victims and there isn't really a social stigma about it. As for economic affects, giving your child up for adoption is always an option. Anyways, less than 1% of all abortions are the result of rape/incest, so trying to argue that abortion is good because of that is like arguing nukes are good because they can make glass. Insignificant factor over many negatives.

What if you were the result of rape? Wouldn't you interpret the phrase "giving birth to an unwanted product of rape" a slight bit offensive, and downright rude? You really need to watch your speech, for a so called tolerant person you really need to work on being nice.

As for the mothers who had consensual sex, and want an abortion for financial, social, or other reasons, too bad. You had to go sleeping around. Did you expect not to get pregnant when you were preforming human procreation? You made your choice, now you have to live with it.

A zygote is not a child.
A gamete is not a child.
Male sperm or female eggs are not a new human. When they merge, as a zygote and later a fetus, that is a new human being. And a fetus is human, simply a developing human. Simple biology will tell you that. What did you think fetuses were, magical beings that become human as soon as they pop out of the mother?

Here is a picture of a fetus at abortion age. Graphic Content Warning (http://liveactionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20150816_013044.jpg) You tell me that isn't human.
I would include more similar content, but I honestly got sick looking and listening to the wholesale slaughter of children, and it takes a lot to get me to that level.

I really don't get how male masturbation being murder or not really applies to this equation. Just seems like an attempt to provoke yet another religious debate.

Btw, views don't matter where they came from, all that matter is that they stand up to scrutiny. That falls under 'ad hominem' logical fallacy. I believe that all human life is sacred, and that killing another without just cause is wrong. It doesn't matter if that came from religion or not. There are non-religious philosophical views that share the same sentiment, so stop blaming religion and actually try to refute the arguments.

I also believe the baby can be aborted any time during the pregnancy and thats completely okay.

That is a very dangerous sentence right there. Anytime during pregnancy? Even most pro-abortion don't accept that, though I'm not sure about Flapjack and his magical fetuses.

Dalcourt
August 29th, 2016, 10:10 PM
This is a complicated subject.

I feel sometimes it's far to easily dealt with. If you don't want a baby you could use contraception instead of having unprotected sex and later abort the baby cuz it doesn't fit into your life.
So it's far too easy sometimes and women have abortions without thinking about the consequences...it's not like a get rid off the baby and then go on with your life thing. Sometimes the psychological effects on the women are severe and nobody cares.

I feel a woman should have the possibility to abort if there are health risks for herself or the unborn baby or maybe if she was raped but she needs some psychologist or professional to discuss it with and shouldn't left alone.

Otherwise I don't think you should be able to abort that easily.
I mean I know women that had several abortions just because they thought they could make a guy stay with them when they get pregnant and the guy wouldn't and so they didn't want another baby on their own.
That's just plain wrong and if evey women would think like that I wouldn't be here either.

So as I said abortion might be okay in some special cases but the way it's sometimws used like another form of birth control is not okay at all.

I don't like how people here try to make this into a religious debate cuz honestly whether to stop someone from coming into existence or not should be decided with common sense and not with the Bible. So why does this always have to happen?

Arkansasguy
August 29th, 2016, 10:36 PM
True, but because a definition did not include a lower limit, does not prove that you're right. Even if it said a child is everything from a zygote to a human in puberty.

Why on Earth would the designator "child", designed to distinguish from "adult", have a lower limit of reference.

And why does the etymology of the word "child" matter? Killing helpless adults would be just as perverse.

PlasmaHam
August 29th, 2016, 11:10 PM
But I wouldn't consider some cells 'alive'. Technically all cells are alive but they're not like a conscious person.

If you could filter out sperm/eggs with defects, would you?

We were all sperm once too, that same justification is used by religious fruit loops that want masturbation to be illegal.

I don't believe you understand the basic biological function of reproduction. A sperm from your father, is not you. An egg from your mother, is not you. When the chromosomes from each combine, forming a unique being, that is you. I was never a sperm, if I was then my father and I should be perfect clones, which we aren't. You aren't you until the sperm and egg combine and form you.


Woman should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy at any point until birth, up to forty weeks.
I can in no way support that. There is a reason 24 weeks is the standard abortion deadline. Beyond that, a baby can likely survive outside the womb. Where do you draw the line with your view? After birth is when it becomes illegal to kill a baby? Despite the fact that babies in the womb at 40 weeks are often more developed than babies born early at 30 weeks. Killing a baby despite the fact that it can survive without you is morally bankrupt, and really makes no sense.

When they become self aware? I can already foresee your next question, but babies aren't self aware?:D

Tbh maybe able to live outside of the womb might have been a better?

What is life and what isn't is hard to define, especially when people realise our consciousness is only ions and chemicals.

Brain function is recorded at 6 weeks of development, so I don't know what you are getting at. To be self aware is being able to understand your place and what you are. So I guess babies in the womb aren't self aware, but neither are babies outside the womb, nor beasts of the Earth, so I don't think lack of self awareness means you can just go slaughtering them.

If abortion is right because the baby is dependent on the womb, then I guess killing people who are hooked up to life support or other dependent devices is fine.

ThisBougieLife
August 29th, 2016, 11:29 PM
I find the main argument for abortion, the idea that a "fetus is not a human", to be a weak one. For this reason I am mostly opposed to abortion (i.e. I could see it being allowed in some extreme cases, but terminating a pregnancy because it's an inconvenience doesn't seem justifiable to me).

That said, I'm not sure how I feel about actually making it illegal. If this would increase the likelihood of dangerous "back alley" abortions then I'm not sure I would agree with that. That said, if it must remain legal, it shouldn't be allowed very late in the pregnancy at all. No more than a couple months.

Uniquemind
August 29th, 2016, 11:33 PM
I just remembered another viewpoint we once learned in RE though. Male masturbation is considered by some to be a waste of sperm, and therefore a lost opportunity for an egg to be fertilized and a baby to be born.

But that also ignores, from what I understand, Jewish understanding regarding male nocturnal emissions and female monthly menses.

If those unused cells, being wasted is equivalent on a morality scale to murder, then that makes no sense and you have an inconsistency in understanding their scriptures. So we cannot interpret it this way, those that do are making a grave and prideful error in understanding their faith.



To answer the OP, I believe it is a women's right to choose, but that it is a sin to do, and although you will have the power of freewill to do so, it is something to atone for.

In Earthly law, it is not it's place to prevent abortion on faith grounds, only on a ethics and humanitarian ground in regards to it's effect on a society (measure what you will of the pros and cons of the medical procedure).

I definitely think it can be regulated, and only a licensed doctor should be allowed to do such a procedure.

And at a certain point I do not support being fickle in such a decision, I do feel 20 weeks is enough time to decide to go the abortion route, if that time elapses, with the only exception that the life of the female is at risk, then I think abortion should be taken off the table.

To those who say that it's murder, there are many actions in life from human intervention, that society justifies that result in the death or contribute to the death of others fully developed, yet we tolerate it within the right context. If you are to counter me on this I expect a strong explanation for consistency's sake of holding one view but not another with regards to the sanctity of life.

--

Also to add to the discussion but hitting the same moral premise of:

"should forced motherhood be allowed by law or not"

How do you all feel about situations where a female with a working reproductive system is forcibly impregnated, and held captive until birth of the kidnapper/rapist's baby is born?

The moral question is the same...and this isn't a hypothetical this has happened to a poor women in Cleveland, Ohio, and this also happened to another lady in California.

Both women love their children, and would not end them now.

But what of women in their situation who don't share their view and are subjected to the above conditions?

---

My overall premise is this: On this particular issue, there is not absolute right, or absolute wrong, there just is what is, and ultimately it's up to the woman to decide because reality presents us with no better option.

If it's not happening to you, if you aren't the one pregnant, stay out if it and be thankful you yourself are alive. If you are a male, just find another woman who will give you the lifestyle you want.

If doctors notice a suspicious pattern of women going in for multiple abortions along with medical scarring and suspect some kind of insurance fraud, well let the police and medical professionals sort it out.

ThisBougieLife
August 29th, 2016, 11:43 PM
There really shouldn't be any comparison to masturbation here outside of a joke. Even during intercourse, millions and millions of sperm are released, the majority of which die. So unless sex is also regarded as "murder", then there's really no reason to bring it up other than as a poor attempt at a mockery of anti-abortion arguments.
Uniquemind Your comment about "acceptable death" made me think of the fact that many anti-abortion folk are pro-death penalty. "Sanctity of life" obviously comes with an idea (for some) that one can forfeit their right to life (i.e. by committing a heinous crime).

Uniquemind
August 29th, 2016, 11:52 PM
There really shouldn't be any comparison to masturbation here outside of a joke. Even during intercourse, millions and millions of sperm are released, the majority of which die. So unless sex is also regarded as "murder", then there's really no reason to bring it up other than as a poor attempt at a mockery of anti-abortion arguments.
Uniquemind Your comment about "acceptable death" made me think of the fact that many anti-abortion folk are pro-death penalty. "Sanctity of life" obviously comes with an idea (for some) that one can forfeit their right to life (i.e. by committing a heinous crime).

Suicide-by-cop comes to mind now that you mention it, that's definitely happened as well.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 02:12 AM
Why on Earth would the designator "child", designed to distinguish from "adult", have a lower limit of reference.

And why does the etymology of the word "child" matter? Killing helpless adults would be just as perverse.
Because it was either you or another religious fruit loop that was like oh the definition of a child is a growing human or human before puberty, something like that soooo that proves abortion be bad.
Because the fertilized egg is half of the man's doing. The baby is just as much his as it is hers.
Yes the baby would be but the zygote no.

In an ideal world a person that wants a baby would go the the baby tree and get one but unfortunately evolution or a crappy skygod made us so the women must carry the baby for 9 months and risk her life, even when the child is unwanted.
I don't believe you understand the basic biological function of reproduction. A sperm from your father, is not you. An egg from your mother, is not you. When the chromosomes from each combine, forming a unique being, that is you. I was never a sperm, if I was then my father and I should be perfect clones, which we aren't. You aren't you until the sperm and egg combine and form you.
Oh gosh science lessons from plasma xD If you reallyyy like I could explain the details of meiosis to you? Chromosomes to not form to make a unique being haha xD They are unique but a being they are not. it is just biochem reactions for ages and cells dividing.

Periphery
August 30th, 2016, 02:21 AM
Arkansasguy

So if the mother and the baby are going to die, you would prefer to let both of them die rather than saving the mother?

So if someone gets raped and they get pregnant they should just deal with it and raise the child their rapist gave them? Nice one.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 02:22 AM
though I'm not sure about Flapjack and his magical fetuses.
xD How else would a flapjack reproduce without magical foetuses?
@Arkansasguy (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=112972)

So if the mother and the baby are going to die, you would prefer to let both of them die rather than saving the mother?

So if someone gets raped and they get pregnant they should just deal with it and raise the child their rapist gave them? Nice one.
Shhh Bram what do you know! I have you know my fictional skygod told me it was wrong!!

Dalcourt
August 30th, 2016, 02:42 AM
Arkansasguy

So if the mother and the baby are going to die, you would prefer to let both of them die rather than saving the mother?

So if someone gets raped and they get pregnant they should just deal with it and raise the child their rapist gave them? Nice one.

You could always give the kid up for adoption after being raped...so this isn't really an argument with which you will persuade people who oppose abortion.

And also most abortions aren't about life and death situations as you describe above but about getting rid off an inconvenience i.e. baby that doesn't fit into your life.

So I'm not opposing what you say but it's just rare exceptions that pro abortion people use as arguments that will never suffice to convince someone to say yes to abortions.
So on what reasons do you base your opinion at the non exceptional cases?

Periphery
August 30th, 2016, 02:46 AM
You could always give the kid up for adoption after being raped...so this isn't really an argument with which you will persuade people who oppose abortion.

And also most abortions aren't about life and death situations as you describe above but about getting rid off an inconvenience i.e. baby that doesn't fit into your life.

So I'm not opposing what you say but it's just rare exceptions that pro abortion people use as arguments that will never suffice to convince someone to say yes to abortions.
So on what reasons do you base your opinion at the non exceptional cases?

Having a child live their entire childhood not knowing their actual parents are and then finding out their dad was actually a rapist doesn't sound like a very good thing either.

If a family cannot support the child or give it a safe place to live then abortion is still a option they should consider.

Vlerchan
August 30th, 2016, 04:16 AM
I can in no way support that. There is a reason 24 weeks is the standard abortion deadline. Beyond that, a baby can likely survive outside the womb. Where do you draw the line with your view? After birth is when it becomes illegal to kill a baby? Despite the fact that babies in the womb at 40 weeks are often more developed than babies born early at 30 weeks. Killing a baby despite the fact that it can survive without you is morally bankrupt, and really makes no sense.
Termination if pregnancies can be achieved through a. abortion and b. cesarean section. Where life outside the womb is viable woman should adopt the latter.

Nonetheless - the central point for me is that others shouldn't be allowed to use woman's bodies without their permission. Given that - it is irrelevant how far along the fetus is.

---

Flapjack:

You need to explain the reason that the life of a fetus doesn't matter if you're going to support abortion on the grounds if a fetus' lack of humanity. You said in a response to me that what's life is hard to define but the hubris which is laced through the responses to PlasmaHam And Arkansasguy (if you disagree, you're a fruitloop, etc.) seems to indicate a much more set opinion that I believe you actually have.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 04:27 AM
You need to explain the reason that the life of a fetus doesn't matter if you're going to support abortion on the grounds if a fetus' lack of humanity. You said in a response to me that what's life is hard to define but the utter arrogance which is laced through the responses to PlasmaHam And Arkansasguy (if you disagree, you're a fruitloop, etc.) seems to indicate a much more set opinion that I believe you actually have.
Not everyone I disagree with is a fruit loop xD I don't believe I have ever called you one? We disagree loads but I do respect you.

I have 2 main opinions involving zygotes and embryos and another involving foetuses.

For zygotes and embryos I believe all they are is chemicals. There are plenty of chemical reactions going on but I certainly wouldn't define them as a person. Nothing magical happens when a sperm cell fertilises an egg, just causes different chemical reactions to occur. There are people that would counter that by saying all sperm cells are people and male masturbation is murder, some would even go as far as to want it illega (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/ted-cruz-americans-have-no-right-to-masturbate/)l, but I believe all of us here believe how ridiculous that is.

As for foetuses I believe the matter is more complicated. I believe the foetus is a person when it can live outside of the womb. I know opponents will say 'But Flapjack babies can't survive on their own' and they would be right but for me the difference is that a baby outside of the womb needs support from someone, a foetus cannot live without their specific mother.

Vlerchan
August 30th, 2016, 09:27 AM
Not everyone I disagree with is a fruit loop xD I don't believe I have ever called you one? We disagree loads but I do respect you.
That's all well and good. What I have an issue with is the sustained attempt to discredit religious people of their opinions on the basis that these people are religious. None of them have brought up religion but there's still a continued emphasis on their statues as religious believers - implicit in this is the undermining of their intellectual autonomy. It's called Poisoning the Well and it's fallacious reasoning.

For zygotes and embryos I believe all they are is chemicals.
You'll need to explain how this differentiates them from human beings - a mass of chemical reactions.

Nothing magical happens when a sperm cell fertilises an egg, just causes different chemical reactions to occur.
Human action is the product of chemical reactions.

Human action can be good or bad though and we appreciate there are qualitative differences.

I believe the foetus is a person when it can live outside of the womb.
So as our technologies improve (re: womb tanks) - You're open to redefining the definition of human?

There's an issue here in that it creates a definition of human that is contingent on the environment - as opposed to contained in itself. Least - as a humanist - I see an issue in defining some people as human and some people as not human on the basis of things outside their control.

PlasmaHam
August 30th, 2016, 10:03 AM
Arkansasguy

So if the mother and the baby are going to die, you would prefer to let both of them die rather than saving the mother?

So if someone gets raped and they get pregnant they should just deal with it and raise the child their rapist gave them? Nice one.

Less than one percent of all abortions are the result of health risks to mother or rape/incest. I believe I made that clear in an earlier post. As for health risks, almost all major pregnancy risks come when the fetus is developed enough to live on their own, so Cesarean section is often the better choice than abortion, which is very hard on a woman's body.

Termination if pregnancies can be achieved through a. abortion and b. cesarean section. Where life outside the womb is viable woman should adopt the latter.

Nonetheless - the central point for me is that others shouldn't be allowed to use woman's bodies without their permission. Given that - it is irrelevant how far along the fetus is.

---
So, the mother gave that baby a home, but when she wants to evict it she can just kill it? That is just selfish, and still morally bankrupt. You failed to answer my question as to when it becomes illegal to kill a baby. It sounds like you are still advocating for legalizing the murder of babies that could survive outside the womb.

Not everyone I disagree with is a fruit loop xD I don't believe I have ever called you one? We disagree loads but I do respect you.
Have you called me a fruit loop? In a debate like this, please keep the insults to a minimum and actually try to respect the debater. Also, please try to counter arguments without bashing religion, which has been barely mentioned by anyone but you, and with actual substance.
I have 2 main opinions involving zygotes and embryos and another involving foetuses.

For zygotes and embryos I believe all they are is chemicals. There are plenty of chemical reactions going on but I certainly wouldn't define them as a person. Nothing magical happens when a sperm cell fertilises an egg, just causes different chemical reactions to occur. There are people that would counter that by saying all sperm cells are people and male masturbation is murder, some would even go as far as to want it illega (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/ted-cruz-americans-have-no-right-to-masturbate/)l, but I believe all of us here believe how ridiculous that is.

By your definition, humans would just be a big pile of chemicals and chemical reactions, and that killing a human is no different that steeping on a plant. You are simply stopping organic chemical reactions, and from a scientific standpoint you would be right. But we don't base our life views on science, we base them on morality, and seeing humans as nothing more than chemicals is a very poor view of it.

Why are you so obsessed with male masturbation? No one is arguing that except you. Stay on topic here, we are talking about whether or not it is right to kill unborn babies.
As for foetuses I believe the matter is more complicated. I believe the foetus is a person when it can live outside of the womb. I know opponents will say 'But Flapjack babies can't survive on their own' and they would be right but for me the difference is that a baby outside of the womb needs support from someone, a foetus cannot live without their specific mother.
A comatose man on life support cannot live without their respective caretaker. Does that mean the guy running life support can simply turn off the switch when the going gets tough? Both are cases where someone is directly needed to keep the life of another, so I see no difference.

From your definition, I still see no real difference between babies in the womb and babies outside the womb.

Vlerchan
August 30th, 2016, 10:16 AM
So, the mother gave that baby a home, but when she wants to evict it she can just kill it?
We can charge it with that level of emotion if we want. Though - what's fundamental - is that the woman retains the right to decide who can use her body and who can't.

Why do you believe that other people should be allowed to decide how a woman uses her body?

That is just selfish, and still morally bankrupt.
People making poor decisions is the debt we all need to pay down on if we desire to live in free societies.

I'm not going to pass comment on individual abortions - which I see as irrelevant to the broader civil rights issues.

You failed to answer my question as to when it becomes illegal to kill a baby.
I guess I can be more clear.

If the fetus is viable then pregnancies should be terminated through cesarean section as opposed to abortion. That's about 24 - 30 weeks in.

sounds like you are still advocating for legalizing the murder of babies that could survive outside the womb.
I'm not.

---

Both are cases where someone is directly needed to keep the life of another, so I see no difference.
Here's one of my favourite apologies of all time:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

Is it moral to unplug before the 9 months are up?

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 11:09 AM
The reason I was asking about religion is because when I asked why they think a zygote is life but a gamete is not all I got was, it just is and magical foetuses. If I could get them to state that it is their religious beliefs, that is fine obviously but then I would argue they shouldn't force that religious belief on everyone :)

You'll need to explain how this differentiates them from human beings - a mass of chemical reactions.
Because that is all an early embryo is, a human however can think etc etc. i could say the same to you as you believe abortion is fine up until 40 weeks? Why do you think that?

So as our technologies improve (re: womb tanks) - You're open to redefining the definition of human?

There's an issue here in that it creates a definition of human that is contingent on the environment - as opposed to contained in itself. Least - as a humanist - I see an issue in defining some people as human and some people as not human on the basis of things outside their control.
I have no response to this buddy, it is an interesting ethical dilemma.

I don't like abortion but I think a women should chose what she does with her body and often I think it is better than the alternative.
________________________________________________________
@PlasmaHam (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122733) why do you consider a zygote a baby and not a gamete?

I am not obsessed with masturbation :P I was just pointing out that some people think life begins before fertilisation, I was asking why you chose that point to declare the cells a baby.

DriveAlive
August 30th, 2016, 11:10 AM
This is by far the most complex issue we can discuss on this forum and one of my favorites. I was lucky enough to study abortion in high school in a rather objective way. While I do stand on the pro-choice side of the issue, I would like to point out that medical abortions in order to save the life of the mother are exceedingly rare and that sperm is not comprable to a fetus because it is haploid. At conception, the zygote has unique DNA and his diploid.

I do recommend that everyone does watch the documentary "The Silent Scream." While it is anti-abortion propaganda (if you could not tell from the name) it does show you what a medical abortion looks like and helps to put it in perspective. At the very least, it makes you reevaluate your arguments and firm up your talking points.

Personally, I find the argument about a woman's right to choose because it is her body to be the weakest because it completely ignores the fact that another human is growing inside of her. The real question is when does that growing human become a person. I think that the most logical answer would be with the start of brain function, but this severely limits the window in which a person could then have an abortion. It might be better to say that life begins when the baby can live independently from the mother. This brings the limit of abortion almost up until delivery, which many find to be morally reprehensible.

ThisBougieLife
August 30th, 2016, 11:13 AM
^That is essentially the argument made in "What Philosophy Can Do" by Gary Gutting. He comes at it with a neutral point of view, but his conclusions are more or less the same as yours: very small window or allowing it up until delivery.

Vlerchan
August 30th, 2016, 11:42 AM
Because that is all an early embryo is, a human however can think etc etc.
Then we get back the point raised earlier about infant children not being conscious.

Thus this distinction doesn't seen relevant to your actual beliefs.

i could say the same to you as you believe abortion is fine up until 40 weeks? Why do you think that?
Woman should be allowed to control their own bodies.

It has nothing to do with the claim to life of the fetus.

Personally, I find the argument about a woman's right to choose because it is her body to be the weakest because it completely ignores the fact that another human is growing inside of her
I don't see how.

What it does do is subordinate the moral claim of the fetus over the mothers body to that of the mother's claim.

---

I also studied abortion law at college - which I figure was objective enough.

Reise
August 30th, 2016, 11:46 AM
Abortion is murder, murder of a baby.
Abortion tends to become illegal from the moment the fetus develops a viable brain. Though this may differ from countries and is subject to a sort of "scientific subjectivity". Point is before that it is just a bunch of cells.
Those cells are life, and can create a human.
Though this is true, though those are diploid cells, though they can "create a human" it's still important to remind that those are just mechanisms, they feel nothing, I don't see them that far from clockworks.
But imagine what this human could have accomplished.
He could have become a serial killer too, with this kind of reasoning. This is not relevant.
Do you imagine the chance you had to be born taking into account your parents could have decided to abort you?
I do imagine the chance I had that an Italian family immigrated to France and that my mother traveled 150Km from her home to go to the beach. The probability of abortion shouldn't count as sort of "different". Furthermore when two people want a baby there are very likely to not even think about abortion.
Imagine abortion is used as a contraception method.
It isn't. And it definitely shouldn't be. Abortion has to stay exceptional, and don't consider the woman or other as ruthless, abortion is a serious operation, especially psychologically.
You would have liked being aborted?
At the moment of abortion my brain wouldn't even have been formed, so...
This anti-*insert bullshit religion*.
Condoms too man.
It's the woman's body, it's her right.
Not really, a woman in some circumstances should listen to other involved persons as well and can't decide to abort "just because it's her body".
It is amoral and selfish.
Forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a baby she doesn't want and will likely never love is more "moral" and fair you think?

PS: Even when forbidding abortion women still practice it, in awful conditions putting their life in danger. Sorry but between inflicting real psychological pain to a human being and removing a bunch of cells i made my choice.

And still, I'm just talking of the moral side of the issue there.

Termination if pregnancies can be achieved through a. abortion and b. cesarean section. Where life outside the womb is viable woman should adopt the latter.
From the moment the baby can live on its own aborting except for medical reasons is not relevant.
This does really put the baby's life in danger for just one or two months before giving birth.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 11:49 AM
Woman should be allowed to control their own bodies.

It has nothing to do with the claim to life of the fetus.

But does the embryo not have a right not to be terminated and control it's own body? I don't disagree with you buddy and a women's right to choose is why I am pro choice but if we don't decide where life begins then the pro choice movement can use it against us ya know?

I think deciding where life begins is difficult but for now I would say at the age where a baby can survive without being dependant on its mother and I would have to ignore that argument about the external womb thing tbh because I have no counter to it :) Maybe it is like in chemistry, you don't change the rule for 1 or 2 outliers.

DriveAlive
August 30th, 2016, 11:55 AM
What it does do is subordinate the moral claim of the fetus over the mothers body to that of the mother's

No, it simply puts them on equal footing. In Roe v. Wade the court argued that the value of fetal life increases from nothing to equaling the mother's life. If the woman is carrying a living child inside of her, at which point does the life of the fetus equal her own life? My point is that it is weak to argue that the life of the mother always supersedes that of the child. Most would agree that there is some point in fetal development when the life of the fetus is worth enough to merit not being aborted. The argument should be on where this point begins. It is unproductive to just claim that there is no point until birth where this occurs, unless you are willing to back this up with further reasoning. If you do take this route, then the reasons provided for why must far outweigh simply claiming that it is a woman's right to choose, once again rendering this point moot.

Dalcourt
August 30th, 2016, 12:15 PM
Having a child live their entire childhood not knowing their actual parents are and then finding out their dad was actually a rapist doesn't sound like a very good thing either.

If a family cannot support the child or give it a safe place to live then abortion is still a option they should consider.

of course you are right but since there's the possibility of giving birth anonymously when you give up a baby for adoption the kid might never find out that.


so still no arguments to persuade the pro life people.

you know I'm not attacking you in any way...I just want to know good arguments since we wanted to do an abortion topic for a debate project but the more we thought about the harder it got to find good arguments pro abortion that weren't just for exceptions.

Vlerchan
August 30th, 2016, 12:50 PM
But does the embryo not have a right not to be terminated and control it's own body?
It doesn't possess this right to the extent that it can contravene the woman's rights.

In the same sense rapists can't decide to use a woman's body on the grounds to their own right to control their body.

Maybe it is like in chemistry, you don't change the rule for 1 or 2 outliers.
This applies in statistics where controls are imperfect: we consider the outliers the product of 'noise'.

What I'm describing isn't comparable at all.

No, it simply puts them on equal footing.
The argument I'm making places the mothers claim to her own body on a higher moral standing than the fetus' claim to it.

In Roe v. Wade the court argued that the value of fetal life increases from nothing to equaling the mother's life.
The argument I'm making requires no reference to the fetus' right to life.

It surrounds the comparative rights to control of a woman's womb to one's own ends.

My point is that it is weak to argue that the life of the mother always supersedes that of the child.
I'm not arguing that.

Most would agree that there is some point in fetal development when the life of the fetus is worth enough to merit not being aborted.
I agreed to this earlier - re: Ceasarean Sections.

Though fundamental to this is the woman's right to control over her body. That's the reason me choosing the point where the fetus becomes viable doesn't run into the same issues as Flapjack.

The argument should be on where this point begins.
Of course this statement still isn't true regardless. It doesn't follow from the previous points at all.

zack.zack
August 30th, 2016, 12:55 PM
The short answer, I am all for the right for a woman to do what she wants with her body, especially when it comes to incest and rape. Its her right to choose.

mattsmith48
August 30th, 2016, 01:19 PM
As long she fetus is not developed enough to live and survive outside the mother, she as the choice to do whatever the fuck she wants, unless it is discovered later that there is a possibility of the kid having a mental or genetic illness that can't be cured.

Periphery
August 30th, 2016, 01:19 PM
of course you are right but since there's the possibility of giving birth anonymously when you give up a baby for adoption the kid might never find out that.


so still no arguments to persuade the pro life people.

you know I'm not attacking you in any way...I just want to know good arguments since we wanted to do an abortion topic for a debate project but the more we thought about the harder it got to find good arguments pro abortion that weren't just for exceptions.

I actually already gave them, if a family is too poor to raise the child properly and they are not willing to give it up for adoption then what are they going to do with it?

Dalcourt
August 30th, 2016, 02:59 PM
I actually already gave them, if a family is too poor to raise the child properly and they are not willing to give it up for adoption then what are they going to do with it?

What would you consider too poor to rise a child in societies like Europe and Northern America...with a working social security network that provides for the basic needs of everyone?

And where I live you could even get the pill or condoms for free if you don't have the moneyto buy it to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

Periphery
August 30th, 2016, 03:02 PM
What would you consider too poor to rise a child in societies like Europe and Northern America...with a working social security network that provides for the basic needs of everyone?

And where I live you could even get the pill or condoms for free if you don't have the moneyto buy it to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

Well homeless for example.

Uniquemind
August 30th, 2016, 06:22 PM
What would you consider too poor to rise a child in societies like Europe and Northern America...with a working social security network that provides for the basic needs of everyone?

And where I live you could even get the pill or condoms for free if you don't have the moneyto buy it to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

Europe is so far ahead of the USA, regarding having a social security network that helps mothers. Most moms struggle with kids, especially if they are making 10K or less a year.

The too poor, issue regarding this topic also is relative to the cost of living in that relative environment, combined with the realistic expectation on how hard it would be for a single mom to relocate.

Adoption, well in theory is morally clean, but it's not clean either given that many kids are just sent to foster homes, and are often abused because the foster care system is broken. It is such a problem that it almost makes abortion sound merciful compared to existing in life, and then suffering throughout it.


Again I'm pro-choice with acknowledgement of the cringe factor abortion has, but it's one of those necessary evils, also with regard to the legal perspective of what happens if you make it illegal, pregnancy has a 9 month time limit, don't forget lawyers can run out the clock on a women.

She'll give birth before lawyers are done arguing if she even has the right to get an abortion, especially if her male partner finds out and wants the baby. A line has to be drawn somewhere, this isn't heaven there is no perfection on this planet.

Dalcourt
August 30th, 2016, 09:24 PM
Europe is so far ahead of the USA, regarding having a social security network that helps mothers. Most moms struggle with kids, especially if they are making 10K or less a year.

The too poor, issue regarding this topic also is relative to the cost of living in that relative environment, combined with the realistic expectation on how hard it would be for a single mom to relocate.

Adoption, well in theory is morally clean, but it's not clean either given that many kids are just sent to foster homes, and are often abused because the foster care system is broken. It is such a problem that it almost makes abortion sound merciful compared to existing in life, and then suffering throughout it.


Again I'm pro-choice with acknowledgement of the cringe factor abortion has, but it's one of those necessary evils, also with regard to the legal perspective of what happens if you make it illegal, pregnancy has a 9 month time limit, don't forget lawyers can run out the clock on a women.

She'll give birth before lawyers are done arguing if she even has the right to get an abortion, especially if her male partner finds out and wants the baby. A line has to be drawn somewhere, this isn't heaven there is no perfection on this planet.

So even if these arguments you state here are all correct in a way and from your point of view it would mean that myself and about 90% of the kids in my school and neighbourhood should have been gotten rid off before we came into existence cuz this would have been more merciful than subjecting us to our lives.

I know abortion is a tricky subject and there will never be a perfect solution so it's very hard to find the right reasons and justifications for it even if you are for it.
Of course a woman should have the right to abort a child but most of the arguments pro abortion always sound wrong somewhere so to justify it for every will never happen in my opinion.

PlasmaHam
August 30th, 2016, 09:33 PM
...but most of the arguments pro abortion always sound wrong somewhere so to justify it for every will never happen in my opinion.
I usually try to gain some sympathy with the opposing side in a debate, but I am never able to do that when it comes to abortion. To me, nothing the pro-abortion people say outweighs the cons of killing an unborn baby. You can't justify abortion, at most you accept it as a necessary evil, but I don't believe in such.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 09:38 PM
I usually try to gain some sympathy with the opposing side in a debate, but I am never able to do that when it comes to abortion. To me, nothing the pro-abortion people say outweighs the cons of killing an unborn baby. You can't justify abortion, at most you accept it as a necessary evil, but I don't believe in such.
This is like the fourth time I have asked you xD
Why do you consider a zygote a person and not a gamete?

Reise
August 30th, 2016, 09:38 PM
I usually try to gain some sympathy with the opposing side in a debate, but I am never able to do that when it comes to abortion. To me, nothing the pro-abortion people say outweighs the cons of killing an unborn baby. You can't justify abortion, at most you accept it as a necessary evil, but I don't believe in such.
You do realize that a human-being as we perceive it is not defined by simple DNA but by more complex reactions and that this is why there is a limit, generally the formation of the brain, for abortion?

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 09:40 PM
You do realize that a human-being as we perceive it is not defined by simple DNA but by more complex reactions and that this is why there is a limit, generally the formation of the brain, for abortion?
Where would you say an unborn baby becomes a person then? I don't disagree with you it is just a super difficult question :)

Reise
August 30th, 2016, 09:42 PM
Where would you say an unborn baby becomes a person then? I don't disagree with you it is just a super difficult question :)
It is. And I'm not qualified to accurately answer it.

It is just that I recognize a clear difference from the moment a functional brain (and thus everything that goes with it, inter alia feelings) is developed.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 09:43 PM
It is. And I'm not qualified to accurately answer it.

It is just that I recognize a clear difference from the moment a functional brain (and thus everything that goes with it, inter alia feelings) is developed.
Yeah I feel the same buddy :)

ethan-s
August 30th, 2016, 09:44 PM
So the women should risk her life giving birth to an unwanted product of rape and deal with the social and economic affects of that?

A zygote is not a child.
A gamete is not a child.

Do you think male masturbation is murder?obviously not. I have said before that I'm totally fine with it.
Also, is the reason you think this because of a religion? I'm not gonna go there and derail this thread.

When does life begin?
Why does a baby need an umbilical cord if it's not alive before it exits the womb?

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 09:48 PM
When does life begin?
Why does a baby need an umbilical cord if it's not alive before it exits the womb?
I don't know is the honest answer xD
It deffo isn't gametes or anything before that.
A zygote is deffo not a person.
Now this is where it gets complex xD
I would say it is either when the embryo feels emotions or moves of its own accord or when it can survive on its own outside of the womb.

Where do you think life begins? Why do you think life begins where you think it does?

ethan-s
August 30th, 2016, 09:56 PM
So your saying life beginners when a kid is old enough to know how to open the fridge and cook food and all that stuff?

If a zygote is not a person, what is it?


I think life begins at conception, btw.

Paraxiom
August 30th, 2016, 09:56 PM
It's partly of my own fault that my absence with some threads leads me to eventually respond in one huge sweep.

- - - - - - - -

Let's say you've gotten pregnant.

Being of XY physiology, I'm already saying that my inability to ever be pregnant is a good reason for why I feel this topic's issues are be better off decidable by XX people (and certain intersex people of course).

Anyhow, I'll take the situation.



Unintentionally, or intentionally/planned but you've decided you don't want to have a baby no more.
Are you going to abort the baby or are you going to give birth to it so that you can be a parent/give the baby up for adoption, etc? And why?
Why would you and why would you not abort?

If I'm not at any significant health risk because of carrying the fetus/baby, then I'd wait until birth happens. I'd then let the adoption services have the baby - minimal harm has been done, and the future child/teen/adult can know it is adopted, and who it was from.

If I have a health problem because of / influenced by carrying the fetus, for whatever reason, then I will have an abortion if there is insufficient chance of the fetus surviving premature delivery. If there is sufficient chance of survival for it through premature delivery, then I'd go for that.


If the woman needs to go into an operating room to get it aborted, she shouldn't be able to get one. (So like, what is that? Before the 12th week?)

If the fetus is alive, yes, premature delivery then.

The 50% premature delivery survival point is around week #24 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability ].


People who kill (or pay or conspire with others to kill) their children are beneath contempt. Such behavior warrants both complete social ostracization and the harshest penalties available under the legal system.

Ditto for those they conspire with.

Imo, anyone that aborts a baby ought to be shot. If you get pregnant, you better be able to deal with the consequences unless of course it's rape.


I see myself as agreeing (except for the death penality as ethan-s says), except not for anything before birth - I don't see a child in any pregnant women, and I don't see a baby except at developmental stages where a premature delivery can be done.

I see a biochemical formation developing into eventually a physiological human being, yes, but up to certain time periods it is not mentally and/or physically a human being at all, it is only potentially human.

It'd be appreciated if you would say what is the difference between an actual human and a potential human, where the line is drawn between single cells and a baby.


From my current moral standpoint, abortion should only be legal during the embryo stages. Once it becomes an actual fetus it should be illegal to abort.

So for you it would be anything at or before week #11 in development.



Honestly you have to think about something: a fetus is a possible human being. It could have a life, it could enjoy life. We were all fetuses at one point. I'm not completely sure about abortion, but I lean towards it being illegal.

I could say the same about sperm and egg cells though as being possible human beings; where do you see the important division being placed between what is sufficiently potentially humane, and that which isn't?

I also personally argue that none of us were fetuses at one point, because our identity/personality doesn't go back that far (I as myself is meaningless without any identity/self), but it doesn't have to be relevant.


[...] that same justification is used by religious fruit loops that want masturbation to be illegal.

I know a friend who is generally anti-abortion and who isn't religious, so we don't need to make a necessary link between religious views and abortion views. Yeah, there's a trend, but still (remember, ROTW battles!).


Sperm don't develop inside of a womb.

Which means?


A fetus develops and if you birth the baby then that's a person that is alive.

Generally yes.

The same goes for sperm and eggs though, in that you just have the extra step of appropriate hetero sex. Now sperm and eggs have the same potentiality of actual human existence as fetuses do, as I see it here.


If you really wanted to, you could say the same about newborns, toddlers, etc.

If we really want to go against a much more common view that actual human beings exist straight after birth, yes...



A fetus is a developing child. Would you want to kill a one-year old child? A two-year old child?

It is biochemistry developing 'toward' a child, not a child itself developing, much the same as a fused egg and sperm (or even just the forming egg cells even, as above).



I generally have not been a person with many morals, but the fact you have no concern over a baby dying is disturbing.


I'd like to know what defines a child and a baby for you, so I know where the division between that and a 'non-child' / 'non-baby' is in the whole pregnancy development timeline.


When do human-beings become conscious?

Not confidently known, but there's a figure of fetuses perceiving pain "as early as 20 weeks into pregnancy". [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_perception ].


I don't care about your non-understanding of this. Killing the innocent should not be tolerated by law (and isn't tolerated by law if the person has been born).


It should be illegal for a crime victim to murder their attacker's kids, yes.

If you have a view that it is meaningless to assign guilt or innocence to rocks, trees or amoebas, then it shows that innocence (and its absence) make sense only within the context of a conscious being. I'd like to know where you consider the start of sufficient human consciousness to be for fetuses.



Getting murdered will also ruin a kid's life.

If there was any meaningful life to be ruined in the first place.



A child is a human being who is not fully developed.

I could give examples well into physical adulthood which count as a child here, but to keep with the topic, does this mean that a zygote (an egg fused with a sperm) is a child to you?



In general, a man should be willing to sacrifice his life for his wife and children, and a woman for her children. Though of course that isn't a matter that should be enforced by law. Though of course no one should be permitted to attack another person aggressively for their own benefit.

So things like e.g. delaying uterine cancer treatment for the benefit of an unborn child is praiseworthy but not obligatory. Refraining from aggressively attacking the kid should be obligatory.

I'm much more in favour of protecting an already highly-formed human and their life, over only that which has potential to be a human.



People with such disabilities should be protected from scumbags who want to kill them, yes.

Then you also need to define what a person is and when this personhood starts, if you see personhood to be distinct from a human being / child of course.


A 'murder' could only happen if an woman's egg is fertilised.

So anything zygote-onwards is as much a human as a born baby, or adult, for you, correct?


Male masturbation is considered by some to be a waste of sperm, and therefore a lost opportunity for an egg to be fertilised and a baby to be born.

Keeping with that view, I should therefore be charged with vandalism of public property when I chisel some marble blocks stored in a warehouse, these blocks having the intended potentiality to become a memorial stone one day.

Sure makes sense!


Because the fertilized egg is half of the man's doing. The baby is just as much his as it is hers.

Hardly so, if it's the woman who is physically carrying the to-be baby.



Yeah, I always though that a human was considered alive at conception and a murder would be taking the life away from a living being.

Sarcasm?


Risk her life? Last I heard, babies from rape weren't any worse for wear than your average baby. And unlike some third world countries, most of the West actually helps rape victims and there isn't really a social stigma about it.

I believe Flapjack meant the mother risking her mental wellbeing with anticipated/perceived stigma and such, but you are correct in how the West tends to be better with not having as much of that. Nevertheless stigma is prevalent elsewhere.



As for economic affects, giving your child up for adoption is always an option. Anyways, less than 1% of all abortions are the result of rape/incest, so trying to argue that abortion is good because of that is like arguing nukes are good because they can make glass. Insignificant factor over many negatives.

Adoption is an option yes, but not necessary, though to be insisted on if the fetus is sufficiently physically healthy, and is developed enough that it can be prematurely delivered.



As for the mothers who had consensual sex, and want an abortion for financial, social, or other reasons, too bad. You had to go sleeping around. Did you expect not to get pregnant when you were preforming human procreation? You made your choice, now you have to live with it.

Mistakes happen, even with contraceptives. I'm for choice in having an abortion here before the fetus' viable age of premature delivery.



Male sperm or female eggs are not a new human. When they merge, as a zygote and later a fetus, that is a new human being. And a fetus is human, simply a developing human. Simple biology will tell you that. What did you think fetuses were, magical beings that become human as soon as they pop out of the mother?

Biology is based off definitions and terms, just like any scientific field. It's quite the leap to say that an egg and sperm in proximity are not a human being collectively, but then when they fuse BAM! there's suddenly a human being with a consciousness, rights and a life ahead of it, basically the same as a 5-year-old, or 15, or 25...

The biology itself here is on the biochemistry, not on our views on what defines a sufficiently human being for the purpose of seeing if/when abortion is right, on moral grounds.



Here is a picture of a fetus at abortion age. Graphic Content Warning (http://liveactionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20150816_013044.jpg) You tell me that isn't human.

It isn't fully human.



I would include more similar content, but I honestly got sick looking and listening to the wholesale slaughter of children, and it takes a lot to get me to that level.

"Wholesale slaughter"? Your language is reaching similar levels as it did with the transgender thread, again.


I believe that all human life is sacred, and that killing another without just cause is wrong.

Is the 'just cause' here for you only that where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life then?



It doesn't matter if that came from religion or not. There are non-religious philosophical views that share the same sentiment, so stop blaming religion and actually try to refute the arguments.

I'm not a fan of the 'anti-religion POV, march this way!' angle if it's here, agreed.


Why on Earth would the designator "child", designed to distinguish from "adult", have a lower limit of reference.

And why does the etymology of the word "child" matter? Killing helpless adults would be just as perverse.

So is it about human consciousness here for you?


I don't believe you understand the basic biological function of reproduction. A sperm from your father, is not you. An egg from your mother, is not you. When the chromosomes from each combine, forming a unique being, that is you. I was never a sperm, if I was then my father and I should be perfect clones, which we aren't. You aren't you until the sperm and egg combine and form you.

Let's look at it another way.

You only exist if you 'have' your mind. Fetuses have either no mind, or a fuzzily developing one, at most one with negligible mental form of any personal kind.

Your fetus preceded you. The zygote is not you, it is that which is the cause of development that eventually becomes you.

You, yourself, your self, is meaningless if there is no mental form that constitutes it. Your existence as you is after birth, not suddenly at the moment of the sperm and egg fusing into zygote.



Brain function is recorded at 6 weeks of development, so I don't know what you are getting at.

Brain function of what kind?



So, the mother gave that baby a home, but when she wants to evict it she can just kill it?

Is the property analogy necessary? :z



By your definition, humans would just be a big pile of chemicals and chemical reactions, and that killing a human is no different that steeping on a plant. You are simply stopping organic chemical reactions, and from a scientific standpoint you would be right. But we don't base our life views on science, we base them on morality, and seeing humans as nothing more than chemicals is a very poor view of it.

Though I know this is not for me, don't make a huge swing and assume that adherence to biochemistry's relevance in this topic means that I am a morally and emotionally cold physicalist.

There is nothing about interest in biochemistry's perceived relevance here, that necessarily means it has to be dry or meaningless, at all.

If we're going to take science here as the method of theorising, conducting appropriate experiments and observing certain results to agree or disagree with those theories, then it's odd that you've been using scientific findings on fetus brain activity to help your viewpoint.

It's even more odd that you see morality as (I presume) more important in life than experimenting with the world to test theories you come up with. Even that is science. Good luck with excluding that.



From your definition, I still see no real difference between babies in the womb and babies outside the womb.

If a specification is added that 'living on 'one's' own' means being able to function biochemically at a basic level without dying, even when supplied with warmth and food/water, then there is a real difference.




I also studied abortion law at college - which I figure was objective enough.

Was it as heated as it is in this thread? :D


This is by far the most complex issue we can discuss on this forum and one of my favorites.

Does give a good explanation for the localised battleground that ROTW hosts, yet again. :P



I do recommend that everyone does watch the documentary "The Silent Scream." While it is anti-abortion propaganda (if you could not tell from the name) it does show you what a medical abortion looks like and helps to put it in perspective. At the very least, it makes you reevaluate your arguments and firm up your talking points.

I'll watch it (I will, watched Jesus Camp a few times, so I promise on that).



Personally, I find the argument about a woman's right to choose because it is her body to be the weakest because it completely ignores the fact that another human is growing inside of her.The real question is when does that growing human become a person. I think that the most logical answer would be with the start of brain function, but this severely limits the window in which a person could then have an abortion. It might be better to say that life begins when the baby can live independently from the mother. This brings the limit of abortion almost up until delivery, which many find to be morally reprehensible.

I'll suspend my opposition to the 'fully human before birth' view here, but I will say that the woman chose to bring the possibility of creating a to-be human, which gives her right to choose in at least some circumstances whether she wants to fully complete that creation. Whatever other reactions I could say, have already been said above by me.


( Reise You bring me some respite in this thread. I have not been forsaken :D .)


I usually try to gain some sympathy with the opposing side in a debate, but I am never able to do that when it comes to abortion. To me, nothing the pro-abortion people say outweighs the cons of killing an unborn baby. You can't justify abortion, at most you accept it as a necessary evil, but I don't believe in such.

(Would transgenderism be the same, with sympathy with opposition?)

All I can say with this, is that presumed ideas form strong perceptions.


When does life begin?

When does it for you?

For me there is no one moment that it does, if we are to not consider human life as one indivisible/etc entity which has stark boundaries with what is not human life, which itself implies that human life has a few clear bare criteria.



Why does a baby need an umbilical cord if it's not alive before it exits the womb?

Potentiality for humanity does not spontaneously reach actuality by its own accord along the entire journey; for the early stages it needs help getting enough momentum, and this help doesn't stop until later teen years (mental support from parents, etc).

(I don't agree with the fetus being absolutely not alive before birth, of course.)



If a zygote is not a person, what is it?

The biochemical start of an organism that progresses with time to eventually form a person.



I think life begins at conception, btw.

I figured.


I find the main argument for abortion, the idea that a "fetus is not a human", to be a weak one.

Right, but you could explain why it is weak.

- - - - - - - -


What I am against in this thread is mostly/entirely on an over-generalisation and over-simplification of the totality of physical human existence into NOT HUMAN / HUMAN, where the division is (as good example) suddenly and completely at the moment a human sperm cell meets a human egg cell. A human being is entirely created at that moment.

Really???

With the diversity and complexity of the human developmental process, I cannot get why such a black and white viewpoint is being taken. At the very least, be open to a position that humanity is of a spectrum, not 'non-human... BAM! human!'; that there is more than one bare criterion for human existence, and that there is a degree for each criterion, not necessarily a bare 'IS/NOT' binary switch.

ethan-s
August 30th, 2016, 10:08 PM
And once again you missed my point. If a baby is just a non living pile of chemicals in the womb, and if s life doesn't start until birth, why does it need an umbilical cord to grow and become a fully formed human baby?

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 10:15 PM
And once again you missed my point. If a baby is just a non living pile of chemicals in the womb, and if s life doesn't start until birth, why does it need an umbilical cord to grow and become a fully formed human baby?
Because the growing baby needs oxygenated blood? To provide anti bodies to boost the babies immune system when it is born? I am not ignorant to that fact buddy.

Do you think a zygote is a baby? Why do you think this?
Do you think a gamete is a baby? Why do you think this?

Reise
August 30th, 2016, 10:17 PM
And once again you missed my point. If a baby is just a non living pile of chemicals in the womb, and if s life doesn't start until birth, why does it need an umbilical cord to grow and become a fully formed human baby?
It looks obvious that an "alimentation" provided by the mother has to be there. In the case of mammals it is the umbilical cord.
Not really sure what your point is.

Babs
August 30th, 2016, 10:38 PM
Middle ground: consensual abortion. When the child turns 18, they are eligible to apply for a late-term abortion.

Arkansasguy
August 30th, 2016, 11:09 PM
Paraxiom

The difference between a potential human and an actual human lies in conception, since this is when a new human being has been created, and has a subsistent existence. I'm not particularly interested in questions about when consciousness is acquired or what have you.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 11:20 PM
@Paraxiom (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=89180)

The difference between a potential human and an actual human lies in conception, since this is when a new human being has been created, and has a subsistent existence. I'm not particularly interested in questions about when consciousness is acquired or what have you.
Why do you think an actual human is from conception?

Arkansasguy
August 30th, 2016, 11:21 PM
Why do you think an actual human is from conception?

Because that's when a human being begins to exist.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 11:23 PM
Because that's when a human being begins to exist.
Okayyy and why is that when a human being begins to exist?

Arkansasguy
August 30th, 2016, 11:24 PM
Okayyy and why is that when a human being begins to exist?

Are you literally asking why it is in fact true, or why I acknowledge its truth?

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 11:26 PM
Are you literally asking why it is in fact true, or why I acknowledge its truth?
Why it is a 'true fact'?

Arkansasguy
August 30th, 2016, 11:28 PM
Why it is a 'true fact'?

Because that's how human biology works.

Drewboyy
August 30th, 2016, 11:29 PM
If the fetus is alive, yes, premature delivery then.

The 50% premature delivery survival point is around week #24 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability ].

[/B]

No there is a point where drugs (mifepristone and misoprostol) can be used to break down the tissue which then exits with the next period. (Correct me if I'm wrong). After that, a surgeon *needs* to physically remove the tissue.


But I believe that the egg inside the mother becomes human at conception. Even though the fetus forms later

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 11:31 PM
Because that's how human biology works.
You haven't really proved your point buddy xD How about I say a women's right to choose is good because it is just a 'true face'? It is how 'human biology works'?

Why do you think a zygote is life and a gamete is not?

But I believe that the egg inside the mother becomes human at conception. Even though the fetus forms later
Why do you think that?

Arkansasguy
August 30th, 2016, 11:36 PM
You haven't really proved your point buddy xD How about I say a women's right to choose is good because it is just a 'true face'? It is how 'human biology works'?

Why do you think a zygote is life and a gamete is not?

Why do you think that?

You are moving the goalposts. I specifically asked you if you were asking about causation or epistemology, and you said causation.

A zygote is an individual human being. A gamete is not.

There are some things that defy reductionism.

Drewboyy
August 30th, 2016, 11:37 PM
Why do you think a zygote is life and a gamete is not?

Why do you think that?

When a zygote forms, it becomes a whole new and unique entity.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 11:41 PM
When a zygote forms, it becomes a whole new and unique entity.
It does but would you define a new and unique entity as a living human? Are the right of this human more important than the mothers right to chose? Than the mothers health? Should pregnancies from incest and rape be terminated?
You are moving the goalposts. I specifically asked you if you were asking about causation or epistemology, and you said causation.

A zygote is an individual human being. A gamete is not.

There are some things that defy reductionism.
If it defies reductionism I wouldn't realyyyy call it a 'true face'.

Drewboyy
August 30th, 2016, 11:53 PM
It does but would you define a new and unique entity as a living human? Are the right of this human more important than the mothers right to chose? Than the mothers health? Should pregnancies from incest and rape be terminated?

Yes I would define it a living human.

However because of cases like rape, medical abortion is the only way it should be allowed. So I believe that is before the 8th or 12th week.


Only in cases if the mother's health is in life threatening danger (100% certain) after that, and she still wants to have one, it is up to her to find a willing doctor and pay them with her own money to do the procedure.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 11:58 PM
Yes I would define it a living human.
But why?

However because of cases like rape, medical abortion is the only way it should be allowed. So I believe that is before the 8th or 12th week.
Define medical abortion. Do you an abortion carried out by a licensed doctor?

Only in cases if the mother's health is in life threatening danger (100% certain) after that, and she still wants to have one, it is up to her to find a willing doctor and pay them with her own money to do the procedure.
Firstly the instance on 100% certainty is stupid and will get people killed.

If the mother is in 100% life threatening danger.... why should she have to pay out of her own money?

What is your opinion unlicensed abortion?

Drewboyy
August 31st, 2016, 12:20 AM
But why?

Define medical abortion. Do you an abortion carried out by a licensed doctor?

Firstly the instance on 100% certainty is stupid and will get people killed.

If the mother is in 100% life threatening danger.... why should she have to pay out of her own money?

What is your opinion unlicensed abortion?

I think the real question is why wouldn't they be considered humans? What makes the homo sapien inside a womb different from a homo sapien walking and talking on the street?

Medical abortion would be an abortion using the medicine/drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Meaning no doctors would be necessary unless it fails- in which case they would do a surgical abortion.

Type this into the youtube search bar- 1st Trimester Medical Abortion: Abortion Pills and click on the first video by "Live Action" or something like that. (not sure if that video is considered "gruesome" enough to moderated)

And how is being certain that both the mother and child will die if the woman continues with the pregnancy get people killed? More babies are killed because the mother realizes halfway she doesn't have enough money or to care for one or she doesn't want one anymore.

By her own money I mean no government given health care plan should pay for it. So only private companies if she can find one.

All abortionists should definitely legally have licenses for the sake of the woman and baby if it doesn't work.

AussieNicholas
August 31st, 2016, 01:38 AM
I was undecided on abortion for quite a while, but at the end of the day I support the woman's right to not have her body used by someone else. I am well aware of the fact the fetus is a living being, but is it right to force someone to donate blood to keep someone alive? Sure, it's the right thing to do, but selflessness shouldn't be enforced by law.

I support a woman's right to have an abortion, because I believe that everyone has the right to decide what to do with their own body. But if a woman does go through with a pregnancy, whether she wanted a child or not, I have a lot of respect for her for choosing to do so.

Uniquemind
August 31st, 2016, 02:05 AM
I think the real question is why wouldn't they be considered humans? What makes the homo sapien inside a womb different from a homo sapien walking and talking on the street?

Medical abortion would be an abortion using the medicine/drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Meaning no doctors would be necessary unless it fails- in which case they would do a surgical abortion.

Type this into the youtube search bar- 1st Trimester Medical Abortion: Abortion Pills and click on the first video by "Live Action" or something like that. (not sure if that video is considered "gruesome" enough to moderated)

And how is being certain that both the mother and child will die if the woman continues with the pregnancy get people killed? More babies are killed because the mother realizes halfway she doesn't have enough money or to care for one or she doesn't want one anymore.

By her own money I mean no government given health care plan should pay for it. So only private companies if she can find one.

All abortionists should definitely legally have licenses for the sake of the woman and baby if it doesn't work.

I'm against this given the current climate of wealth-gap, and sociological and economic reasons.

Effectively you are saying: A woman can only get an abortion if she can afford it.

I think that's unethical, and borderline racist once you take a measure of who such a policy would impact most especially in the USA.

It's not a guy's business to leverage his power politically like this to influence law upon another person with a womb, in which "equality" supposedly exists, and in this scenario there is a timer on her right to exercise before she gives birth.

Either one party gets 100% of what they want, and the other 0% of what they want with the woman's body.

If one is arguing "well we'll make a rape exception" then the legal crux and burden is placed upon the woman to "prove a rape occurred" which is offensive and downright hard to do when lawyers are cross-examining her, who is probably both traumatized and hormonal.

You have to make it legal, and hope most of society chooses not to use abortion as a form of birth control. For the most part I don't think we have accurate numbers regarding those who choose abortion over keeping the baby, it's such a private matter the sampling of such data would be hard, and the stigma makes it that much harder as well.

--

For me this is a tough topic to debate without getting my subjective opinion involved regarding spirituality and how it relates to the physical (living) world.

My earliest memory in this life, are sensory memories, and if I were aborted I don't think I'd feel any pain. I have no recall of being a zygote, perhaps a foetus but not a zygote.

This is completely contrary to what science says a human can attain and retain their first memories.

--

My spiritual perspective on life is this which is important because it guides how I feel on issues like these that I call "the in-between" and these are situations of where life-death is blurred, in the same sense of where does a planet's atmosphere begin and where does it end? The answer is there are stages of transition, and it really depends where you/they are.

This is why I said earlier 20 weeks keep it legal via a licensed doctor, after that unless the condition of the mother is endangered (all sorts of pregnancy complications can happen guys, you really need to research medical cases where implantation of the fertilized egg goes wrong (ectopic pregnancy for example) ), birth really should be seen to completion.


For me life entails a type of consciousness, and each type of life encases a specific type of soul, and I reject a black/white view of life/death.

For me this explains the phenomena of other "in-between" gray areas like stillborn babies (full potential to biologically function, but no consciousness equals no high-level life) or brain-dead medically injured people who were once alive.

Those scenarios for me are explained as bridges between the physical and spiritual and I respect issues like these as such.


So for me when topics like these are brought up, I don't approach them the same way most of you guys are not the way this debate is shaping the definitions within a morality context.

Also you can't define humanity as a strict unchanging genetic code that is enacted upon, because then it begs the question of the human status of the disabled community who have chromosomal abundance or deficits.

--


EDIT:

Let me also add that when I see the USA society provide more fully-paid support for new parents to encourage life as a parent as not being some unbearable burden, I won't ever be a pro-lifer.

Politically, the side that always keeps saying pro-life, tends to be the political right of the USA which have other factions that place women in a stuck position.

I will not tolerate both concepts at once merged together as I find it hypocritical to the concept of "right to life". (Right to live with inadequate nutrition, in a poor neighborhood, single parents required to be with child or be charged with neglect if they go to further education).

^ see how illogical and cruel that pro life position sounds like from that POV?

Flapjack
August 31st, 2016, 03:47 AM
I think the real question is why wouldn't they be considered humans? What makes the homo sapien inside a womb different from a homo sapien walking and talking on the street?

They're not walking and talking on the streets, are not conscious, have no brain activity, do not move, do not go through all of the mrs gren life processes.

When I ask a question, 'why not?' is not an answer the same as it is just a 'true face' isn't.

I ask you again. Why do you believe life begins at contraception.


Medical abortion would be an abortion using the medicine/drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Meaning no doctors would be necessary unless it fails- in which case they would do a surgical abortion.

Why are you in favor of one and not the other?

And how is being certain that both the mother and child will die if the woman continues with the pregnancy get people killed? More babies are killed because the mother realizes halfway she doesn't have enough money or to care for one or she doesn't want one anymore.

I would argue no 'babies are killed' but a pregnancy is terminated.

Because drewboy when a 100% recruitment is put in place, it is very hard to reach. Like when people have to prove they are terminally ill and will 100% die in the next year, it creates problems. You can be very very likely to die but you cannot be 100% sure with no doubt.


By her own money I mean no government given health care plan should pay for it. So only private companies if she can find one.
Why should the goverment not pay for it when it will save a women's life?

Drewboyy
August 31st, 2016, 11:21 AM
They're not walking and talking on the streets, are not conscious, have no brain activity, do not move, do not go through all of the mrs gren life processes.

When I ask a question, 'why not?' is not an answer the same as it is just a 'true face' isn't.

I ask you again. Why do you believe life begins at contraception.


Why are you in favor of one and not the other?

I would argue no 'babies are killed' but a pregnancy is terminated.

Because drewboy when a 100% recruitment is put in place, it is very hard to reach. Like when people have to prove they are terminally ill and will 100% die in the next year, it creates problems. You can be very very likely to die but you cannot be 100% sure with no doubt.


Why should the goverment not pay for it when it will save a women's life?

Let's look at Mrs Nerg
Movement- they have bones and fingers and toes
Reproduction- do you consider prepubescent people not humans?
Sensitivity- They feel pain.
Nutrition- Yes
Excretion- No, but just because something can't go to the bathroom doesn't make it dead.
Respiration- They do this
Growth- They do this

Scientifically, human being is alive at at conception. Religiously, human's begin life at conception. By definition, at conception, there is a human being inside of the mother.

And I'm in favor of medical abortion, because it's the safest abortion and the baby dies the most humane way possible. Just like how when someone is put on death sentence , they are supposed to die quickly and painlessly. Imagine if serial killers were sentenced to death by being torn apart.
-After medical abortion isn't able to terminate the pregnancy, it's necessary to surgically remove the baby. The baby is at least as long as a fully grown male's hand and I'm pretty sure they feel pain.

How rare is it for women to die during pregnancy and how do doctors find out? Being certain that there will be a life threatening problem is the best way to make the baby's chance in having a life as high as possible.

Drewboyy
August 31st, 2016, 11:50 AM
Effectively you are saying: A woman can only get an abortion if she can afford it.

My earliest memory in this life, are sensory memories, and if I were aborted I don't think I'd feel any pain. I have no recall of being a zygote, perhaps a foetus but not a zygote.

This is completely contrary to what science says a human can attain and retain their first memories.

I will not tolerate both concepts at once merged together as I find it hypocritical to the concept of "right to life". (Right to live with inadequate nutrition, in a poor neighborhood, single parents required to be with child or be charged with neglect if they go to further education).
=

Actually I was saying a woman shouldn't even be able to get an abortion, even if there are poor conditions back home. Only in cases of mother AND baby death, should a non medical 1st trimester abortion be allowed. If they can't afford it, oh well. That's life for you. Same thing happens with a lot of terminal illnesses. Personally, I've had people die in my life because they couldn't get insurance to pay for organ transplants just because they were diagnosed with cancer.

Just because you can't remember it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Dogs get their tails cut off (and are neutered) while they are puppies and they don't remember it years later. Boys definitely feel circumcision, but I don't remember it at all. The fetus definitely feels the pain of a needle going through their skull a couple times, or having their limbs ripped off until the doctor can crush the babies head. And lord knows how an unlicensed abortionist would do it.

It's only natural for people to be born into bad conditions. It's been happening in the existence of our race. Completely off topic- if a child has a will to succeed or live in life, they will. And I'm sorry but giving women a free out by murdering a baby just because she can't keep her legs closed is wrong.

Btw I only support medical 1st trimester abortion because it's a scary thought for rape victims and vape victims only. Because if only rape victims would be allowed to have it, this would make women want to wrongfully charge the father with rape even more than it happens usually.

Uniquemind
August 31st, 2016, 01:19 PM
Actually I was saying a woman shouldn't even be able to get an abortion, even if there are poor conditions back home. Only in cases of mother AND baby death, should a non medical 1st trimester abortion be allowed. If they can't afford it, oh well. That's life for you. Same thing happens with a lot of terminal illnesses. Personally, I've had people die in my life because they couldn't get insurance to pay for organ transplants just because they were diagnosed with cancer.

Just because you can't remember it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Dogs get their tails cut off (and are neutered) while they are puppies and they don't remember it years later. Boys definitely feel circumcision, but I don't remember it at all. The fetus definitely feels the pain of a needle going through their skull a couple times, or having their limbs ripped off until the doctor can crush the babies head. And lord knows how an unlicensed abortionist would do it.

It's only natural for people to be born into bad conditions. It's been happening in the existence of our race. Completely off topic- if a child has a will to succeed or live in life, they will. And I'm sorry but giving women a free out by murdering a baby just because she can't keep her legs closed is wrong.

Btw I only support medical 1st trimester abortion because it's a scary thought for rape victims and vape victims only. Because if only rape victims would be allowed to have it, this would make women want to wrongfully charge the father with rape even more than it happens usually.

I think your wrong and not approaching or understanding why women don't report rape...you seem to be coming from a mindset where if you pour on the pressure for a woman, she'll be more likely to report.

That's not how women work, and there are a slew of reasons why it should be a completely private matter for the woman to get an abortion with her and her doctor.


I know what you are saying, but the outcomes of what I am saying and what you are saying are effectively the same.

Also those who die of cancer or lack of medical treatment, we as a society accept death in that regard when suddenly the concept of property rights comes into play. (I.e. It's their body, their financial burden, tough luck for them society says especially in USA).

Either this is a sacred issue or it's not, regarding morality.

---


I'll say this in closing.

The main reason the abortion debate is offensive to me is because it always feels like men are saying:

1. Well a woman had sex, pregnancy and giving birth is a natural consequence she MUST bare it.

In a world where guys often don't stick around or they "play" a girl. She's stuck if she befalls pregnant.

As for the baby's right to life, that's for the spiritual side of existence to deal with. If that's soul is destined to live it will just not with that set of parents. The same phenomena in a natural miscarriage event.

Drewboyy
August 31st, 2016, 03:16 PM
You seem to be coming from a mindset where if you pour on the pressure for a woman, she'll be more likely to report.

That's not how women work, and there are a slew of reasons why it should be a completely private matter for the woman to get an abortion with her and her doctor.

It's their body, their financial burden, tough luck for them society says especially in USA

1. Well a woman had sex, pregnancy and giving birth is a natural consequence she MUST bare it.

In a world where guys often don't stick around or they "play" a girl. She's stuck if she befalls pregnant.

As for the baby's right to life, that's for the spiritual side of existence to deal with. If that's soul is destined to live it will just not with that set of parents. The same phenomena in a natural miscarriage event.

Whether or not the woman wants to report the rape or not, if she doesn't want the baby then she should get it aborted within the first trimester. And to make it fair, everyone plays by these same rules. Regardless if there even was a rape.

And sadly, it's true. Tough luck to those who are burdened by something like lack of money. Realistically, everyone can't get their problems solved.

Yes, a woman had sex and is now pregnant. There is a human being growing inside of her and a baby is expected to emerge in this world in approx. 9 months. It is her job to bare that child. My view on abortion is- if she realizes she doesn't want it, she should only be able to get the child out of her within the 1st trimester.

In a world where guys become "baby daddies" a lot of the time, it then becomes a legal issue with money. There are laws for that, and if people don't follow them, they are criminals. There's even a TV show for it.

You can't compare a baby getting killed by choice and a baby naturally (or accidentally) dying inside of the womb.

Uniquemind
August 31st, 2016, 03:58 PM
Whether or not the woman wants to report the rape or not, if she doesn't want the baby then she should get it aborted within the first trimester. And to make it fair, everyone plays by these same rules. Regardless if there even was a rape.

And sadly, it's true. Tough luck to those who are burdened by something like lack of money. Realistically, everyone can't get their problems solved.

Yes, a woman had sex and is now pregnant. There is a human being growing inside of her and a baby is expected to emerge in this world in approx. 9 months. It is her job to bare that child. My view on abortion is- if she realizes she doesn't want it, she should only be able to get the child out of her within the 1st trimester.

In a world where guys become "baby daddies" a lot of the time, it then becomes a legal issue with money. There are laws for that, and if people don't follow them, they are criminals. There's even a TV show for it.

You can't compare a baby getting killed by choice and a baby naturally (or accidentally) dying inside of the womb.


On that last line I actually can compare the two, with the crux of it being that somehow if fate does it it's okay because you were passive in a line of decision making, and the other line is that one is active in the decision.

I used to make a distinction here, but I am on the edge of changing my mind on how I see human choices being separate from fate or what naturally occurs, because it's just a degree of consciousness.

For me, the gravity of such a decision is strong, but it's no more or less morally right or wrong it is just a different path of walking. When you make the rape exception you forget that then it becomes a legal burden to prove the rape in order to get the medical procedure done, compounded by a time limit (the more time passes in court) the more human the subject of the abortion becomes.

Instead of viewing women as just a unit-category, you have to see them as individuals first. Everyone is going to have their own reasons for needing this procedure done, and their going to react differently.

I have relatives that I know have had abortions in their life, they needed them given that it would've permanently tied them to some freaky messed up abuser rage-prone boyfriend at the time, or they would have died due to the medical complications of the pregnancy (heart conditions etc.)

A girl deserves the right to walk away, the same way a guy walks away.

And before you say "baby daddies have consequences", that's not always true if the guy kicks the bucket (dies, drug overdose, car crash etc.) or if the guy is so not-together in life that the girl can't squeeze any financial support out of him to help raise the kid.


--

Anyway the flip side of arguing a pro-choice argument, is that what if the lady wants to keep the baby, but the guy does not?

If you are in the pro-choice camp, then that choice is taken out of the guy's hands, in that point of view it's equal. Just as many lives are hypothetically kept, as there are blocked from entering the living realm. Therefore the issue or topic is neutral.


Earthly law is flawed in the sense that every rule written, tends to effect people in a blanket kind of way, without regard to the individuality of a person, circumstances and also with regards to various cultures.

So there are times where I think the concept of necessary evils have to exist within earthly law just due to the design of creation, and any flaw outside of that is for a higher domain to decide, and human society and life need not worry about it acknowledging it's limits.

Drewboyy
August 31st, 2016, 05:19 PM
On that last line I actually can compare the two, with the crux of it being that somehow if fate does it it's okay because you were passive in a line of decision making, and the other line is that one is active in the decision.

I used to make a distinction here, but I am on the edge of changing my mind on how I see human choices being separate from fate or what naturally occurs, because it's just a degree of consciousness.

For me, the gravity of such a decision is strong, but it's no more or less morally right or wrong it is just a different path of walking. When you make the rape exception you forget that then it becomes a legal burden to prove the rape in order to get the medical procedure done, compounded by a time limit (the more time passes in court) the more human the subject of the abortion becomes.

Instead of viewing women as just a unit-category, you have to see them as individuals first. Everyone is going to have their own reasons for needing this procedure done, and their going to react differently.

I have relatives that I know have had abortions in their life, they needed them given that it would've permanently tied them to some freaky messed up abuser rage-prone boyfriend at the time, or they would have died due to the medical complications of the pregnancy (heart conditions etc.)

A girl deserves the right to walk away, the same way a guy walks away.

And before you say "baby daddies have consequences", that's not always true if the guy kicks the bucket (dies, drug overdose, car crash etc.) or if the guy is so not-together in life that the girl can't squeeze any financial support out of him to help raise the kid.



--

Anyway the flip side of arguing a pro-choice argument, is that what if the lady wants to keep the baby, but the guy does not?

If you are in the pro-choice camp, then that choice is taken out of the guy's hands, in that point of view it's equal. Just as many lives are hypothetically kept, as there are blocked from entering the living realm. Therefore the issue or topic is neutral.


Earthly law is flawed in the sense that every rule written, tends to effect people in a blanket kind of way, without regard to the individuality of a person, circumstances and also with regards to various cultures.

So there are times where I think the concept of necessary evils have to exist within earthly law just due to the design of creation, and any flaw outside of that is for a higher domain to decide, and human society and life need not worry about it acknowledging it's limits.

I'm saying that anyone should be allowed to have abortion within a time frame and the only reason for that is because of rape victims. Not only rape victims can have it done. If there was no such thing as rape in this world, I would say no to abortion altogether.

If a baby was actually meant to die, fate would make it so. Forcing this change is definitely picking a new path for the fetus then what was supposed to happen.

A baby daddy does have responsibilities (It can totally be the woman's fault also). They cannot always hold these responsibility either. This stuff happens all the time- even if the baby has grown up to an older age. They'll make it through the hard times.

--

As for the guy's stance on whether or not his baby should be aborted

There are different scenarios that could be at hand here

-Man and woman have consensual sex in order to have a baby but one of them realizes they should have an abortion.
Both people would have to sign off on the abortion being allowed.

-Man and woman have consensual sex and a pregnancy happens by accident (In your opinion, would this be fate?) but one of them realizes they should have an abortion.
The woman would have to tell the father she is pregnant with his baby, and she's getting an abortion in advance. But it is her choice.

-A minor get's pregnant.
If her parents or the boy/boy's parents are against it, she isn't permitted to have one. No one can force her to have one.

Of course, they would have to make a decision within the first trimester like my main point is.

The man should have a right to influence the life of his baby. It was made with half of him.

Uniquemind
September 1st, 2016, 12:04 AM
I'm saying that anyone should be allowed to have abortion within a time frame and the only reason for that is because of rape victims. Not only rape victims can have it done. If there was no such thing as rape in this world, I would say no to abortion altogether.

If a baby was actually meant to die, fate would make it so. Forcing this change is definitely picking a new path for the fetus then what was supposed to happen.

A baby daddy does have responsibilities (It can totally be the woman's fault also). They cannot always hold these responsibility either. This stuff happens all the time- even if the baby has grown up to an older age. They'll make it through the hard times.

--

As for the guy's stance on whether or not his baby should be aborted

There are different scenarios that could be at hand here

-Man and woman have consensual sex in order to have a baby but one of them realizes they should have an abortion.
Both people would have to sign off on the abortion being allowed.

-Man and woman have consensual sex and a pregnancy happens by accident (In your opinion, would this be fate?) but one of them realizes they should have an abortion.
The woman would have to tell the father she is pregnant with his baby, and she's getting an abortion in advance. But it is her choice.

-A minor get's pregnant.
If her parents or the boy/boy's parents are against it, she isn't permitted to have one. No one can force her to have one.

Of course, they would have to make a decision within the first trimester like my main point is.

The man should have a right to influence the life of his baby. It was made with half of him.

Half of his genetic material, it can be argued the woman has much more investment in both health risk, stress on the body, and on top of that also provided half of the genetic material.

So no the woman gives more to the creation of offspring. Therefore she should have more legal say.

Also I do not feel that the prospective grandparents should have a say in it at all, even if it's against their beliefs or culture. Their child is the one that's pregnant, she decides since it's her life.

Perhaps the man should be more discerning and find a partner whom he knows won't abort his attempt at creating offspring.

Also you can't forget that in the modern age people have sex for recreation's sake and recreation's sake only. Luckily the Plan B pill exists so the surgical abortion is less necessary than it once was.

I standby what I said earlier, I think a fair compromise is 20 weeks no questions asked no male involvement, but it should be funded by non-profit organizations and performed by medical licensed professionals.

The reason it must be private is because of variations in how someone's parents would react to finding out their daughter got pregnant, some would resort to what I consider pointless and unhelpful revenge out of an unwarranted emotional outburst. (Honor killings, throwing them out of the house making them a runaway etc.)

Dalcourt
September 1st, 2016, 01:53 AM
There's so much abstract discussion here on this thread...about when one can be considered a human being, about women's rights about what happens to their bodies etc...I just wonder if someone could show any data on the real reasons for abortion.
Like are they done for health risks mainly or due to rape/incest stuff or is it more economic reasons and personal lime baby not fitting into current life etc.

Would be far more interesting imo.

Uniquemind
September 1st, 2016, 02:13 AM
There's so much abstract discussion here on this thread...about when one can be considered a human being, about women's rights about what happens to their bodies etc...I just wonder if someone could show any data on the real reasons for abortion.
Like are they done for health risks mainly or due to rape/incest stuff or is it more economic reasons and personal lime baby not fitting into current life etc.

Would be far more interesting imo.

It would be but on a topic like this I don't know if there is accurate data collection because of the shame, and like confidentiality of doing this.

Dalcourt
September 1st, 2016, 02:35 AM
It would be but on a topic like this I don't know if there is accurate data collection because of the shame, and like confidentiality of doing this.

well of course but since I read so many people claiming here that statistics say only about 1% of abortions is due to rape issues or so I'm just wondering what the other 99% said.

PlasmaHam
September 1st, 2016, 11:11 AM
well of course but since I read so many people claiming here that statistics say only about 1% of abortions is due to rape issues or so I'm just wondering what the other 99% said.
Here is one study regarding the reasons people have abortions in the USA.

in cases of rape, 0.3%
in cases of incest, 0.03%
in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%
in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%
in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%
98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control.
This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons
Possibly 0.1% each for sex selection and selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies.

So, except for around 1-2% of abortions, the rest are done for entirely selfish reasons and causes. Even considering the possible margin of error that comes with people being secretive of rape/incest, that is still a very small portion of all abortion.

Vlerchan
September 1st, 2016, 11:26 AM
I haven't been keeping up with the prior debate but nonetheless:

I'm sceptical of all rape and incest data built around people volunteering to report.

Paraxiom: I see a considerable differences between possessing the biological requirements to react to stimuli and being conscious. That a fetus can feel pain - and as far as I know this is a test that hasn't been attempted whilst it was in the womb - doesn't demonstrate it has consciousness.

Mars
September 1st, 2016, 12:07 PM
All these threads are the same.

"Oh, abortion is murder"
"A woman should be able to choose"
"A woman should be able to choose but only if it's rape or her life is in danger"

And then proceed to get absolutely fucking nowhere.

If you aren't having the baby, who the fuck are you to say what the person should or shouldn't be able to do? I don't care if your religious or its against your morals, if it isn't yours, it isn't your problem.

"B-but Mars-senpaii... What if the baby grew up to cure cancer? Or solve global warming?"
There's plenty of other babies and children and adults in the world that can do that.

Maybe we should make abortion threads illegal instead.

Drewboyy
September 1st, 2016, 06:24 PM
Half of his genetic material, it can be argued the woman has much more investment in both health risk, stress on the body, and on top of that also provided half of the genetic material.

So no the woman gives more to the creation of offspring. Therefore she should have more legal say.

Also I do not feel that the prospective grandparents should have a say in it at all, even if it's against their beliefs or culture. Their child is the one that's pregnant, she decides since it's her life.

Perhaps the man should be more discerning and find a partner whom he knows won't abort his attempt at creating offspring.

Also you can't forget that in the modern age people have sex for recreation's sake and recreation's sake only. Luckily the Plan B pill exists so the surgical abortion is less necessary than it once was.

I standby what I said earlier, I think a fair compromise is 20 weeks no questions asked no male involvement, but it should be funded by non-profit organizations and performed by medical licensed professionals.

The reason it must be private is because of variations in how someone's parents would react to finding out their daughter got pregnant, some would resort to what I consider pointless and unhelpful revenge out of an unwarranted emotional outburst. (Honor killings, throwing them out of the house making them a runaway etc.)

Yes, the woman should have 95% of the say in it. The 5% the man gets is just the knowledge (in advance) of his baby getting terminated

A compromise is no later than week 12. And Plan-b isn't the only medicinal way to terminate a pregnancy. There are doctor prescribed drugs that can be used before the 12th week that makes it so there is no need for surgery.

The "prospective grandparents" aren't just there if a minor gets pregnant. They all have to deal with it- especially financially. Even the boy/boy's parents. No one should be able to force the girl to have an abortion, but the people who are ultimately going to care for the baby should be able to not allow for an abortion to happen.

Flapjack
September 1st, 2016, 06:37 PM
Yes, the woman should have 95% of the say in it. The 5% the man gets is just the knowledge (in advance) of his baby getting terminated

Why should the man be legally required to get knowledge in advance? Iit will just make getting an abortion more difficult. It is 100% the women's choice.

Why do you think a zygote is a baby anyway?

AustinKGB
September 1st, 2016, 07:42 PM
I'm getting here pretty late, but I'll throw my two cents into the pile.
Before talking about abortion itself, it is important to consider the origins of abortion liberalization. With the taboo of pre-marital sex on the decline following the 60’s, there were more babies being conceived outside of a relationship that could provide for them financially and emotionally. The case for abortion includes outlier criminal, or socially uncomfortable situations where babies are conceived, but the primary use of abortions is to end a pregnancy following consenting intercourse that resulted in conception. Abortion is a way of correcting a “mistake”. While both parties understood the possible risks that come with unprotected sex (and even protected sex), both parties agreed to it. In the end, whether you agree with abortion or not, the primary reason abortion exists is clear: to alleviate responsibility for a pregnancy. Even if you don’t believe fetuses are human or even alive, you are still removing the possibility of a person living their life. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, or make anyone feel guilty, but here is my rationale. For me, the principle issue surrounding the abortion debate is how far the 'right to life' extends. Society is built on the notion that living together in an environment with guaranteed rights and liberties is better than being on your own- and that's true; if your rights are actually guaranteed.

To demonstrate this, consider freedom of speech for a second. In Canada 'freedom of speech' does not fully exist. If I go out and say something horrendously offensive, I can be fined by the human rights commission (ironic) and even arrested. Let me be clear- I'm not advocating for people to be offensive (I am opposed to this sort of purposefully derogatory speech), the only punishment for such actions should be disagreement, disgust, and disapproval from your peers, (and inevitably, social ostracism). If not all speech is protected, then there is nothing stopping the government from considering the expression of dissenting opinions to be outside of our freedom of speech (eg: currently it is illegal to criticize the German government's immigration policy). While freedom of speech will result in some people having to face opinions, views, and speech that they disagree with, or are offended by, the right to voice your ideas publicly must stand unadulterated for it to function as intended. Some people might consider it to lack fairness, but it is the only way to guarantee the well being of every member of society now and in the future. We can't offer exceptions to people simply because they are upset or feel wronged by circumstance. (note: the only speech that should be illegal is speech that calls people to action that could endanger someone’s life or lead someone to believe that their life is being threatened. What you're saying is perfectly legal, but the effect it has on others is illegal. That is why shouting "fire" (when there is no fire) in a crowded space is illegal. You are purposefully calling people to action which is endangering other people's well being).

The right to life must exist under the same principles, or its not a guaranteed right. If we value a life because of what it is capable of, then we are not guaranteeing this right to every member of our society. Treating human life with sanctity and respect is essential if we are to guarantee the right to life for all. Dehumanizing someone is simple. When your criteria takes capability, development, and the pretenses of conception into consideration, you essentially create a system where human life is not universally valued the same.

Of all the pro-abortion arguments, the one that demonstrates human selfishness the most is whether or not a human life was intended. Essentially, if a baby is conceived when the parents were not intending to procreate, then we deem it necessary to abort the fetus. Here lies the heart of the pro-abortion position. Without this argument there is no abortion discussion. By this I mean that we seek to justify abortion for our needs, and not whether or not we deem it moral. Therefore, ideological or scientific arguments, while important, cannot solely justify abortion, when our willingness, or lack thereof, to take care of a baby is the factor that decides whether a baby lives or dies. A life does not deserve to be ended simply because of whether or not its parents want it or have the capacity to love it. Are the feelings of the parents the only thing that matters when calculating the value of a baby? According to the laws in Canada and the United States (and in other countries that recognize the rights and freedoms of their citizens), if a pregnant woman is killed and the baby cannot be saved, the life of the mother and baby are held against the accused. What if the mother was on her way to the abortion clinic, should the baby’s life not be held against the accused because it was unwanted? If the right to life is to remain a guarantee for all, then the validity of human lives cannot be left up to human judgment. If a person could not function to the same degree as us, would we any more justified to take their lives away from them? With the fallibility of our own judgment firmly laid out, the question must change to if and when a baby can be considered 'human'.

To be frank, the human fetus is unquestionably human. From the very beginning it is destined to look, think and feel like all of us. The fetus is also completely incapable of becoming anything besides a human. Biologically speaking, a fetus has the same information and potential as you and me, and only requires time to reach maturity. To say that this person is not currently human, because of their dependence on their mother is no different than saying adults with severe developmental problems do not have a right to life. How does the technicality of being inside your mother's womb make you less of a person than an individual who has been born underdeveloped? When we starting picking and choosing when a baby can be considered 'human' based on our own convenience, then life on its own is no longer a right- it is only protected under specific conditions. I usually refuse to make a 'slippery slope' arguments, but countries today have proved that such a position can be valid. For example, in Belgium a child with developmental problems was euthanized in 2015 on the request of the parents. His or her life was not important because of a judgment made by the parents.

The argument that life starts at birth is, quite frankly, a foolish departure from the generally scientific/ideological pro-abortion arguments. The moment of birth is not representative of anything substantial- it is simply the moment a baby is delivered out of his mother's womb. Generally, the baby has not been fully dependent on the mother for 1, to even 2 weeks. The time of birth is largely arbitrary, as babies can be born over a wide span of time; either prematurely, with a significant delay, or in the expected range.

The next point I'd like to make is somewhat personal for me. Of course there is another side of the argument, which is what to do when a baby is conceived out of rape or incest. While both of these acts are disgusting and horrible, people incorrectly assume that by aborting the baby that some of the hurt or shame will be avoided. This notion is incorrect, and even counsellors and medical professionals warn their patients that it will not fix the problem. Growing up I was friends with a boy named Garret (changed the name- I know he's not here, but do it just to be respectful). He was a normal kid, and I knew him throughout junior high and high school (grades 6-12 in Canada). In our 11th year of high school, during debates in my social studies class Garret told everyone about how he was conceived when his mom was raped during the open question period of the debate. The discussion was effectively ended, with no one feeling comfortable enough to to add anything afterwards (the teacher actually facilitated a really good discussion about it later on- it probably helped change my views the most). Garret talked about how she had met with counsellors, doctors and and friend of hers who was a nurse, and they all offered the same conclusion- getting an abortion would not make the emotional damage go away. Its a lot different to look someone in the eyes and tell them that their life could have been ended justifiably and without detriment to anyone’s conscience. Before hearing his perspective my position on abortion was that it should generally be avoided, but it is the woman's choice what to do with her body. This is the feminist position on the issue, and I consider it to be a gross mislabeling of the situation. It is not a woman’s issue simply, because a woman’s body houses the baby. Like I have illustrated above it is a societal issue. While she has a more personal, physical, and emotional relationship to the fetus; more than anyone else, it cannot solely justify the termination like many suggest.

If I was a woman, and I realize I can’t begin to imagine what it must be like to find out that you’re pregnant, I would want to have the baby. If I couldn’t take care of it (for whatever reason), I would put it up for adoption and make sure it went to a loving family (there are is a huge demand for babies, usually from couples who can’t conceive :( ).

I hope some of this made you consider the other side of the argument, and that conservatives seem a little less crazy. I don’t have evil intentions. I’m trying to stand up for what’s right.

Paraxiom
September 1st, 2016, 09:56 PM
And once again you missed my point. If a baby is just a non living pile of chemicals in the womb, and if s life doesn't start until birth, why does it need an umbilical cord to grow and become a fully formed human baby?

If this was meant for me, I already said that seeing biochemistry and scientific knowledge as quite/centrally relevant to this topic, doesn't mean that I am a cold physicalist who calculates everything based on some chemical properties.

The biochemistry of a fetus is of a form that it's changing structure in a way that develops closer to that of a human body. It can't do this order-creating spontaneously by itself, from egg and sperm to baby. If it necessarily needs to be protected from external critical damage, and it also needs energy and raw material to develop, then it needs something to supply both. The umbilical cord does that. That's why.

The umbilical cord isn't a necessary sign of it feeding a sentient fully human being, but it is necessarily a sign of something that is developing into eventually a human being that needs energy and biochemistry along the way to do that.



The difference between a potential human and an actual human lies in conception, since this is when a new human being has been created, and has a subsistent existence. I'm not particularly interested in questions about when consciousness is acquired or what have you.

( Drewboyy )

If you're to presume that the egg-sperm fusion moment is exactly and totally where non-human stuff turns into human being, yes.

So you see murder of a human to be the intentional actions of one human to destroy the existence of a physical organism functionally made of human cells?

If you're saying that human consciousness isn't of interest here, then that's what I am now seeing as your criterion for murder. By all means do correct me and state why I was wrong.


Because that's when a human being begins to exist.


But I believe that the egg inside the mother becomes human at conception. Even though the fetus forms later

So is the state of directly physically independent existence, air breathing, human consciousness, and a human self formed from the consciousness, only contingent aspects of a human being?



No there is a point where drugs (mifepristone and misoprostol) can be used to break down the tissue which then exits with the next period. (Correct me if I'm wrong). After that, a surgeon *needs* to physically remove the tissue.

Okay, I appreciate the specific detail but I don't see where this supports your view or opposes mine.


When a zygote forms, it becomes a whole new and unique entity.

It's quite an arbitrary entity to give such importance on, given how it's being defined as essentially equivalent to something that it only might causally contribute to 9 months in the future (the 'might' because of miscarriages, etc).

It would be like me saying that a growing ash sapling 1 week old is as much an ash tree in essence as a 40-year-old ash is, and that cutting down that 40-year-old tree is as equivalently bad/evil an act as pulling the sapling apart in two, and vice-versa.



Only in cases if the mother's health is in life threatening danger (100% certain) after that [...]

100% certainty here is practically/essentially impossible, so that's an unrealistic exception to be okay with.


[...] and she still wants to have one, it is up to her to find a willing doctor and pay them with her own money to do the procedure.

Another unrealistic exception, as it means nothing for a mother who intends to abort because of financial issues as a factor.


I think the real question is why wouldn't they be considered humans? What makes the homo sapien inside a womb different from a homo sapien walking and talking on the street?

Yes, it's clear that the ash sapling is not different to the 40-year old tree at all.



And how is being certain that both the mother and child will die if the woman continues with the pregnancy get people killed?

Navigating your viewpoint out of certainties is not going to help much here. Sufficiently high probabilities are what's meaningful here.



So, except for around 1-2% of abortions, the rest are done for entirely selfish reasons and causes.

Socio-economically-driven desires are unjustifiably selfish, of course.


I see a considerable differences between possessing the biological requirements to react to stimuli and being conscious. That a fetus can feel pain - and as far as I know this is a test that hasn't been attempted whilst it was in the womb - doesn't demonstrate it has consciousness.

I'm in full agreement; consciousness is generally seen as more than just observable reaction to expected painful stimuli, and there is no reason to presume that reaction to expected painful stimuli means that there's a consciousness behind the metaphorical wheel anyway.

"Though techniques such as positron electron tomography scanning might reveal those parts of the brain that respond to a painful stimulus, this does not tell us what the individual is experiencing." [From the wiki link I sent.]

AustinKGB
September 1st, 2016, 10:45 PM
Why do you think a zygote is a baby anyway?

How can anyone have this conversation if they don't fully understand how arbitrary the differences are between each step? First of all there has never been an abortion conducted in history where a zygote has been removed from a uterus. A zygote remains a zygote for an insignificant amount of time, before transitioning quickly through the next few steps and becoming an embryo. I'm not trying to play around with nebulous terms; my point is that at no point is there an instance after conception when a human zygote, blastocyte, embryo, fetus, baby (etc.) is any less human than it was before. It is genetically identical to me and you- it has human DNA. You can't put a human zygote (etc.) in any other organism- it is unit that can only grow in a human womb.

So I'm curious what you mean when you say "...why do you think a zygote is a baby anyway?". Why is it wrong to terminate a baby, but not a zygote, or blastocyte, or embryo? How do you categorize when something is 'alive enough'? Are you and me somehow more than just 'clumps of cells', or are you arguing its okay to terminate life as long as it can't feel pain and fear, or try to protest it?

Drewboyy
September 1st, 2016, 11:36 PM
Why should the man be legally required to get knowledge in advance? Iit will just make getting an abortion more difficult. It is 100% the women's choice.

Why do you think a zygote is a baby anyway?

The man should at least know that his child is getting killed, whether that be a phone call, mail, a text, or in person.

A zygote is a human being by definition. A baby is an undeveloped person. If zygotes aren't human, anyone who can't reproduce isn't. You-a grown male, was once a zygote. What, genetically is different between you now and when you were just formed?



( Drewboyy )

If you're saying that human consciousness isn't of interest here, then that's what I am now seeing as your criterion for murder. By all means do correct me and state why I was wrong


Okay, I appreciate the specific detail but I don't see where this supports your view or opposes mine.

It's quite an arbitrary entity to give such importance on, given how it's being defined as essentially equivalent to something that it only might causally contribute to 9 months in the future (the 'might' because of miscarriages, etc).

It would be like me saying that a growing ash sapling 1 week old is as much an ash tree in essence as a 40-year-old ash is, and that cutting down that 40-year-old tree is as equivalently bad/evil an act as pulling the sapling apart in two, and vice-versa.


Yes, it's clear that the ash sapling is not different to the 40-year old tree at all.


I said nothing about human consciousness not being of interest? I think you tagged me by accident.

The medicine is my reasoning on why abortion should only be allowed before week 12.

Financial issues isn't actually a reason why abortion should be allowed. Like previously stated, tough luck if someone is born in bad conditions. That's life. If someone who grows up in a trashy neighborhood actually wants to succeed in life, they will.

Just because someone may not contribute doesn't mean they don't deserve a chance to even live. That's an even more unethical thought than killing a baby because there was a hole in a condom.

And by comparing a human to a tree you are saying that they hold equal amounts of importance. I'd rather 5 trees meaninglessly die than 1 human baby die. Human life is precious

PinkFloyd
September 2nd, 2016, 12:16 AM
I am personally pro-choice, but I disagree with some of the reasons for women getting abortions. A perfect example would be a woman getting an abortion because they found out their child has Down Syndrome. I disagree with that circumstance, but it all boils down to her choice in my book.

Uniquemind
September 2nd, 2016, 01:53 AM
The man should at least know that his child is getting killed, whether that be a phone call, mail, a text, or in person.

A zygote is a human being by definition. A baby is an undeveloped person. If zygotes aren't human, anyone who can't reproduce isn't. You-a grown male, was once a zygote. What, genetically is different between you now and when you were just formed?



And by comparing a human to a tree you are saying that they hold equal amounts of importance. I'd rather 5 trees meaninglessly die than 1 human baby die. Human life is precious


They are human-potential, but they are not fully here therefore they aren't complete and have incomplete rights.

Human zygotes and all the other forms of development you mention are more akin to parasites because they draw their nutrients from a host (the mother). That's the core difference, it's not a human by definition, if it was it should continue to develop AFTER being removed from "mom", and be just fine.


I also realize at this point that I disagree with the endless pit ideology that human life is endlessly valuable to no measurable end.

No doubt it's important, but I do believe there is a limit on how valuable a human life is, and this is an uncomfortable view to embrace but I think unconsciously everyone embraces it, but labels it (justice, death penalty, too expensive/risky to rescue from a gross domestic product rate).

Otherwise you end up with a situation where 1 planet overpopulated endlessly, and then at the end result, die off once exhaustion of resources occurs. Same result: people die although conveniently by a "natural" cause, so I guess some people feel better if they rationalize it that way rather than acknowledge a role they play toward a destructive path ending in the same result.

I will say this, when my society solves the socio-economic gap problems to a point where food, water, shelter, electricity, child care and education (and soon internet too given that teachers are requiring typed essays and scholarly research sources all the time) are guaranteed nationwide. I will not simply say "tough luck that's life", because that to me is as cruel as taking life.

-

Also if you tell a guy you're aborting his kid, he might get very angry and lash out, and that could put the lady in physical danger or duress of various threats.

A man should be in ignorance and therefore bliss.

When that man dies at the end of his life, perhaps he'll meet a child he never knew he had, or at least that's my personal belief.


Also, if life is a gift, then it is a gift given by women since her womb is required for it to be complete. As a gift, it can be chosen, to not be given. Just like a present at the holidays, that's why when it is given it means much more.

Flapjack
September 2nd, 2016, 04:47 AM
The man should at least know that his child is getting killed, whether that be a phone call, mail, a text, or in person.

A zygote is a human being by definition. A baby is an undeveloped person. If zygotes aren't human, anyone who can't reproduce isn't. You-a grown male, was once a zygote. What, genetically is different between you now and when you were just formed?

A baby is a 'very young child' but I get it you're trying to use emotive language. Here is an image of a zygote:
http://www.embryology.ch/images/eimgvorimplant/01furchung/e1p_j1_zygote.jpg
Hardly a child.

What is the women doesn't want to tell the man the pregnancy is getting terminated? Why should she have to? What if the man doesn't support it? It is the women's body and so she can do with it as she pleases.

You still haven't explained why you think a zygote is life and not a gamete.

PlasmaHam
September 2nd, 2016, 06:31 AM
A baby is a 'very young child' but I get it you're trying to use emotive language. Here is an image of a zygote:
Hardly a child.
You still haven't explained why you think a zygote is life and not a gamete.

Drewboy had a good point. Zygotes contain all the genetic potential and dna that makes up you. At one point in your life, we were all zygotes, and those zygotes were human. To consider them not human is to ignore the basics of human development.
You brought up your picture to justify abortion, saying the child is nothing more than a cell or two. Here is my picture of a child at abortion age. Graphic Content Warning (http://liveactionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20150816_013044.jpg) You tell me that isn't human.

Gametes are not you, I don't know how many times I will need to explain this to you, or what this actually applies to the conversation. A male gamete is your father's cell, a female gamete is your mother's cell. Considering gametes you is like considering your parents you. They made you, but they never were you.

Flapjack
September 2nd, 2016, 06:35 AM
Drewboy had a good point. Zygotes contain all the genetic potential and dna that makes up you. At one point in your life, we were all zygotes, and those zygotes were human. To consider them not human is to ignore the basics of human development.
You brought up your picture to justify abortion, saying the child is nothing more than a cell or two. Here is my picture of a child at abortion age. Graphic Content Warning (http://liveactionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20150816_013044.jpg) You tell me that isn't human.

Gametes are not you, I don't know how many times I will need to explain this to you, or what this actually applies to the conversation. A male gamete is your father's cell, a female gamete is your mother's cell. Considering gametes you is like considering your parents you. They made you, but they never were you.
So you are saying a human being's life begins when there is full human DNA?

Uniquemind
September 2nd, 2016, 12:51 PM
So you are saying a human being's life begins when there is full human DNA?

Let me also add that presents legal problems for fertilization medical labs and services.

Cuz frozen embryos are created just floating in limbo. If they have the status of human beings...it's legally sticky.

Flapjack
September 2nd, 2016, 12:53 PM
Let me also add that presents legal problems for fertilization medical labs and services.

Cuz frozen embryos are created just floating in limbo. If they have the status of human beings...it's legally sticky.
I don't believe a zygote is a human don't worry :)

Reise
September 2nd, 2016, 01:33 PM
Drewboy had a good point. Zygotes contain all the genetic potential and dna that makes up you. At one point in your life, we were all zygotes, and those zygotes were human. To consider them not human is to ignore the basics of human development.
So I should jerk off? I mean if the spermatozoon are gonna die it's selfish? They also contain viable DNA.
And why should it be from the moment you got a diploid cell? Those are still a set of instructions there's basically nothing exceptional.
Starting from there, any stage regardless of diploid or not can be argued.

It's really not because "there's everything for" that there's a human.


You brought up your picture to justify abortion, saying the child is nothing more than a cell or two. Here is my picture of a child at abortion age. Graphic Content Warning (http://liveactionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20150816_013044.jpg) You tell me that isn't human.
Thanks to a Google search I can say that this picture has only been released by pro-choice websites. This is already a big warning.
Furthermore it was the picture of a fetus at 19-20 weeks pregnancy so basically 4 months and was released to convince people that abortion shouldn't be at 24 weeks.
Also, most of women abort before reaching the 8th week of gestation.
In 2011, most (64.5%) abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks' gestation, and nearly all (91.4%) were performed by ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.3%) were performed between 14–20 weeks' gestation or at ≥21 weeks' gestation (1.4%). From 2002 to 2011, the percentage of all abortions performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation increased 6%.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6311a1.htm


Gametes are not you, I don't know how many times I will need to explain this to you, or what this actually applies to the conversation. A male gamete is your father's cell, a female gamete is your mother's cell. Considering gametes you is like considering your parents you. They made you, but they never were you.
But considering the reunion of those two gametes as "you" is valid?

everlong
September 2nd, 2016, 02:52 PM
So? In my opinion that's not a reason to abort. Every person should have a right to live, whether they are 'perfect' or not.

Personally, if I had some major birth defect, I wouldn't want to live. I feel it would sometimes be for the better to not make someone live through that pain.

Also, to answer the thread, I'm pro-choice.

Vlerchan
September 2nd, 2016, 05:25 PM
Like I have illustrated above it is a societal issue. While she has a more personal, physical, and emotional relationship to the fetus; more than anyone else, it cannot solely justify the termination like many suggest.
You didn't illustrate how a woman's control over her own person, is a societal issue.

I would also take the logic of social-contractualism as promoting an even stronger case for bodily-autonomy.

Individuals come together to form societies so that their own individualism might be preserved. Freedom in the post-Classical Western world has always been that which allows the contracted-individual to distinguish himself from the whole, to act in the singular, and to explore their own conception of the self. It is not the brute fact of life that we form societies to protect - but the very notion of the person.

Bodily-autonomy is central to that notion. It is fundamental to the process of self-exploration and self-modification: or, in other words, self-definition. It can't be alienated in the signing of the social contract because it it the single thing that makes the social-contract a reasonable bargain (life, without individual expression: without individuality, is not life is anything more than a base, biological sense).

Drewboyy
September 2nd, 2016, 08:10 PM
But considering the reunion of those two gametes as "you" is valid?

Flapjack

Yes, the reunion of two gametes is "you" because at that moment, it becomes completely unique from it's parents.

Uniquemind
September 2nd, 2016, 08:40 PM
Flapjack

Yes, the reunion of two gametes is "you" because at that moment, it becomes completely unique from it's parents.

But you aren't fully formed and are more akin to a parasite to the female than an individual human being at that point. I mean you steal nutrients and everything. Something a guy doesn't endure, he just shoots out his gametes and plays roulette to see if one takes.

Drewboyy
September 2nd, 2016, 08:51 PM
But you aren't fully formed and are more akin to a parasite to the female than an individual human being at that point. I mean you steal nutrients and everything. Something a guy doesn't endure, he just shoots out his gametes and plays roulette to see if one takes.

Children aren't fully formed either. And parasites are alive, so that's not the best thing to compare to help prove your point.

Uniquemind
September 2nd, 2016, 08:56 PM
Children aren't fully formed either. And parasites are alive, so that's not the best thing to compare to help prove your point.

They are fully formed in the sense they no longer depend on the mother's body as a host. That's my point which is the difference.

Ex: a child's mother dies in an accident > child can still grow to adulthood.

PlasmaHam
September 2nd, 2016, 09:07 PM
They are fully formed in the sense they no longer depend on the mother's body as a host. That's my point which is the difference.

Ex: a child's mother dies in an accident > child can still grow to adulthood.

So a person can look human, have human dna, has the potential to grow into an adult, and be basically human except for the fact that they get their nutrients in a different way. That justifies the murder of them? What if we gained the technology to develop babies outside of the womb? Is it still open season on them?

What about if someone is on life support, does the person running the life support have the right to simply unplug the machine whenever the going gets tough, even though they willingly gained the job?

I don't get the logic behind your example

Uniquemind
September 2nd, 2016, 10:59 PM
So a person can look human, have human dna, has the potential to grow into an adult, and be basically human except for the fact that they get their nutrients in a different way. That justifies the murder of them? What if we gained the technology to develop babies outside of the womb? Is it still open season on them?

What about if someone is on life support, does the person running the life support have the right to simply unplug the machine whenever the going gets tough, even though they willingly gained the job?

I don't get the logic behind your example

Those are different contexts, and if technology gets as far as artificial wombs, I'll reevaluate my position on the issue at that time.

Regardless 3rd trimester abortion is not allowed by USA law and I stand by that.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 01:25 AM
@Flapjack (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060)

Yes, the reunion of two gametes is "you" because at that moment, it becomes completely unique from it's parents.
I don't believe that is a person, your DNA is in every cell in your body. Also terminating a few cells is hardly killing a person. Even if you consider that to be the start of life, you have no right to force that opinion on others.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 01:40 AM
So a person can look human, have human dna, has the potential to grow into an adult, and be basically human except for the fact that they get their nutrients in a different way. That justifies the murder of them? What if we gained the technology to develop babies outside of the womb? Is it still open season on them?
http://www.quranandscience.com/multimedia/photo-comment/image?view=image&format=raw&type=orig&id=8
Hardly looks human. Yeah it could grow into a human, just like a gamete.

Drewboyy
September 3rd, 2016, 10:10 AM
I don't believe that is a person, your DNA is in every cell in your body. Also terminating a few cells is hardly killing a person. Even if you consider that to be the start of life, you have no right to force that opinion on others.

Terminating 100% of a beings cells. What if we burned an adult until there is nothing left. It's not an opinion either, many actual abortionist know it to be true, which is why they call the head '1'.

image (http://www.quranandscience.com/multimedia/photo-comment/image?view=image&format=raw&type=orig&id=8)
Hardly looks human. Yeah it could grow into a human, just like a gamete.

Because something looks like it isn't human, doesn't mean it's not. You could call someone who's been exposed to mustard gas or other deformities not human in that case. Also, gametes can not grow into anything further by themselves. Gametes are not unique. How many times do I have to say that?

What's the difference if the "zygote"'s chances of growing up to cure a bunch of diseases or the possibility that someone put on death penalty could later cure disease? Just curious

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 10:29 AM
Terminating 100% of a beings cells. What if we burned an adult until there is nothing left. It's not an opinion either, many actual abortionist know it to be true, which is why they call the head '1'.

The problem here is that you consider it a being and human. If I terminate 100% of a frog's cells you wouldn't mind? You consider a zygote human.

They call the head '1'? I want a source and an explanation of how that relates to zygotes.


Because something looks like it isn't human, doesn't mean it's not.
A frog doesn't look human.

Also, gametes can not grow into anything further by themselves.
Nor can zygotes.

Gametes are not unique. s
But frogs are.

What's the difference if the "zygote"'s chances of growing up to cure a bunch of diseases or the possibility that someone put on death penalty could later cure disease? Just curious
I don't understand? Are you asking whether a zygotes value would change if we knew what it would do in when it develops into a human?

Uniquemind
September 3rd, 2016, 01:13 PM
Terminating 100% of a beings cells. What if we burned an adult until there is nothing left. It's not an opinion either, many actual abortionist know it to be true, which is why they call the head '1'.



Because something looks like it isn't human, doesn't mean it's not. You could call someone who's been exposed to mustard gas or other deformities not human in that case. Also, gametes can not grow into anything further by themselves. Gametes are not unique. How many times do I have to say that?

What's the difference if the "zygote"'s chances of growing up to cure a bunch of diseases or the possibility that someone put on death penalty could later cure disease? Just curious

We discussed this, the potential to be good is equal to the potential for them to be the next hitler or worse. So when we discuss the lost potential, it's a neutral result. It's why we moved on from talking about "potential".

Drewboyy
September 3rd, 2016, 02:57 PM
The problem here is that you consider it a being and human. If I terminate 100% of a frog's cells you wouldn't mind? You consider a zygote human.

They call the head '1'? I want a source and an explanation of how that relates to zygotes.

A frog doesn't look human.


A frog doesn't look human.

Nor can zygotes.

I don't understand? Are you asking whether a zygotes value would change if we knew what it would do in when it develops into a human?


We are talking about humans here, I wouldn't care about frogs dying, they aren't as precious as humans.

Frogs don't look human, and they are not genetically human. Zygotes don't look human, and they genetically human.

I read somewhere in an article describing an abortion how they call the head 1 or a or something like that. It doesn't pertain to zygotes, just felt like saying it.

You missing my point that I keep repeating- gametes can not become unique and grow on it's own, no matter the conditions. A fertilized egg can.

Just because something can't live without help, doesn't mean it's not alive. Your definition of babies or terminally ill people on life support can not live by themselves either.

When someone jerks off into a napkin, all of those millions of sperm cells have a 0% chance of becoming anything more than sperm. When a girl is on her period, those unfertilized eggs have a 0% chance of becoming anything more than that.

I'm saying that your views on death penalty completely contradict your view on abortion.

Uniquemind

I know, I don't actually think of that as a reasonable argument supporting pro-life. It was for him specifically.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 05:32 PM
We are talking about humans here, I wouldn't care about frogs dying, they aren't as precious as humans.
But is a zygote as precious than a human is what we are debating. Whether a zygote should come before a women's life or her right to choose what happens to her body.

Frogs don't look human, and they are not genetically human. Zygotes don't look human, and they genetically human.
Human muscle cells don't look human but are genetically human. Doubt you would consider an individual human muscle cell a human?

I read somewhere in an article describing an abortion how they call the head 1 or a or something like that. It doesn't pertain to zygotes, just felt like saying it.

As in it is the first thing they cut off in late term abortions?

You missing my point that I keep repeating- gametes can not become unique and grow on it's own, no matter the conditions. A fertilized egg can.

Try zygotes have the potential to become human but they are not human themselves.

Just because something can't live without help, doesn't mean it's not alive. Your definition of babies or terminally ill people on life support can not live by themselves either.

Noooo because the poor terminally ill people are humans, zygotes are not.

I'm saying that your views on death penalty completely contradict your view on abortion.
Interesting, why is that?


When someone jerks off into a napkin, all of those millions of sperm cells have a 0% chance of becoming anything more than sperm. When a girl is on her period, those unfertilized eggs have a 0% chance of becoming anything more than that.

I wouldn't call it a 0% chance but I get your point.

How would you like it if people that believed male masturbation was murder made it illegal? I am sure you would be very upset that they were forcing their opinions on you, correct?

Now how do you think the people who think life begins at 10 weeks feel when people who share your belief that life starts at fertilisation try to force them not to terminate the pregnancy? I am sure they would be upset they you were forcing your opinions on them.

Drewboyy
September 3rd, 2016, 05:54 PM
But is a zygote as precious than a human is what we are debating. Whether a zygote should come before a women's life or her right to choose what happens to her body.

Human muscle cells don't look human but are genetically human. Doubt you would consider an individual human muscle cell a human?

As in it is the first thing they cut off in late term abortions?

Try zygotes have the potential to become human but they are not human themselves.

Noooo because the poor terminally ill people are humans, zygotes are not.

Interesting, why is that?


I wouldn't call it a 0% chance but I get your point.

How would you like it if people that believed male masturbation was murder made it illegal? I am sure you would be very upset that they were forcing their opinions on you, correct?

Now how do you think the people who think life begins at 10 weeks feel when people who share your belief that life starts at fertilisation try to force them not to terminate the pregnancy? I am sure they would be upset they you were forcing your opinions on them.

A zygote is as precious as a human because it is one

An individual human muscle cell isn't a human because it will never be anything more than just a muscle cell.

The head is the last thing they cut off in most abortions

They have the potential to grow into "your human", but they already are one. A "child" has the potential to go through puberty and reproduce but they are prepubescent. Or how a terminally ill person has the potential to get out of bed and breath without life support, but are bed ridden and have cancer in their lungs. Actually tell me, what is your definition of a human?

Ok you finally get my point, but what's the problem?

There is no sound reasoning to support masturbation being illegal in terms of it being inhumane, and there is an argument against abortion being inhumane.

It's not just an opinion either, it's for the baby's best interest.

I've said multiple times why a zygote is a human being. A zygote is alive, there is no debating this. But tell me why a zygote isn't human?

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 06:08 PM
A zygote is as precious as a human because it is one

Because you say it is. People say a gamete is human because they say it is. You should not have the right to enforce your opinions on others because you say it is.

An individual human muscle cell isn't a human because it will never be anything more than just a muscle cell.

Nooo an individual muscle cell isn't human because it isn't bloody human xD It is a single cell xD

The head is the last thing they cut off in most abortions

If that is true doctors make no sense :P You do know not all abortions involve cutting, right?

They have the potential to grow into "your human", but they already are one. A "child" has the potential to go through puberty and reproduce but they are prepubescent. Or how a terminally ill person has the potential to get out of bed and breath without life support, but are bed ridden and have cancer in their lungs. Actually tell me, what is your definition of a human?

A child has the potential to become an adult, children are not adults.
A zygote has the potential to become a human, zygotes are not humans.

As for where I would define the start of being human, I dunno xD There is a period where I consider it going from just a few cells and chemicals to a human but I don't know when. Even if an 8 week old is human.


There is no sound reasoning to support masturbation being illegal in terms of it being inhumane, and there is an argument against abortion being inhumane.
Because you don't believe it!! Ted Cruz is one of the people that wanted to ban masturbation. See it's not nice when you force your opinion on others.


Also what do you think about forcing women to go to back alley abortionists?

Drewboyy
September 3rd, 2016, 09:28 PM
You should not have the right to enforce your opinions on others because you say it is.

because it isn't bloody human xD

zygotes are not humans.

Because you don't believe it!!



Instead of repeating what I said a million times, let me just narrow down your post to a few lines

And nobody should be forced to go into a shady business

Btw I know a lot of abortions don't involve cutting. They involve smashing, and vaccumming and clamps, and long needles

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 05:56 AM
Instead of repeating what I said a million times, let me just narrow down your post to a few lines

And nobody should be forced to go into a shady business

Btw I know a lot of abortions don't involve cutting. They involve smashing, and vaccumming and clamps, and long needles
None of this asks any of the questions I asked....

What do you think about back alley abortions?

Why is a zygote a human?

Why do you think you have the right to force your opinions on others?

Do you consider the morning after pill murder?

How does my position on abortion conflict with my opinion on the death penalty?

If you was a pregnant women buddy you would have to the right to decide whether or not you terminate the pregnancy but you don't have the right to force that opinion on others.

Who is forced to go into a shady business?

No some abortions just involve drugs.

Drewboyy
September 4th, 2016, 09:46 AM
Flapjack

What do you think about back alley abortions?- People shouldn't be doing anything shady

Why is a zygote a human?- I'm not explaining myself and repeating myself any further

Why do you think you have the right to force your opinions on others?- I'm not repeating myself. Why do you think you have the right to force your opinions on defenseless babies?

Do you consider the morning after pill murder?- Yes, but it should be allowed

How does my position on abortion conflict with my opinion on the death penalty?-

Here is a quote from you from the death penalty thread : " I also believe all murder is wrong, even the state murdering murders. I do not think killing a person to save money is fair either." A zygote is definitely, scientifically, alive. This is a fact. Stopping life=murder. You've also supported abortion because women might not have sufficient funds.

Who is forced to go into a shady business?- People who go to back alley anything

No some abortions just involve drugs.- Which is the ONLY abortion that I agree with! Great to see you finally understand me

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 10:06 AM
What do you think about back alley abortions?- People shouldn't be doing anything shady
Well when you take women's right to choose away then that is what they must do.

Why is a zygote a human?- I'm not explaining myself and repeating myself any further
You never did so I will take this as your opinion and not a fact, to which I say, you shouldn't force your opinions on others.

Why do you think you have the right to force your opinions on others?- I'm not repeating myself.

Not repeating yourself? You never explained why.
@Why do you think you have the right to force your opinions on defenseless babies?

I am not xD It is the women's right to chose! She can be pro life and say she don't want an abortion and I will support That means she can chose keeping the pregnancy or terminating it.

They are defenceless but they are not babies. You still consider them human but could never defend that.

Here is a quote from you from the death penalty thread : " I also believe all murder is wrong, even the state murdering murders. I do not think killing a person to save money is fair either."
I did say all of that correct.
A zygote is definitely, scientifically, alive. This is a fact. Stopping life=murder.
Ooo an interesting point! Frogs are alive, would killing them be murder? Yeah but I doubt you would have an issue with it?
Is a unicellular organisms alive? Yeahhh but I doubt you would consider anyone that used an anti bacterial spray a muderer?

You've also supported abortion because women might not have sufficient funds.
I think it is the woman's choice, I won't say poor women should terminate their pregnancies but it is certainly a valid reason.

Who is forced to go into a shady business?- People who go to back alley anything
Soooo don't force women to go there?

No some abortions just involve drugs.- Which is the ONLY abortion that I agree with! Great to see you finally understand me
I really don't understand you xD Drugging 'innocent defenceless babies' is fineee but if it looks nasty then it should be banned? How is the method of terminating pregnancies relevant? You can drug a 20 week foetus because it is too big so they use other methods.

Drewboyy
September 4th, 2016, 10:26 AM
Well when you take women's right to choose away then that is what they must do.

You never did so I will take this as your opinion and not a fact, to which I say, you shouldn't force your opinions on others.

Not repeating yourself? You never explained why.

I am not xD It is the women's right to chose! She can be pro life and say she don't want an abortion and I will support That means she can chose keeping the pregnancy or terminating it.

They are defenceless but they are not babies. You still consider them human but could never defend that.

I did say all of that correct.

Ooo an interesting point! Frogs are alive, would killing them be murder? Yeah but I doubt you would have an issue with it?
Is a unicellular organisms alive? Yeahhh but I doubt you would consider anyone that used an anti bacterial spray a muderer?


I think it is the woman's choice, I won't say poor women should terminate their pregnancies but it is certainly a valid reason.

Soooo don't force women to go there?

I really don't understand you xD Drugging 'innocent defenceless babies' is fineee but if it looks nasty then it should be banned? How is the method of terminating pregnancies relevant? You can drug a 20 week foetus because it is too big so they use other methods.

At this point since there are no new points being brought up that I haven't explained there really is no use commenting on everything previous "Frogs are alive". I've explained it several times to multiple people, including you. I'm done with that.

Killing frogs and bacteria is murder, yes, but I could care less about them, they aren't human.

Women shouldn't be forced to go to a back alley place which is why they get prescription from their doctor.

1st trimester medical abortion does include drugging and murdering innocent defenseless babies, yes. I don't personally agree with it but for the sake of society it should be allowed because it is the most humane way of doing it.

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 10:43 AM
At this point since there are no new points being brought up that I haven't explained there really is no use commenting on everything previous "Frogs are alive". I've explained it several times to multiple people, including you. I'm done with that.
You say that like I ignored you xD I countered everything.

Killing frogs and bacteria is murder, yes, but I could care less about them, they aren't human.

Good because neither are zygotes.

1st trimester medical abortion does include drugging and murdering innocent defenseless babies, yes. I don't personally agree with it but for the sake of society it should be allowed because it is the most humane way of doing it.
When it is too late for that abortion technique then what? Back street abortionist?

You have a terrible habit of not responding to difficult points:/

Mars
September 4th, 2016, 10:50 AM
At this point since there are no new points being brought up that I haven't explained there really is no use commenting on everything previous "Frogs are alive". I've explained it several times to multiple people, including you. I'm done with that.

Killing frogs and bacteria is murder, yes, but I could care less about them, they aren't human.

Women shouldn't be forced to go to a back alley place which is why they get prescription from their doctor.

1st trimester medical abortion does include drugging and murdering innocent defenseless babies, yes. I don't personally agree with it but for the sake of society it should be allowed because it is the most humane way of doing it.

>implying humans are important and more valuable than other life anyway

And what could be more humane than aborting it before it's born? Before, as far as we know, it has a conscious?

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 10:58 AM
I'm going to give the pro-life side a spin:
A child has the potential to become an adult, children are not adults.
You'll find 'child' and 'adult' are social categories and children aren't adults because we define them as not being adults and not by necessity.

Nonetheless, the fact that children can become adults implies that there is some base characteristic that can be referred to as shared. There is a fundamental sameness. The same can be said for a fetus and child: whilst the child is elevated in development: there is a fundamental sameness that lies behind the difference, but which we can also refer to when it comes time to tie them together (what will you call your child? spoken in regards to a fetus, is not uncommon).

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 11:00 AM
I
You'll find 'child' and 'adult' are social categories and children aren't adults because we define them as not being adults and not by necessity.

Nonetheless, the fact that children can become adults implies that there is some base characteristic that can be referred to as shared. There is a fundamental sameness. The same can be said for a fetus and child: whilst the child is elevated in development: there is a fundamental sameness that lies behind the difference.
You taken that out of context buddy :)

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 11:01 AM
You taken that out of context buddy :)
Whatever the case*, it contains a defence of how we can consider fetus as holding the same rights as a child, but not sperm or an unfertalised ovum.

---

* I also don't see how. But again, whatever the case.

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 11:03 AM
Whatever the case*, it contains a defence of how we can consider fetus as holding the same rights as a child, but not sperm or an unfertalised ovum.

---

* I also don't see how. But again, whatever the case.
I don't consider a child to consider the same rights as a foetus.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 11:08 AM
I don't consider a child to consider the same rights as a foetus.
Well yes, that would be the point in myself respond to you.

To repeat the argument: a fetus and child possess a fundamental sameness which persists regardless of their state of development. A child might also develop to be an adult but we would regard both as possessing a fundamental sameness, which allows for development from one stage to another.

Mars
September 4th, 2016, 12:55 PM
Vlerchan I tried being a vegetarian once. Didn't work out :P

99% of this thread is full of males, who will never know what it's like to be pregnant, birth a child, or abort a child. It isn't easy. It isn't a decision made simply and quickly. You are destroying potential life and you are going to feel regret and pain. I think that's something many people don't think about.

Drewboyy
September 4th, 2016, 08:57 PM
You say that like I ignored you xD I countered everything.

Good because neither are zygotes.

When it is too late for that abortion technique then what? Back street abortionist?


So saying that I shouldn't force my opinion on others because everything that I brought up was just an opinion is considered countering an argument backed with facts? This debate is A++

Followed by your opinion! Oh you really got me there buddy

The mother's life in first world countries is almost never in danger during birth, so most of the time there is no need to abort anything unless her baby daddy left her cause she didn't keep her legs closed Which isn't a valid reason for killing a baby

I do not leave anything I consider important to this thread unanswered, but in your mind everything I say is just filtered as a wrong opinion cause only your opinion is fact.

Mars
I do think humans are more valuable than other life, yes

And what could be more humane than aborting it before it's born?- Only 1st trimester. Some people think there is no problem aborting an 8 month year old fetus

Before, as far as we know, it has a conscious?- Abortion is most humane in the 1st trimester, that is my point

Flapjack
September 5th, 2016, 12:14 AM
So saying that I shouldn't force my opinion on others because everything that I brought up was just an opinion is considered countering an argument backed with facts? This debate is A++

Followed by your opinion! Oh you really got me there buddy

Noooo you saying that your opinion is a 'true fact' proves nothing. Your argument is inconsistent and makes no sense.

How am I forcing my opinion on others? lol! I believe in the women's right to choose, I am happy for her to choose to keep the pregnancy :D

Just because you believe abortions are bad is not a valid reason for you to forbid all women from having them.

The mother's life in first world countries is almost never in danger during birth
So because it is rare it is okay that you forbid it and force that upon women?
her baby daddy left her cause she didn't keep her legs closed Which isn't a valid reason for killing a baby
Dude, stop slut-shaming, it's not cool.

Oh course because the father left her is a valid reason!!

I do not leave anything I consider important to this thread unanswered, but in your mind everything I say is just filtered as a wrong opinion cause only your opinion is fact.
I do consider everything you say but you have never been able to convince me of anything.

Drewboyy
September 5th, 2016, 01:06 AM
Flapjack

Obviously my "opinion" is just an opinion and your opinion is fact

And instead of everything I say fall upon deaf ears answer your own questions.

Why isn't a zygote human?

Why is not having funds a valid reason for ending a fetus' life

When does ending that cell in the mother that could grow into a fully developed person become murder?

Or rather instead of just telling me to stop "forcing my opinion on others", tell me why my "opinion" is wrong

Btw let me say this again, just worded differently so maybe it can get through- I think that killing zygotes (a human) is murder, it should be allowed for whatever reason (aka 1st trimester abortion), that is not forcing my opinion on anyone. If anything, that is the most open thing said in this thread.

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 10:53 AM
Before talking about abortion itself, it is important to consider the origins of abortion liberalization. With the taboo of pre-marital sex on the decline following the 60’s, there were more babies being conceived outside of a relationship that could provide for them financially and emotionally. The case for abortion includes outlier criminal, or socially uncomfortable situations where babies are conceived, but the primary use of abortions is to end a pregnancy following consenting intercourse that resulted in conception. Abortion is a way of correcting a “mistake”. While both parties understood the possible risks that come with unprotected sex (and even protected sex), both parties agreed to it. In the end, whether you agree with abortion or not, the primary reason abortion exists is clear: to alleviate responsibility for a pregnancy.

Good historical description, though I'd see the alleviation of responsibility to be for raising a child after the pregnancy, with adoption not taken as an option due to fear of judgement from peers/relatives etc etc.



Even if you don’t believe fetuses are human or even alive, you are still removing the possibility of a person living their life. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, or make anyone feel guilty, but here is my rationale. For me, the principle issue surrounding the abortion debate is how far the 'right to life' extends. Society is built on the notion that living together in an environment with guaranteed rights and liberties is better than being on your own- and that's true; if your rights are actually guaranteed.

Yes, but I differ in that I don't see it as removing the possibility of a person to live their life, as I don't see any person until at least birth onwards.
It's removing the possibility of a person being formed, by terminating the biochemistry from zygote to fetus to baby.


The right to life must exist under the same principles, or its not a guaranteed right. If we value a life because of what it is capable of, then we are not guaranteeing this right to every member of our society. Treating human life with sanctity and respect is essential if we are to guarantee the right to life for all. Dehumanizing someone is simple. When your criteria takes capability, development, and the pretenses of conception into consideration, you essentially create a system where human life is not universally valued the same.

I don't see zygotes or fetuses without consciousness as human; they are that which is developing toward humanity, but themselves are not humanity.

Zygotes and fetuses are not capable of anything except the development of a human beyond them.



Of all the pro-abortion arguments, the one that demonstrates human selfishness the most is whether or not a human life was intended. Essentially, if a baby is conceived when the parents were not intending to procreate, then we deem it necessary to abort the fetus. Here lies the heart of the pro-abortion position. Without this argument there is no abortion discussion.

It may be a large topic in the abortion debate, but what about abortions that need to be done for medical reasons?


By this I mean that we seek to justify abortion for our needs, and not whether or not we deem it moral. Therefore, ideological or scientific arguments, while important, cannot solely justify abortion, when our willingness, or lack thereof, to take care of a baby is the factor that decides whether a baby lives or dies.

Of course we justify position for or against abortion, it's all about what we desire to see happen with whatever reasoning we use. Anti-abortion arguments justify themselves for our needs as much as pro-abortion arguments do.

The science is important in the knowledge found and speculation made on the developmental stages of human pregnancy, but yes, it is us who justifies our views in the end. It is a mix of will and ability to raise a child, not only a will to.


A life does not deserve to be ended simply because of whether or not its parents want it or have the capacity to love it. Are the feelings of the parents the only thing that matters when calculating the value of a baby?

If you mean human life, I see it (as before) instead as that which is approaching human life, not itself human life.

It could be argued that a life does not deserve to be started simply because parents-to-be want to. The parents are who are responsible for the formation of human life, so I don't get why they are therefore seen by some to be then bound in fully finishing the creation that they started, or else.

They have the ability whether to conceive or not, so why can they not have the ability whether to complete the pregnancy or not?


If the right to life is to remain a guarantee for all, then the validity of human lives cannot be left up to human judgment. If a person could not function to the same degree as us, would we any more justified to take their lives away from them? With the fallibility of our own judgment firmly laid out, the question must change to if and when a baby can be considered 'human'.

You cannot take away a human life that is not there yet.


To be frank, the human fetus is unquestionably human. From the very beginning it is destined to look, think and feel like all of us.

The probable destiny of entity X (a zygote / early fetus) to become entity Y (a baby human) does not equate to entity X already being entity Y.

That would be like me seeing a sapling as essentially the same as a mature tree, because it biochemically is expected to turn into that.

I could even see a pure iron ingot on a beach as essentially the same as a pile of rust, because that is what it is expected to chemically progress to, right? That's what I am getting here.

( PlasmaHam )

For me, a human in this context is the coincidence of a genetically/physiologically human body with sentience.

A person would be a human but where the sentience also has a personality, an identity. That comes after sentience, not immediately with it.

The zygote, and early fetuses, are not sentient.


The fetus is also completely incapable of becoming anything besides a human.

Genetically you are correct, but you're isolating the developing human body from its environment. There are situations when a fetus will not develop into a baby, as an event happens from its immediate environment which results in miscarriage etc (the mother's body can reject the fetus).

The fetus is entirely capable of not becoming a human. Its very high probability in developing into a human is not the same as it having a certainty in developing into a human.


Biologically speaking, a fetus has the same information and potential as you and me, and only requires time to reach maturity.

Do you mean genetic information?

If you mean potential to be potential for full person-hood/humanity, then fetuses have so much more potential than we do because fetuses don't have any self yet even.


To say that this person is not currently human, because of their dependence on their mother is no different than saying adults with severe developmental problems do not have a right to life.

There is no person to talk about in a zygote / early fetus (arguably late fetus too, but I'll be accommodating here).


How does the technicality of being inside your mother's womb make you less of a person than an individual who has been born underdeveloped?

The question does not make sense without a person to talk about.


When we starting picking and choosing when a baby can be considered 'human' based on our own convenience, then life on its own is no longer a right- it is only protected under specific conditions.

Fetus.* Human life.*


I usually refuse to make a 'slippery slope' arguments, but countries today have proved that such a position can be valid. For example, in Belgium a child with developmental problems was euthanized in 2015 on the request of the parents. His or her life was not important because of a judgment made by the parents.

If the severe developmental problems were such that there was little or no personality or sentience in the child, then the argument is there for the law that Belgium has.


The argument that life starts at birth is, quite frankly, a foolish departure from the generally scientific/ideological pro-abortion arguments.

Human life, as I see it, is formed between later fetus developmental stage, and toddler stage. It's not one moment that the 'not human > human' transition happens.


The moment of birth is not representative of anything substantial- it is simply the moment a baby is delivered out of his mother's womb. Generally, the baby has not been fully dependent on the mother for 1, to even 2 weeks. The time of birth is largely arbitrary, as babies can be born over a wide span of time; either prematurely, with a significant delay, or in the expected range.

The moment of conception is even more arbitrary for seeing where human life forms.


Growing up I was friends with a boy named Garret (changed the name- I know he's not here, but do it just to be respectful). He was a normal kid, and I knew him throughout junior high and high school (grades 6-12 in Canada). In our 11th year of high school, during debates in my social studies class Garret told everyone about how he was conceived when his mom was raped during the open question period of the debate. The discussion was effectively ended, with no one feeling comfortable enough to to add anything afterwards (the teacher actually facilitated a really good discussion about it later on- it probably helped change my views the most). Garret talked about how she had met with counsellors, doctors and and friend of hers who was a nurse, and they all offered the same conclusion- getting an abortion would not make the emotional damage go away. Its a lot different to look someone in the eyes and tell them that their life could have been ended justifiably and without detriment to anyone’s conscience.

No offence intended, but my point is the same that human life doesn't start at conception and for a while after. A human life is not terminated when there isn't one yet.


It is not a woman’s issue simply, because a woman’s body houses the baby. Like I have illustrated above it is a societal issue. While she has a more personal, physical, and emotional relationship to the fetus; more than anyone else, it cannot solely justify the termination like many suggest.

The society is formed out of individuals, if you're suggesting that general society should be responsible for the pregnancy of one individual more than the individual themselves, that's bizzarre to say.


If I was a woman, and I realize I can’t begin to imagine what it must be like to find out that you’re pregnant, I would want to have the baby. If I couldn’t take care of it (for whatever reason), I would put it up for adoption and make sure it went to a loving family (there are is a huge demand for babies, usually from couples who can’t conceive :( ).

When the fetus develops enough that it is measured+judged to have some meaningfully human sentience, then I am for the mother continuing the pregnancy until the fetus can be delivered prematurely with good chance of surviving. Thereafter it can be brought to adoption services.


I don’t have evil intentions. I’m trying to stand up for what’s right.

As we all perceive to, yes.


The man should at least know that his child is getting killed, whether that be a phone call, mail, a text, or in person.

You're not reasoning toward your end viewpoint if you're already using language from your end viewpoint.


A zygote is a human being by definition. A baby is an undeveloped person.

A zygote is a cell formed out of the fusion of one sperm call and one egg cell, both of which have genes which are of the human species. A zygote is not a human being, from that I said, if you see a human being to have sentience of some sort.

Otherwise, sentience is only a large but contingent aspect of a human being, which means that personality / person-hood is also contingent. There are therefore more human beings than there are people, from the reasoning I'm following here.


Just because someone may not contribute doesn't mean they don't deserve a chance to even live. That's an even more unethical thought than killing a baby because there was a hole in a condom.

Have you considered that the lifetime of a person is a smaller than the lifetime of a physiological human body?


And by comparing a human to a tree you are saying that they hold equal amounts of importance. I'd rather 5 trees meaninglessly die than 1 human baby die. Human life is precious

I am drawing analogy of development, destiny and essence. I am not equating the human life stages with the life stages of a tree.

Do you hold a 1:5 ratio of value between people and trees?

Human life can be seen to be so, but biochemistry of the genetic human species by itself doesn't follow.


Zygotes contain all the genetic potential and dna that makes up you.

Pure iron ingots contain all the chemical potential that will make up a pile of rust.

It doesn't mean that the rust is the same as iron, or vice-versa.


At one point in your life, we were all zygotes, and those zygotes were human. To consider them not human is to ignore the basics of human development.

At one point biochemically preceding my life, there were a zygote and then an embryo, etc that will become my body. I came after the zygote and embryo.

You are mixing human biochemistry with human identity/personality/person-hood.


You brought up your picture to justify abortion, saying the child is nothing more than a cell or two.
Flapjack did not say that; he said that there is more to the essence of a child than a formation of cells.


Here is my picture of a child at abortion age. Graphic Content Warning (http://liveactionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20150816_013044.jpg) You tell me that isn't human.

(again) It isn't human.

It's not human by what I am seeing a human to be in this context, what I said before.


Gametes are not you, I don't know how many times I will need to explain this to you, or what this actually applies to the conversation. A male gamete is your father's cell, a female gamete is your mother's cell. Considering gametes you is like considering your parents you. They made you, but they never were you.

Neither are zygotes or embryos.


Let me also add that presents legal problems for fertilization medical labs and services.

Cuz frozen embryos are created just floating in limbo. If they have the status of human beings...it's legally sticky.

It has that issue when taking certain views, yes.


Yes, the reunion of two gametes is "you" because at that moment, it becomes completely unique from it's parents.

Your self, you, are not your biochemistry.


So a person can look human, have human dna, has the potential to grow into an adult, and be basically human except for the fact that they get their nutrients in a different way. That justifies the murder of them? What if we gained the technology to develop babies outside of the womb? Is it still open season on them?

-_-

There's no person in a zygote, or an embryo, and at least not in an early fetus!


What about if someone is on life support, does the person running the life support have the right to simply unplug the machine whenever the going gets tough, even though they willingly gained the job?

If there is no knowable human sentience with that body on life support, then there is a right to turn off the support, but not at the whim of the technician.


You missing my point that I keep repeating- gametes can not become unique and grow on it's own, no matter the conditions. A fertilized egg can.

Gametes cannot inherently develop order no matter what exherent environment there is, yes.

Zygotes can inherently develop order, but only given a very stable environment with a small range of certain physical-chemical conditions.


Why is a zygote a human?- I'm not explaining myself and repeating myself any further

From how you equate human zygotes and people, I'm not seeing much of you seeing human sentience as of importance in defining a human being...



I do think humans are more valuable than other life, yes

... yet I assume this is so because of human sentience, right?


I'm going to give the pro-life side a spin:

You'll find 'child' and 'adult' are social categories and children aren't adults because we define them as not being adults and not by necessity.

Nonetheless, the fact that children can become adults implies that there is some base characteristic that can be referred to as shared. There is a fundamental sameness. The same can be said for a fetus and child: whilst the child is elevated in development: there is a fundamental sameness that lies behind the difference, but which we can also refer to when it comes time to tie them together (what will you call your child? spoken in regards to a fetus, is not uncommon).


Sure, that can be argued, but it isn't a threat to the whole human sentience and person-hood part that I am counting as necessities for a human being as we know them.

The commonalities between adults, children, babies and etc to zygotes, is not relevant for me.

(I know this is not meant for me, but I take the liberty to respond anyway.)

Vlerchan
September 5th, 2016, 12:58 PM
Sure, that can be argued, but it isn't a threat to the whole human sentience and person-hood part that I am counting as necessities for a human being as we know them.
It's dubious that the youngest children have sentience or personhood: do you consider these human-beings; and, if not, how should we approach their rights?

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 01:04 PM
It's dubious that the youngest children have sentience or personhood: do you consider these human-beings; and, if not, how should we approach their rights?

The youngest children can feel pain and basic emotions, and (at least try to) communicate it, along with learning about the environment. I consider them as humans. Person-hood is always with sentience, but sentience is not always with person-hood, not as a baby or as an early toddler.

I get what you mean though, because I came across the mirror test idea a long time ago; self-consciousness is argued to not be present till 3 years of age, if I remember right. Nevertheless I'm considering every living human body after birth as a human being.

As for rights, killing a toddler or baby is murder.

For me, a human in this context is the coincidence of a genetically/physiologically human body with sentience.

A person would be a human but where the sentience also has a personality, an identity. That comes after sentience, not immediately with it.

The zygote, and early fetuses, are not sentient.

Vlerchan
September 5th, 2016, 01:08 PM
The youngest children can feel pain, and communicate it.
That's no indication of sentience. It is begins before birth, so is contradicted in the assertion that:

Nevertheless I'm considering every living human body after birth as a human being.
if it is the case, that humanhood only belongs to these.

If such is the case that it's just being born that counts, you would need to distinguish between those that are born, and those that are unborn, without reflecting on their ability to feel pain.

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 01:16 PM
That's no indication of sentience. It is begins before birth, so is contradicted in the assertion that:


Perhaps we have a conflict of definitions. By sentience, I mean 'the ability to feel subjectively / perceive / etc'.

Babies and toddlers are included, along with 'later' fetuses.


If such is the case that it's just being born that counts, you would need to distinguish between those that are born, and those that are unborn, without reflecting on their ability to feel pain.

I should have added more to what I said. I do mean that all living human bodies after birth are human beings, but also that 'human being' isn't exclusive to only after birth.

Fetuses which are, through scientific observation, judged to be sentient, are also human beings, but of course absent of any self and that.

Birth is arbitrary here for me in this context, apart from it being confidently so that everything after birth is human.

ethan-s
September 5th, 2016, 02:48 PM
If this was meant for me, I already said that seeing biochemistry and scientific knowledge as quite/centrally relevant to this topic, doesn't mean that I am a cold physicalist who calculates everything based on some chemical properties.

The biochemistry of a fetus is of a form that it's changing structure in a way that develops closer to that of a human body. It can't do this order-creating spontaneously by itself, from egg and sperm to baby. If it necessarily needs to be protected from external critical damage, and it also needs energy and raw material to develop, then it needs something to supply both. The umbilical cord does that. That's why.

The umbilical cord isn't a necessary sign of it feeding a sentient fully human being, but it is necessarily a sign of something that is developing into eventually a human being that needs energy and biochemistry along the way to do that.




( Drewboyy )

If you're to presume that the egg-sperm fusion moment is exactly and totally where non-human stuff turns into human being, yes.

So you see murder of a human to be the intentional actions of one human to destroy the existence of a physical organism functionally made of human cells?

If you're saying that human consciousness isn't of interest here, then that's what I am now seeing as your criterion for murder. By all means do correct me and state why I was wrong.






So is the state of directly physically independent existence, air breathing, human consciousness, and a human self formed from the consciousness, only contingent aspects of a human being?





Okay, I appreciate the specific detail but I don't see where this supports your view or opposes mine.




It's quite an arbitrary entity to give such importance on, given how it's being defined as essentially equivalent to something that it only might causally contribute to 9 months in the future (the 'might' because of miscarriages, etc).

It would be like me saying that a growing ash sapling 1 week old is as much an ash tree in essence as a 40-year-old ash is, and that cutting down that 40-year-old tree is as equivalently bad/evil an act as pulling the sapling apart in two, and vice-versa.




100% certainty here is practically/essentially impossible, so that's an unrealistic exception to be okay with.




Another unrealistic exception, as it means nothing for a mother who intends to abort because of financial issues as a factor.




Yes, it's clear that the ash sapling is not different to the 40-year old tree at all.




Navigating your viewpoint out of certainties is not going to help much here. Sufficiently high probabilities are what's meaningful here.




Socio-economically-driven desires are unjustifiably selfish, of course.




I'm in full agreement; consciousness is generally seen as more than just observable reaction to expected painful stimuli, and there is no reason to presume that reaction to expected painful stimuli means that there's a consciousness behind the metaphorical wheel anyway.

"Though techniques such as positron electron tomography scanning might reveal those parts of the brain that respond to a painful stimulus, this does not tell us what the individual is experiencing." [From the wiki link I sent.]

If I had a penny for every time someone misses my point...

My point is that if life doesn't beginner until the baby exits the womb, it must not be living before then ( the best way to describe it is that it's dead). Dead things don't need food, water, air, so why does an unborn child need it if it's not alive?

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 03:21 PM
If I had a penny for every time someone misses my point...

...then you'd have no pennies from me.


My point is that if life doesn't beginner until the baby exits the womb, it must not be living before then ( the best way to describe it is that it's dead). Dead things don't need food, water, air, so why does an unborn child need it if it's not alive?

An unborn human body is alive.

Being alive doesn't mean there is a human being with a life going on.

Physiological life ≠ living human being.

Flapjack
September 5th, 2016, 03:40 PM
My point is that if life doesn't beginner until the baby exits the womb, it must not be living before then ( the best way to describe it is that it's dead). Dead things don't need food, water, air, so why does an unborn child need it if it's not alive?
What Paraxiom said is right buddy!!

I would like to add my 2 pennies worth though :P

Bacteria are alive but I doubt you consider anyone that uses anti bacterial spray a murderer.

Human muscle cells are alive but I doubt you consider them human.

A sperm cell is alive but I doubt you consider male masturbation as killing people?

Just because a zygote is alive, does not make it human.

Vlerchan
September 5th, 2016, 03:47 PM
Perhaps we have a conflict of definitions. By sentience, I mean 'the ability to feel subjectively / perceive / etc'.
Would you mind explaining why you believe that this quality is so salient to our humanity when it is shared between ourselves, and a considerable number of other species.

I would like to add my 2 pennies worth though

Bacteria are alive but I doubt you consider anyone that uses anti bacterial spray a murderer.

Human muscle cells are alive but I doubt you consider them human.

A sperm cell is alive but I doubt you consider male masturbation as killing people?

Just because a zygote is alive, does not make it human.
There difference between all these is that, unimpeded, none will develop to be a human-being.

Flapjack
September 5th, 2016, 03:53 PM
Would you mind explaining why you believe that this quality is so salient to our humanity when it is shared between ourselves, and a considerable number of other species.


There difference between all these is that, unimpeded, none will develop to be a human-being.
True but I was saying how killing something that is alive does not equal murder of a human.

Unimpeded a zygote will develop into a human, that is my point buddy :) It will become a human, but it is not human.

Vlerchan
September 5th, 2016, 04:03 PM
Unimpeded a zygote will develop into a human, that is my point buddy It will become a human, but it is not human.
No, it will develop into what we consider a fetus, and that will develop into what we consider a child, and that will develop into what we consider an adult.

It remains, however a pre-embryonic human-being, insofar that it posses the fundamental sameness that all human life holds, and must hold in order for development between states to be feasible.

Flapjack
September 5th, 2016, 04:06 PM
No, it will develop into what we consider a fetus, and that will develop into what we consider a child, and that will develop into what we consider an adult.

It remains, however a pre-embryonic human-being, insofar that it posses the fundamental sameness that all human life holds, and must hold in order for development between states to be feasible.
Both a human and zygote is just chemicals, there is nothing magical about living organisms. Defining what a human is, is difficult.

If you believe this, then why are you pro choice?

Vlerchan
September 5th, 2016, 04:11 PM
Both a human and zygote is just chemicals, there is nothing magical about living organisms.
But it is unjust to murder human being-adults, or otherwise harm them?

Unless your arguments are all grounded purely in self-interest - proving Nietzsche correct - then one would think, from reading your posts, that you believe there is something particular that leads to them being deserving of the protections you don't afford to other living organisms.

Defining what a human is, is difficult.
I agree :).

If you believe this, then why are you pro choice?
Throughout this thread, the single argument I have put forward in defence of the pro-choice perspective, is the woman's right to choose.

---

Though, you'll realise after a while, that I argue a tonne of positions I don't believe in. It's funner than depending on my own positions, insofar as it requires me to think more.

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 04:45 PM
Would you mind explaining why you believe that this quality is so salient to our humanity when it is shared between ourselves, and a considerable number of other species.

I am actually more holding a position on the essence of a human, rather than stating my 'ultimate view' on what humanity is, what it is worth, etc. The position I'm holding is a close approximation though - my 'ultimate view' isn't so easy for myself to pinpoint even in words.

I'm assuming that criminal law is such that it minimises the amount of suffering at anyone unjustifiably experiences in a state (simplification). With that, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to say that someone has committed a crime when a non-sentient fetus/etc has been biologically terminated by that person.

I don't see sentience as unique to humanity, though. I was talking about sentience in the context of what should be coincident with a human organism such that destroying that organism is deemed unjustified.


[...] a pre-embryonic human-being [...] posses the fundamental sameness that all human life holds, and must hold in order for development between states to be feasible.

The fundamental sameness for me is the genetic/biochemical structures of the cells that make it up.


Though, you'll realise after a while, that I argue a tonne of positions I don't believe in. It's funner than depending on my own positions, insofar as it requires me to think more.

We relate strongly then!

(Though I do actually present my positions intermixed along the way.)

Drewboyy
September 5th, 2016, 06:21 PM
@Parxiom

"A zygote is a cell formed out of the fusion of one sperm call and one egg cell, both of which have genes which are of the human species. A zygote is not a human being, from that I said, if you see a human being to have sentience of some sort.

Otherwise, sentience is only a large but contingent aspect of a human being, which means that personality / person-hood is also contingent. There are therefore more human beings than there are people, from the reasoning I'm following here."

Human beings can have sentience but having sentience is not what makes one a human. Who knows when someone starts to become conscious.


Have you considered that the lifetime of a person is a smaller than the lifetime of a physiological human body?- Yes I have, I agree with that statement actually.


Do you hold a 1:5 ratio of value between people and trees?- No, 5 is just the first number to come to mind


Your self, you, are not your biochemistry.- What does that mean?



Zygotes can inherently develop order, but only given a very stable environment with a small range of certain physical-chemical conditions.- Yes, and they do, almost all of the time.

From how you equate human zygotes and people, I'm not seeing much of you seeing human sentience as of importance in defining a human being...- The point of most of my statements regarding zygotes being human was just to back the idea that zygotes are, in fact, humans. Not to counter aborting them.

... yet I assume [humans being more important than other species] this is so because of human sentience, right?- I think that we as humans are most important because I am one, we have the will to survive, are on top of any given chain, and we are most important in regards to our survival.

Paraxiom
September 6th, 2016, 07:09 AM
Human beings can have sentience but having sentience is not what makes one a human. Who knows when someone starts to become conscious.

Sentience is not a unique quality to humans yes, but I am saying that sentience is what I see to be a minimal quality of a human being.

Scientific observation is the best we can do, which is not conveniently clear-cut but nevertheless does great leaps.


Yes I have, I agree with that statement actually.

Alright, so at what point in the life of a physiological human body does the life of a human being start, for you?


No, 5 is just the first number to come to mind

Right.


What does that mean?

I mean that a person, you, is not sufficiently defined by the presence of biochemistry of human cells. It is more than that. A zygote, an embryo, and an early fetus are not people or human beings for me - the human being forms later on, and the person later on still.


Yes, and they do, almost all of the time.

Alright.


The point of most of my statements regarding zygotes being human was just to back the idea that zygotes are, in fact, humans. Not to counter aborting them.

How do you define a human being? Do you see a difference between a living human body, a human being, and a person?

Is this critical for what you see as justified abortion, in the timeline of pregnancy development?


I think that we as humans are most important because I am one, we have the will to survive, are on top of any given chain, and we are most important in regards to our survival.

Given that we hold a concept of death we indeed have an active will to survive, though all other animals also behave similarly enough to effectively want to survive too.

There are many parasite species that live off us throughout life, and when we die we are decomposed by many more species, so we're not as such on the top of any given good chain.

We are most important to ourselves with regard to our survival, yes, but I don't get how that contributes to objective value of human life, if objective value of human life is what you are talking about.

ethan-s
September 6th, 2016, 09:20 PM
What Paraxiom said is right buddy!!

I would like to add my 2 pennies worth though :P

Bacteria are alive but I doubt you consider anyone that uses anti bacterial spray a murderer.

Human muscle cells are alive but I doubt you consider them human.

A sperm cell is alive but I doubt you consider male masturbation as killing people?

Just because a zygote is alive, does not make it human.

And bacteria don't have a soul.

Two single sells become a baby when the are joined together. They are not a baby before then, they are just individual cells. A zygote is human because t happened as a result of sperm joining with an egg.

...then you'd have no pennies from me.




An unborn human body is alive.

Being alive doesn't mean there is a human being with a life going on.

Physiological life ≠ living human being.

Physiological life can't happen with out a host body.

Posts merged. Use the multiquote button ~Mars

Drewboyy
September 6th, 2016, 09:47 PM
Paraxiom

"Sentience is not a unique quality to humans yes, but I am saying that sentience is what I see to be a minimal quality of a human being."

Okay I see


"Alright, so at what point in the life of a physiological human body does the life of a human being start, for you?"- A psychological life begins whenever science can prove there is sensitivity


"How do you define a human being? Do you see a difference between a living human body, a human being, and a person?"

-A living human body and a human being is the same thing- someone genetically human who can grow and develop mentally and physically

-A person however, is anyone who has a soul, anyone who can feel

"Is this critical for what you see as justified abortion, in the timeline of pregnancy development?"- Abortion can be justified until the point where there is solid evidence someone is getting hurt. I personally think that a newly formed person is hurt (spiritually) just as much as an 8 month year old fetus is.

"There are many parasite species that live off us throughout life, and when we die we are decomposed by many more species, so we're not as such on the top of any given good chain." - Parasites and decomposers aren't on the top, they are usually in their own completely separate group

"We are most important to ourselves with regard to our survival, yes, but I don't get how that contributes to objective value of human life, if objective value of human life is what you are talking about."

I am talking objectively about this

Flapjack
September 7th, 2016, 12:32 AM
And bacteria don't have a soul.
There is no such thing as a soul.

Uniquemind
September 7th, 2016, 04:37 AM
There is no such thing as a soul.

Then explain ghostly Phenomena, whose events tie in with a sense of consciousness.

At the very least we cannot claim consciousness is a product or not a product of the physical stages of development for any creature observed in science.

Flapjack
September 7th, 2016, 09:45 AM
Then explain ghostly Phenomena, whose events tie in with a sense of consciousness.

At the very least we cannot claim consciousness is a product or not a product of the physical stages of development for any creature observed in science.
There is no such thing as ghosts or souls. Our consciousness is just molecules and ions interacting.

If you can provide some ghost evidence, it would make an interesting new thread :)

ethan-s
September 7th, 2016, 10:02 AM
There is no such thing as a soul.

Prove it.

Flapjack
September 7th, 2016, 10:05 AM
Prove it.
...:D


Why don't you prove there is one?

Scientific tests have been done throughout history to determine if there is a soul, some did provide evidence for the existence of a soul but were later disproved as the mass disappearing was gas.

You can't disprove with 100% that something is there.

Can you prove there is no talking potatoes?

We should not remove a women's right to choose because you think there is a soul and have zero evidence to back it up.

Madison519
September 7th, 2016, 10:36 AM
A deeply personal issue, and it's very hard to opine unless you're actually facing that decision. Personally, I think it should be a woman's choice, but the decision would not be easy.

Uniquemind
September 7th, 2016, 01:14 PM
...:D


Why don't you prove there is one?

Scientific tests have been done throughout history to determine if there is a soul, some did provide evidence for the existence of a soul but were later disproved as the mass disappearing was gas.

You can't disprove with 100% that something is there.

Can you prove there is no talking potatoes?

We should not remove a women's right to choose because you think there is a soul and have zero evidence to back it up.


The only proof I can offer are "hauntings" that are legitimate enough to affect the price of home sales, forbidden college dorms nobody can stay in, youtubers visiting abandoned insane asylums.

Any scientific study to study the existence of spirit WILL have me break ethical standards of a study. So it cannot be done.

But my experience with such phenomena shaped my views on what consciousness is, and therefore what is occurring when an abortion happens. For me it's severing a connection between a soul which is about to be encased in a vessel. It bonds in stages and if a miscarriage happens or abortion, then it remains in the spiritual side of existence, ultimate reality compensates for these scenarios, and that soul has to try to find a new vessel that is being formed.

Consciousness can't be destroyed.

So if one woman doesn't want to be a mom for whatever reason, you don't really destroy a soul, and the stage of physical development will sync with the amount of bonding occurs.

Flapjack
September 7th, 2016, 03:44 PM
The only proof I can offer are "hauntings" that are legitimate enough to affect the price of home sales, forbidden college dorms nobody can stay in, youtubers visiting abandoned insane asylums
None of this gets close to proof xD
Any scientific study to study the existence of spirit WILL have me break ethical standards of a study. So it cannot be done.
What ethical standards are these? There experiments used to be conducted but are now not done because it is accepted by the scientific community that there is no such thing. They know what consciousness is.

But my experience with such phenomena shaped my views on what consciousness is, and therefore what is occurring when an abortion happens. For me it's severing a connection between a soul which is about to be encased in a vessel. It bonds in stages and if a miscarriage happens or abortion, then it remains in the spiritual side of existence, ultimate reality compensates for these scenarios, and that soul has to try to find a new vessel that is being formed.

Firstly, where does this soul come from?

Secondly, I understand if you do not want to get an abortion because of this belief but do you think it is far to force it on others? Especially when there is zero credible evidence?

Consciousness can't be destroyed.
Would you consider a dog conscious? If so, shoot one in the head and see how conscious it is after that. Please don't actually do this but I am sure you know what would happen? That is because our conciousness is only molecules and ions interacting in the brain.

Uniquemind
September 7th, 2016, 04:52 PM
None of this gets close to proof xD

What ethical standards are these? There experiments used to be conducted but are now not done because it is accepted by the scientific community that there is no such thing. They know what consciousness is.

Firstly, where does this soul come from?

Secondly, I understand if you do not want to get an abortion because of this belief but do you think it is far to force it on others? Especially when there is zero credible evidence?


Would you consider a dog conscious? If so, shoot one in the head and see how conscious it is after that. Please don't actually do this but I am sure you know what would happen? That is because our conciousness is only molecules and ions interacting in the brain.

I don't believe that last paragraph, it's not in my personal viewpoint.

It's unethical to study something that proves consciousness exists beyond death, because it would mean having a living partner participate literally leave the living world (die), and communicate that they retain their faculties (cognition, emotions, memories) that science says is tied to physical structures in the brain.


It's unethical because nobody in the scientific community will allow someone to come to harm for the sake of scientific study and for good reason too.

Anyway I'm pausing here because this is transitioning into a new topic which for me is the moral platform of mine for why I approach life/death topics differently than others, which is what this topic dealt with.

So I bow out here.

Flapjack
September 7th, 2016, 05:51 PM
I don't believe that last paragraph, it's not in my personal viewpoint.
You believe dogs don't have souls?

It's unethical to study something that proves consciousness exists beyond death, because it would mean having a living partner participate literally leave the living world (die), and communicate that they retain their faculties (cognition, emotions, memories) that science says is tied to physical structures in the brain.


It's unethical because nobody in the scientific community will allow someone to come to harm for the sake of scientific study and for good reason too.
Except it has been done before.... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor))

I must ask, why are you convinced souls are real and convinced there is no evidence because of ethics? But then what makes you believe in it in the first place?

Also you must know a different scientific community xD They are not known for ethics although nowadays it has improved a lot.


Anyway I'm pausing here because this is transitioning into a new topic which for me is the moral platform of mine for why I approach life/death topics differently than others, which is what this topic dealt with.

If that is why you oppose abortion then I do believe it is relevant :)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor))

Uniquemind
September 7th, 2016, 05:59 PM
You believe dogs don't have souls?

Except it has been done before.... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor))

I must ask, why are you convinced souls are real and convinced there is no evidence because of ethics? But then what makes you believe in it in the first place?

Also you must know a different scientific community xD They are not known for ethics although nowadays it has improved a lot.


If that is why you oppose abortion then I do believe it is relevant :)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor))


I'm not against abortion, I mean nobody is for it, it's just legally it should be a woman's right to choose because she bears the most consequence.

Look at my past posts and you'll see my position on this within what is currently legally allowed.

For instance 3rd trimester abortions, I'm completely against. It is also not allowed under Roe v. Wade.

--

No it's hard to measure something that is not beholden to set criteria, and is as conscious as we are.

Souls are part of the spiritual world, and overlap with the physical world in the topics of sociology, psychology, and biology, but are also somewhat separate. I believe there's an interplay-relationship or synergy of sorts.

Paraxiom
September 8th, 2016, 08:02 AM
And bacteria don't have a soul.

What is a soul, for you?

Is the coincidence of a soul with a life-form what defines 'murder of a human' apart from 'destruction of only biochemistry' for you?

If so,

Two single sells become a baby when the are joined together. They are not a baby before then, they are just individual cells. A zygote is human because t happened as a result of sperm joining with an egg.

are you saying that a soul 'attaches'/etc to human biochemistry at the exact moment when a sperm cell fuses with an egg cell?

How does this soul-biochemistry coincidence (literally meaning co-incidence) happen?


Physiological life can't happen with out a host body.

If you mean that biochemistry cannot happen outside of a cell, then yes.


A psychological life begins whenever science can prove there is sensitivity

Alright, but sensitivity to what things specifically? How are these observations made?


A living human body and a human being is the same thing- someone genetically human who can grow and develop mentally and physically

So are limbs, organs, eyes, and a brain non-essential parts of a human body? If you're saying that a human body is around from zygote onward, then 'body' means little, by what 'body' means in the context of a human body as most/all people know it to be.

I was making the point before that just because an entity X can become entity Y, it doesn't mean that entity X already shares the same qualities as entity Y. That there is biochemistry with genetics of the human population going on in a zygote and embryo is fine, but I don't see any human body until gradual formation at the fetus stage onward.


A person however, is anyone who has a soul, anyone who can feel

By 'soul' do you mean a non-physical entity of pure feeling/consciousness/etc?


Abortion can be justified until the point where there is solid evidence someone is getting hurt. I personally think that a newly formed person is hurt (spiritually) just as much as an 8 month year old fetus is.

When does the soul coincide with the human biochemistry in the developmental timeline, for you? Anything preceding this means that damaging/destroying the human biochemistry is not causing any 'spiritual' damage.

What does 'spiritual hurt/pain' mean in itself, and compared to 'physical/psychological pain' as we know it?


Parasites and decomposers aren't on the top, they are usually in their own completely separate group

Alright, but I nevertheless don't understand how the importance of humanity is crucially determined by its position on food chains/webs. If anything, it shows the importance of technology subjectively for us, rather than the importance of humanity objectively in itself. Without technology, we would be killed/eaten/etc a lot, with no special position in food webs. We are physically inherently weak.

Hypothetically, would a highly sentient species be objectively less important than humans, if they were 'lower down' in food webs of their biosphere, compared to us?


I am talking objectively about this

Alright, then what I said is the same. I don't get it.


There is no such thing as a soul.

(I knew that we would disagree eventually! No offence intended by what is coming.)

We might be diverging from the topic at hand, but I'm responding anyway.

Are you a physicalist? If so, then we certainly are diverging in views.

Assuming that a soul is a non-physical entity of pure consciousness/sentience/etc, I do not know of scientific proofs that actively demonstrate the absence of souls anywhere in the world. There arguably may be many scientific proofs that passively demonstrate the absence of them, by demonstrating all the situations that a soul arguably is not present in.


Then explain ghostly Phenomena, whose events tie in with a sense of consciousness.

As I said in the Can God possibly be maximally great? thread, perceiving non-physical entities whose features correlate with features of communicating conscious beings only strongly suggests that the entities are conscious. Perceiving an entity to be vaguely communicating doesn't mean that the entity itself is conscious.


As it comes to mind, what does 'non-physical' (and physical) really mean here? The physical world is widely held to have four dimensions as a fundamental base; if an entity is properly non-physical, then it should at least not be manifesting in any pattern of positions within these dimensions. Ghosts are perceived to appear in certain locations. Location is something all physicality has, 'above' the dimensions themselves.

How are these ghosts non-physical if they follow ordered paths in dimensions, as well as producing visual and aural forms that can only be perceived by our sensory organs physically?

Just a thought for you.

This whole 'physical'/'non-physical' distinction is getting somewhat vague in its exact definitions, if any.


At the very least we cannot claim consciousness is a product or not a product of the physical stages of development for any creature observed in science.

Just because I perceive some consciousnesses not of physical sustenance/coincidence, doesn't mean that I can justifiably infer that all consciousnesses are necessarily not of physical sustenance/coincidence.


There is no such thing as ghosts or souls. Our consciousness is just molecules and ions interacting.

Hmm.

Seeing our consciousnesses in a physicalist manner doesn't give any credence to saying then that there is no such thing as ghosts/etc.


If you can provide some ghost evidence, it would make an interesting new thread :)

That would be interesting, but I suspect that you'd dismiss all alleged evidence anyway as not proper evidence, if it can't be studied with physical lab tools and quantitative measurements, etc.

If Uniquemind is saying that ghosts are non-physical, then there is no way that physical entities can be used to test for or against their existence. If that is how you see evidence to be validated, then ghosts are not in the scope of your validation or invalidation.

Uniquemind does however have the burden of explaining how non-physical these ghosts really are, if they can intersect with the physical world enough to be seen in certain locations and such.


Scientific tests have been done throughout history to determine if there is a soul, some did provide evidence for the existence of a soul but were later disproved as the mass disappearing was gas.

If 'soul' meant a non-physical entity of pure consciousness, then such scientific tests would get nowhere, as they're not looking right.


You can't disprove with 100% that something is there.

We should not remove a women's right to choose because you think there is a soul and have zero evidence to back it up.

[...] there is zero credible evidence [...]

Saying "can't disprove 100%" and also him having "zero (credible) evidence" is a little contradictory.


Can you prove there is no talking potatoes?

Exactly.

I am not a fan of people who see science as able to absolutely prove things about the world, if 'absolutely' means being certain that such-and-such will happen in the future in certain circumstances always, and that it always happened; science cannot do that.


But my experience with such phenomena shaped my views on what consciousness is [...]

Consciousness can't be destroyed.

Why do you see consciousness as such, from your experience (or otherwise)?


[...] it is accepted by the scientific community that there is no such thing. They know what consciousness is.

Under current worldview presumptions and ideas with consensus across the science field, it is seen that all consciousness we see coincident with biology requires neurobiology to sustain it. Nobody knows it, but most people confidently assume that it is so. The field of neurobiology is in no way at a settled consensus on how consicousness works, they don't know what consciousness fully is. Also, the field of neurobiology doesn't make general statements with consensus among neurobiologists that all consciousness needs certain biology or chemistry to happen.


[...] this belief [...]

We all have beliefs, it just so happens that some integrate it with more stuff than others.


[...] but do you think it is far to force it on others?[...]

It's a popular trend in current humanity that we each think we are right in at least some ways, along with some of us wanting to make others go with it. Some would argue that you are doing that also.

I'm not for universally conflicting over who is right. Instead, I am for searching for common views/ideas held between people, at least as a stepping stone in some aspects of society.



Anyway I'm pausing here because this is transitioning into a new topic which for me is the moral platform of mine for why I approach life/death topics differently than others, which is what this topic dealt with.

I'm good with opening a thread on this, if it's wanted enough.



I must ask, why are you convinced souls are real [...]

'Reality' is another huge term that could do with better description, along with what physicality is.

I'm not saying that you should do it, I mean it generally (but you could have a try if you want).

PlasmaHam
September 8th, 2016, 08:54 AM
No one truly knows what consciousness is, or how it develops. I believe that we will never really know from a scientific standpoint. I am reminded of a quote cited by Judean Zealot, in which describes science as limited, and someone who believes that science is the answer to everything is following an ideology not too different from religion. Condemning the ideas of an independent consciousness or souls just because science can't prove it is not scientific, but ideological. Both sides of the soul debate have no scientific evidence to back up their claims, so justifying murder based on an ideological view of consciousness is rather scary when you think about it.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2016, 09:50 AM
I am reminded of a quote cited by @Judean Zealot, in which describes science as limited, and someone who believes that science is the answer to everything is following an ideology not too different from religion
He was a proponent of the classical rationalism of the likes of Plato and Maimonides and had the same dim view of mine as regards to faith.

I also agree that neither side has evidence to the existence (or not) of souls. However the argumentational burden of proof rests in the person that wants to introduce it to the debate as relevant.

Paraxiom
September 13th, 2016, 06:18 AM
PlasmaHam

I mean, all the viewpoints then have an ideology from that you're saying. If we all have a background perspective on what fundamental humanity is and such, then it's the same thing.

PlasmaHam
September 16th, 2016, 10:04 PM
Vlerchan I tried being a vegetarian once. Didn't work out :P

99% of this thread is full of males, who will never know what it's like to be pregnant, birth a child, or abort a child. It isn't easy. It isn't a decision made simply and quickly. You are destroying potential life and you are going to feel regret and pain. I think that's something many people don't think about.

This being a teen forum, I doubt most the gals have experienced pregnancy or abortion either. But then again, seeing the puberty threads, I might be mistaken:D.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read once that 70%-90% of women who have an abortion experience guilt because of it three years after the abortion. That guilt ranges from from a nagging all the way to suicide and major anti-depression drugs. Too many people see abortion as a quick fix, and later come to regret it when they realize what they've truly done.

ElectricForest
September 16th, 2016, 11:19 PM
I feel like I've posted in this before, so sorry if I have but I'm adopted so my opinion is already biased and I know that. But I believe adoption should always be the first choice. Unless it is extraneous circumstances (I.e rape) adoption is the way to go. BUT, I do have sex, and I do use protection, but there is always that chance. The only reason I see why not to adopt would be the fear that no one would adopt the child. But I don't think abortion is "killing a life" or a "soul" so to say. I just believe that instead of cutting the opportunity for that fetus to become apart of this world, giving it a chance to have a life is a much better choice. But to each his own, I'm not the one aborting or being aborted, my life rolls on just the same.

Flapjack
September 29th, 2016, 12:34 AM
https://66.media.tumblr.com/9027988dd26d9dff8dedc393cbd323f5/tumblr_msl9l8XeNa1st24b7o1_500.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rR9P2H3.jpg
http://s18.postimg.org/v8jvlyouh/CNDZCp_UUEAAJ3_Kd.jpg

PlasmaHam
September 29th, 2016, 09:46 AM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/64/d9/33/64d933470f0ff2ea392e15ce0f113e71.jpg
https://img.ifcdn.com/images/02131291abe98a03ffa8d0a1fb4e12c25c30b4d1cc0e63a062f602aed429fb84_1.jpg
https://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/liberal-logic-101-318.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1a/44/46/1a44461d39611319e061ae958bbfa587.jpg

NoahNoah
September 29th, 2016, 09:57 AM
abortion. If I was a 14 year old girl I wouldn't know the first thing about raising a child. We don't need an unloved and uncared for child in this world.

Mars
September 29th, 2016, 10:37 AM
We get it, you want to be memesters, but keep this thread on topic and don't continue to post troll posts or they will be deleted