Abortion..

[embers]

Korashk means that, in the same way, is also preventing life in that it one not donating one's body parts to someone who needs them is causing somebody to die. You are opposed to abortion as form of letting a foetus die (because it isn't 'killing', we've established this). So similarly, Korashk is implying you should oppose people who refuse to donate a limb just because they can.

At least that's the impression I got.

Pain or not, that doesn't change what is happening.

But it lessens the impact. There is a difference between 'he died a quick death' and 'he died a painful death'. You tend to feel less sympathy for the man who died the quicker, painless death.

Complicated... I believe that something is alive at the point of conception, not before. The reason that I said "preventing a life" is because that is the term that Perseus used. I believe that abortion is killing, not preventing a life... please tell me if this doesn't make sense, if it doesn't I'll try to explain myself more clearly.

If evidence points otherwise, then you shouldn't really believe it is killing rather than preventing life. Stick to the terminology you believe in, not what others use, it confuses people who try and understand your views.

As for whether it is living or not, Nick, I haven't yet been shown any anomalies to the seven life processes (which embryos do not follow):

Movement - must be able to move by itself
Respiration - must respire
Sensitivity - must have at least one sense
Growth - must grow
Reproduction - must reproduce
Excretion - must excrete waste
Nutrition - must feed

And even if embryos are alive, they do not count as human during the early stages of pregnancy. If you still oppose abortion then, you should, really, oppose the killing of all animals and insects and so on.

[Perseus]

Once again, adoption. Could someone please adress that? Why can't the mother just put the baby up for adoption?

I've answered that three fucking times, dude.
Condoms are not 100% and being adopted having a good life is not 100% either if you put a baby up for adoption.
There's no guarantee that you will get adopted. Why? Because there already too many children in orphanages, etc. and not everyone is adopting.
Most of the time when a woman gets an abortion, it's so the baby doesn't have a crappy life because they can't support it, etc. I don't see what's wrong with that. The parents are being responsible. They shouldn't be forced to go through something that was an accident. And like I said, adoption isn't always the best thing. It doesn't always work out in the end like you seem to think it does.

[Triceratops]

Simple. Then dont get pregnant. It's as simple as that, if you aren't prepared to go through all of that then use birth control or be abstinent.

Contraception is not, and I repeat, not 100% reliable.

And you actually think people would refrain from having sex lol.

[Korashk]

Now I did :)

No I do not think you should be forced to, but frankly I do not see how this is relevant?
If you don't think that people should be forced to support the life of another then why are you against abortion?

[Bluesman]

If you still oppose abortion then, you should, really, oppose the killing of all animals and insects and so on.

You made many valid points, but I cannot how you can say this. You're comparing something that will mature into a human being to an insect? Pardon me, but how in the hell does that work?

I've answered that three fucking times, dude.

Well isnt a life in an orphanage better than no life at all?

Contraception is not, and I repeat, not 100% reliable.


And you actually think people would refrain from having sex lol.

People are fucking stupid so probably no, but if have sex, they should be prepared that there is a small chance that they may get pregnant. If they are not prepared for that, they should abstain.

If you don't think that people should be forced to support the life of another then why are you against abortion?

Helping the person in need would definitely be the honorable thing to do, but a lot of people wouldn't choose it. I feel that someone should[B] help the other person, just as I feel abortion [B]should be illegal.

[Vonn]

You made many valid points, but I cannot how you can say this. You're comparing something that will mature into a human being to an insect? Pardon me, but how in the hell does that work?



Well isnt a life in an orphanage better than no life at all?


An ant is a living creature. You can kill an ant A-OK, but when it comes to a not alive/not dead thing, your shit hits the fan. It has the potential to be a human, yes, but due to the parents' circumstances, it's better for everyone if it isn't allowed to come to life.

Orphanages have too many children, and some of them aren't faring financially because there are too many children that aren't getting adopted; and you would go ahead and shove another kid through their doors. Orphanages do not need more kids and honestly, they don't want more kids.

Edit: Oh hell, you've edited your post.

People are fucking stupid so probably no, but if have sex, they should be prepared that there is a small chance that they may get pregnant. If they are not prepared for that, they should abstain.

If we abstain, there will be less and less fetuses, which you seem to be so fond of. Honestly, people want sex. That's not going to change.

Helping the person in need would definitely be the honorable thing to do, but a lot of people wouldn't choose it. I feel that someone should help the other person, just as I feel abortion should be illegal.

People should not be killed for something they can't help. If you feel that someone should help that person, why do you support the death penalty?

[Iceman]

I just want to know would you kill an ant Nick?

[Perseus]

Well isnt a life in an orphanage better than no life at all?





FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
http://images2.memegenerator.net/Futurama-Fry/ImageMacro/2851414/NOT-SURE-IF-TROLL-OR-JUST-VERY-STUPID.jpg

[Vonn]

If you have no life at all, you wouldn't care because you wouldn't exist in the first place. The ghost of the baby doesn't get sent back to wherever it came from to writhe in eternal pain over its aborted mission.

[georgiamay]

I could live with rape victims being an exemption... I still don't agree with it, but I could stomach abortions on rape victims and cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Sorry, but I think that's just stupid. You just stent ages going on about abortion being murder, and being wrong in all circumstances, but not you say, "It's murder, and murder is wrong! except in the case of rape." I'm sorry, but that's like saying "you can't do bad things to other people, but if something bad happens to you, go for it.

I'm no saying abortion is wrong, at all. I'm pro choice. I'm just saying, your argument is just so hypocritical.

[Bluesman]

I just want to know would you kill an ant Nick?

Many, many, many times. But an ant is in no way comparable to a Human Fetus! If any argument is completely ridiculous, it is this one.

Sorry, but I think that's just stupid. You just stent ages going on about abortion being murder, and being wrong in all circumstances, but not you say, "It's murder, and murder is wrong! except in the case of rape." I'm sorry, but that's like saying "you can't do bad things to other people, but if something bad happens to you, go for it.

I'm no saying abortion is wrong, at all. I'm pro choice. I'm just saying, your argument is just so hypocritical.

I still feel that abortion is wrong, but it would be kind of hard to tell someone that: Yeah, a strange guy knocked you out and raped you, you're probably going through some sort of anxiety/depression, and oh yeah... you're gonna have a kid and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
image (http://images2.memegenerator.net/Futurama-Fry/ImageMacro/2851414/NOT-SURE-IF-TROLL-OR-JUST-VERY-STUPID.jpg)

Actually all a matter of opinion, and it depends on the person. I'd rather live in an orphanage than be dead, you might rather be dead than live in an orphanage. I could see both sides on this one.

[Bluesman]

An ant is a living creature. You can kill an ant A-OK, but when it comes to a not alive/not dead thing, your shit hits the fan. It has the potential to be a human, yes, but due to the parents' circumstances, it's better for everyone if it isn't allowed to come to life.

Orphanages have too many children, and some of them aren't faring financially because there are too many children that aren't getting adopted; and you would go ahead and shove another kid through their doors. Orphanages do not need more kids and honestly, they don't want more kids.

Edit: Oh hell, you've edited your post.



If we abstain, there will be less and less fetuses, which you seem to be so fond of. Honestly, people want sex. That's not going to change.



People should not be killed for something they can't help. If you feel that someone should help that person, why do you support the death penalty?

I have no problem with less fetuses, but if you develop a fetus, I feel that you should be stuck with it.

If you're dying to debate the death penalty, then create a thread on it. My views are probably a lot more complex than what you're assuming...

[Jess]

just as I feel abortion should be illegal.

you know that won't ever happen in the US, right? Women will still have abortions even if it was illegal.

[georgiamay]

Many, many, many times. But an ant is in no way comparable to a Human Fetus! If any argument is completely ridiculous, it is this one.

Really? An ant and a human fetus are probably more similar than you think. If anything, an ant is probably more advanced when a fetus is still young. A fetus cannot feel pain. Honestly, I don't know if an ant can, but I think they probably can feel pain. And if they can, you're killing something that can feel it. A fetus can't feel it.

I still feel that abortion is wrong, but it would be kind of hard to tell someone that: Yeah, a strange guy knocked you out and raped you, you're probably going through some sort of anxiety/depression, and oh yeah... you're gonna have a kid and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.

Yes, it would be very hard to say that. I'm actually completely pro choice, and what I was saying, is that if you say that killing is completely wrong, and that abortion counts as killing something, then that should be your principle. But if something really really horrible happened to someone, then it's ok to kill something that's completely innocent. That's probably what bullies say: "Oh, I was bullied at my old school, so I'm going to bully people at this school to make me feel better and stop me from being bullied again." <== same thing. I'm not saying that rape victims shouldn't have an abortion, because that's the women's choice, she shouldn't have to live with her rapist's baby growing inside her. But I am saying that if you feel as strongly about this as you do, then clearly that is your principle. Principles don't have exceptions, which makes your argument hipocritical.

Also, I remember you saying that you think abortion should be illegal. If you think that rape victims should be allowed to get abortions, then how the hell is that going to be put in place? Everyone would be saying they were raped, it would never work, you could never say that one person is allowed to decide whether or not to have an abortion and another person isn't. Also, even if it was made illegal, people would just get back street abortions. That would have the same result, the fetus would be terminated. But the mother would be put in danger as well.

In hospitals, they give drug addicts clean needles. If they're going to do it anyway, you might as well make sure they're safe. If I mother is going to abort the fetus growing inside her anyway, she might as well do it safely.

Actually all a matter of opinion, and it depends on the person. I'd rather live in an orphanage than be dead, you might rather be dead than live in an orphanage. I could see both sides on this one.

You wouldn't be dead, you would have just never have been born. Two different things.

[Vonn]

You wouldn't be dead, you would have just never have been born. Two different things.

He doesn't seem to get that.

Complicated... I believe that something is alive at the point of conception, not before. The reason that I said "preventing a life" is because that is the term that Perseus used.

I have no problem with less fetuses, but if you develop a fetus, I feel that you should be stuck with it.


So which will it be?

I believe that abortion is killing, not preventing a life...

Abortion is the prevention of life, since the fetus is. not. alive.

[Triceratops]

He doesn't seem to get that.

He hasn't seemed to understand anything for like the past 5 pages now.

There is no thought or structure going into his argument, so I'm assuming he's just a naive and foolish kiddo (look at his age) - which is why we're having to explain the basics to him in the first place.

[The Dark Lord]

If you're dying to debate the death penalty, then create a thread on it. My views are probably a lot more complex than what you're assuming...

If they are anything like your views on abortion, I presume they will be irrational, unjustified and wrong.

If someone doesn't want a child then they shouldn't be forced to have one, what could worse to have a parent who didn't want to have you in the first place and considers you an accident.

[Perseus]

Actually all a matter of opinion, and it depends on the person. I'd rather live in an orphanage than be dead, you might rather be dead than live in an orphanage. I could see both sides on this one.

Here's the thing, though - they're not dead. To be dead, you have had to have lived. A fetus is not living. It is growing into a human, but is not a human just yet. Being an aborted fetus is the equivalent of before you were born. You just were nothing - you had no conscience, no nothing. And like I said, orphanages already have too many children. Giving them more is just wrong. Orphanages can't operate with a lot of children. That's more cruel - letting a child have a horrible childhood - than aborting them.

[TravM]

Abortion is a right that women SHOULD have, regardless of whether a women with stricter beliefs doesn't get one. I just can't see how any women would be against it. Just because you decide that it's not for you, doesn't mean that no situation whatsoever (for someone else) calls for it. Whether you agree with abortion or not, that option should still be there. For something that's not out in this world yet, I don't see how it can be considered murder especially with the positives that come with it. Abortion is pro-cause, which is to help women who aren't ready or willing to have a child at this point in time. It of course should've been prevented with safer sex, but hey, once it's happened, what can ya do? Why people who are against abortion (who shouldn't even be the one to make the decision to say if it's right, since they probably want children and do not know that type of situation probably at all) think that having it and suffering through the pain that you wanted to and easily could have avoided would be the more appropriate idea is beyond me. I know I already gave my opinion on this earlier, but it's just frustrating reading a lot of naive posts.

[Sogeking]

Why people who are against abortion (who shouldn't even be the one to make the decision to say if it's right, since they probably want children and do not know that type of situation probably at all) think that having it and suffering through the pain that you wanted to and easily could have avoided would be the more appropriate idea is beyond me. I know I already gave my opinion on this earlier, but it's just frustrating reading a lot of naive posts.

Mmhm, I think that they are afraid of the psychological consequences to abortion. If everybody were to have abortions, human life would be greatly devalued, showing everyone that anyone who is a hindrance to society would be better off gone. Handicapped, disabled, elderly, and anyone who are is rendered as useless as a rock or are getting too expensive to take care of would be pushed to take euthanasia or other ways of taking their own life to relieve themselves and others of their burden. Concern for other would grow cold, and everyone would be left to fend for themselves.

They are also trying to protect the mother. As their are numerous physical, (http://www.4abortion.net/ingles/physical_consequences_after_abor.htm)and psychological effects (http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp) if one decides to go through with abortion.

[embers]

You made many valid points, but I cannot how you can say this. You're comparing something that will mature into a human being to an insect? Pardon me, but how in the hell does that work?

That's using one word from my argument. I am comparing the value of a foetus that can grow into an animal with, surprisingly, the foetus of something that can grow into an animal. You don't mind eating eggs, I assume. Have you ever eaten an egg, Nick? If so, you just killed a potential bird! Oh no wait, it's not killing a foetus that can potentially turn into a human, therefore it holds no value!

Besides, you missed my point completely. In order to kill something, it has to be alive in the first place. Foetuses are not alive, as they don't follow the seven life processes. Therefore it isn't killing. Now if you are going to argue that preventing a human life from being born should be made illegal, then I beg you, why? It is not murder. And, like many have stated, it is sparing the foetus from being born into a miserable life.

Well isnt a life in an orphanage better than no life at all?

Who are you to judge what the foetus would prefer?

People are fucking stupid so probably no, but if have sex, they should be prepared that there is a small chance that they may get pregnant. If they are not prepared for that, they should abstain.

...you never cease to amaze me.

Many, many, many times. But an ant is in no way comparable to a Human Fetus! If any argument is completely ridiculous, it is this one.

A human foetus is not alive. An ant is. If anything, an ant holds more value.

I still feel that abortion is wrong, but it would be kind of hard to tell someone that: Yeah, a strange guy knocked you out and raped you, you're probably going through some sort of anxiety/depression, and oh yeah... you're gonna have a kid and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.

That's like saying 'I believe killing is wrong. But it would be kind of hard to tell someone that: Yeah a strange guy murdered your sister, you're probably going through some sort of anxiety/depression, and on top of everything you can't murder your sister's murderer!

So therefore: Murder is wrong! Unless it's revenge!

Actually all a matter of opinion, and it depends on the person. I'd rather live in an orphanage than be dead, you might rather be dead than live in an orphanage. I could see both sides on this one.

But it's not a matter of being dead, is it? It's a matter of not having lived in the first place. And please, you simply cannot believe that something is alive at the point of conception. It's nothing short of stupid.

[Bluesman]

you know that won't ever happen in the US, right? Women will still have abortions even if it was illegal.

Unfortunately I know, it is the sad truth. However I'm still arguing for what I feel is right.

[Vonn]

Unfortunately I know, it is the sad truth. However I'm still arguing for what I feel is right.

You forgot to address a bunch of other points.

[embers]

You forgot to address a bunch of other points.

As he always does.

[Sogeking]

You forgot to address a bunch of other points.

As he always does.

He probably has his reasons, you can't just assume that he blatantly ignored other people's posts.

[Vonn]

He probably has his reasons, you can't just assume that he blatantly ignored other people's posts.

He did. He only quoted Jess, and her quote wasn't something that could really be argued.

[Bluesman]

He did. He only quoted Jess, and her quote wasn't something that could really be argued.

Calm down man... I was without internet for a day. Our router took a shit and we had to get a new one... I'm going to answer those now

Really? An ant and a human fetus are probably more similar than you think. If anything, an ant is probably more advanced when a fetus is still young. A fetus cannot feel pain. Honestly, I don't know if an ant can, but I think they probably can feel pain. And if they can, you're killing something that can feel it. A fetus can't feel it.



Yes, it would be very hard to say that. I'm actually completely pro choice, and what I was saying, is that if you say that killing is completely wrong, and that abortion counts as killing something, then that should be your principle. But if something really really horrible happened to someone, then it's ok to kill something that's completely innocent. That's probably what bullies say: "Oh, I was bullied at my old school, so I'm going to bully people at this school to make me feel better and stop me from being bullied again." <== same thing. I'm not saying that rape victims shouldn't have an abortion, because that's the women's choice, she shouldn't have to live with her rapist's baby growing inside her. But I am saying that if you feel as strongly about this as you do, then clearly that is your principle. Principles don't have exceptions, which makes your argument hipocritical.

Also, I remember you saying that you think abortion should be illegal. If you think that rape victims should be allowed to get abortions, then how the hell is that going to be put in place? Everyone would be saying they were raped, it would never work, you could never say that one person is allowed to decide whether or not to have an abortion and another person isn't. Also, even if it was made illegal, people would just get back street abortions. That would have the same result, the fetus would be terminated. But the mother would be put in danger as well.

In hospitals, they give drug addicts clean needles. If they're going to do it anyway, you might as well make sure they're safe. If I mother is going to abort the fetus growing inside her anyway, she might as well do it safely.



You wouldn't be dead, you would have just never have been born. Two different things.

Yet a fetus will grow into a human being. We were all fetuses at one point... I don't know, maybe know one else understands that argument and maybe everyone does think its ridiculous, but if fetuses were not allowed to live, the human race would be extinct.

As I said before, I don't believe that it is right to have an abortion in any circumstances, but I know that I could not look a rape victim in the eye and tell them that they must have that child... I know a person very close to me that has been raped and I know that I could never look her in the eye and tell her that. I'm more going on what is realistic here that what might be squeaky clean morally... I just know that I could never make a rape victim have a kid, so I won't argue otherwise.

The root of our whole debate appears to be another debate about when exactly life begins, many, many people will argue that life begins at contraception, while many, many more will argue that life begins at birth.

Mmhm, I think that they are afraid of the psychological consequences to abortion. If everybody were to have abortions, human life would be greatly devalued, showing everyone that anyone who is a hindrance to society would be better off gone. Handicapped, disabled, elderly, and anyone who are is rendered as useless as a rock or are getting too expensive to take care of would be pushed to take euthanasia or other ways of taking their own life to relieve themselves and others of their burden. Concern for other would grow cold, and everyone would be left to fend for themselves.

They are also trying to protect the mother. As their are numerous physical, (http://www.4abortion.net/ingles/physical_consequences_after_abor.htm)and psychological effects (http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp) if one decides to go through with abortion.

Exactly.

He doesn't seem to get that.





So which will it be?



Abortion is the prevention of life, since the fetus is. not. alive.

It is both, I have no problem with birth control to avoid conception. However, I believe that life begins at conception. There is still a scientific debate about this as well, I can give you evidence to support life beginning at conception if you really need at as well.


For everyone else, here are parts of an essay written: Fritz Baumgartner, MD



We can approach abortion from many perspectives: Biological, embryological, genetic, philosophical, social and economic, at the very least. As for the first three – my approach as a scientist, physician, surgeon, and simply someone who finished medical school, is factual.

There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate.

There is no more appropriate moment to begin calling a human "human" than the moment of fertilization. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because it would be a degradation of factual embryology to say it would be any other moment. For example, some pro-abortion zealots and even, shockingly, some disingenuous physicians claim it is the moment of primitive notochord formation (nonsense!) or, even more absurdly, the moment of implantation. (It defies sanity to claim that the implantation of a developing blastocyst onto a uterine wall defines humanity more than does the completion of an entirely new DNA map, which defines a new organism's existence).

And to say that "size" is a determinant of humanity, of course, is an unscientific reason to deny an embryo his or her human status. In any event, it is an embryological reality, which no embryology textbook on earth denies, that at the moment of fertilization a new human being is formed.

Following below is some information about some of the less noble ideologies of my colleagues in medicine as they pertain to defining humanity and defending abortion. I hope it helps you refute pro-abortion lies.

Abortion is violence

Some people muse whether modern-day abortion is as bad as the Holocaust genocide of the Nazis. What is our answer?

Looking at numbers alone, we are now, in 2005, comparing 44 million surgically aborted babies in the USA alone (not even considering the babies who die by pharmaceutical methods like the Pill, RU486, DepoProvera), to 6 million Jews in Europe. The evil rationale of the Holocaust was racial hatred -- the furthering of an “Aryan race” and genocide against Jews. The rationale of our modern Holocaust, by the very admission of pro-abortion groups, is primarily convenience.

The vocation of medicine and the vocation of motherhood are both profoundly sacred and should teach us that human life is of immense value. Abortion hijacks the vocations of motherhood and medicine and distorts them into something unrecognizable. Abortion takes ordinary pregnant mothers and makes them accomplices in – literally – murder. When human life is thus cheapened, we all lose. As I wrote in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,

"Modern American society has a strange ambivalence to violence and death, on the one hand expressing horror at high school massacres yet on the other hand perhaps merely shrugging in discomfort at the willful termination of early human life to the tune of tens of millions. The roots of this ambivalence lie in convenience, self-centeredness, and our national confusion regarding legitimate versus illegitimate 'choice.' Teenagers intuitively sense phoniness and hypocrisy and may have more trouble than adults in reconciling this apparent paradox, which seems so unnatural to the innocent mind yet on the other hand is almost taken for granted by society and, sadly, by medicine. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, ‘If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?…Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want…’ " (1)

Hippocratic Oath was anti-abortion

When I graduated from the UCLA School of Medicine in 1984, we took the Hippocratic Oath, which states, "I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my art." The Hippocratic Oath, explicitly and implicitly, eliminates abortion as an option.

The Supreme Court justices in the majority opinion in 1973’s Roe v. Wade had a lot of trouble rationalizing around the revered 2,400-year-old oath of physicians. The justices hedged that the authority of Hippocrates did not prevent the committing of abortions in Greece and Rome. They continued that most Greek thinkers and physicians actually commended abortion and that only the Pythagorean school of philosophers frowned upon abortion and suicide. Only Hippocrates and the minority Pythagorean thinkers opposed abortion, and the future teachings of Christianity fit well with Pythagorean ethic. Thus, the justices concluded that the Hippocratic Oath is "a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct" (2).

There is no argument that the Oath was a minority opinion among Greek physicians, but it was certainly Hippocrates’ opinion and intention to distinguish his school of doctors who practiced in an ethical framework set apart from Greek mainstream medicine. If the status-quo medicine of the day satisfied Hippocrates, then he would not have needed to establish his new guidelines for medical ethics.

[Korashk]

Just thought I'd address some of the common points being used against the anti-choice side:

"A fetus is not alive" Yes it is.

Comprised of cells: Check
Organizational patterns: Check
Energy Use: Check
Maintains homeostasis: Check
Growth: Check
Reproduction: Check, unless you don't consider things alive until they reach reproductive maturity.

Stop using this argument against them.
~~~

"Women will have them anyways" So what? Theft is illegal, but people still do it.

Stop using this argument against them.
~~~

"Better for society" This is basically eugenics, which I guess is an arguable point, but not a very solid one.
~~~

"They can't feel it" So what? They can't feel it, so it's okay is another one of those non-sequiturs.

[Bluesman]

Just thought I'd address some of the common points being used against the anti-choice side:

"A fetus is not alive" Yes it is.

Comprised of cells: Check
Organizational patterns: Check
Energy Use: Check
Maintains homeostasis: Check
Growth: Check
Reproduction: Check, unless you don't consider things alive until they reach reproductive maturity.

Stop using this argument against them.
~~~

"Women will have them anyways" So what? Theft is illegal, but people still do it.

Stop using this argument against them.
~~~

"Better for society" This is basically eugenics, which I guess is an arguable point, but not a very solid one.

Until it is completely accepted scientifically and medically that birth is the beginning of life and not conception, no, I will not stop using this argument.

[georgiamay]

Yet a fetus will grow into a human being. We were all fetuses at one point... I don't know, maybe know one else understands that argument and maybe everyone does think its ridiculous,

People think it's ridiculous for a reason. Please stop appealing to emotion, it doesn't work


but if fetuses were not allowed to live, the human race would be extinct.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. No one is saying the fetus' aren't allowed to be born, I'm saying that the mother has the right to chose. The human race wouldn't be extinct. We're already having problems with over-population anyway, and that's with abortion being legal.



As I said before, I don't believe that it is right to have an abortion in any circumstances, but I know that I could not look a rape victim in the eye and tell them that they must have that child... I know a person very close to me that has been raped and I know that I could never look her in the eye and tell her that. I'm more going on what is realistic here that what might be squeaky clean morally... I just know that I could never make a rape victim have a kid, so I won't argue otherwise.

You can never make anyone have a kid. If a 16 year old girl lost her virginity to her boyfriend, and the condom split 9 months before her final exams, try and tell her that she has to throw away her life because a piece of rubber broke.


The root of our whole debate appears to be another debate about when exactly life begins, many, many people will argue that life begins at contraception, while many, many more will argue that life begins at birth.

At conception, it's an embryo, a collection of cells. Cells. A maggot is more advanced than them, and no one seems to have a problem killing them, because apparently it's ok to kill them.



It is both, I have no problem with birth control to avoid conception. However, I believe that life begins at conception. There is still a scientific debate about this as well, I can give you evidence to support life beginning at conception if you really need at as well.

AT CONCEPTION, IT'S A COLLECTION OF CELLS. It can't feel, it can't think, it doesn't even know it's alive.



We can approach abortion from many perspectives: Biological, embryological, genetic, philosophical, social and economic, at the very least. As for the first three – my approach as a scientist, physician, surgeon, and simply someone who finished medical school, is factual.

There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate.

There is no more appropriate moment to begin calling a human "human" than the moment of fertilization. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because it would be a degradation of factual embryology to say it would be any other moment. For example, some pro-abortion zealots and even, shockingly, some disingenuous physicians claim it is the moment of primitive notochord formation (nonsense!) or, even more absurdly, the moment of implantation. (It defies sanity to claim that the implantation of a developing blastocyst onto a uterine wall defines humanity more than does the completion of an entirely new DNA map, which defines a new organism's existence).

And to say that "size" is a determinant of humanity, of course, is an unscientific reason to deny an embryo his or her human status. In any event, it is an embryological reality, which no embryology textbook on earth denies, that at the moment of fertilization a new human being is formed.

Following below is some information about some of the less noble ideologies of my colleagues in medicine as they pertain to defining humanity and defending abortion. I hope it helps you refute pro-abortion lies.

Abortion is violence

Some people muse whether modern-day abortion is as bad as the Holocaust genocide of the Nazis. What is our answer?

Looking at numbers alone, we are now, in 2005, comparing 44 million surgically aborted babies in the USA alone (not even considering the babies who die by pharmaceutical methods like the Pill, RU486, DepoProvera), to 6 million Jews in Europe. The evil rationale of the Holocaust was racial hatred -- the furthering of an “Aryan race” and genocide against Jews. The rationale of our modern Holocaust, by the very admission of pro-abortion groups, is primarily convenience.

The vocation of medicine and the vocation of motherhood are both profoundly sacred and should teach us that human life is of immense value. Abortion hijacks the vocations of motherhood and medicine and distorts them into something unrecognizable. Abortion takes ordinary pregnant mothers and makes them accomplices in – literally – murder. When human life is thus cheapened, we all lose. As I wrote in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,

"Modern American society has a strange ambivalence to violence and death, on the one hand expressing horror at high school massacres yet on the other hand perhaps merely shrugging in discomfort at the willful termination of early human life to the tune of tens of millions. The roots of this ambivalence lie in convenience, self-centeredness, and our national confusion regarding legitimate versus illegitimate 'choice.' Teenagers intuitively sense phoniness and hypocrisy and may have more trouble than adults in reconciling this apparent paradox, which seems so unnatural to the innocent mind yet on the other hand is almost taken for granted by society and, sadly, by medicine. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, ‘If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?…Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want…’ " (1)

Hippocratic Oath was anti-abortion

When I graduated from the UCLA School of Medicine in 1984, we took the Hippocratic Oath, which states, "I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my art." The Hippocratic Oath, explicitly and implicitly, eliminates abortion as an option.

The Supreme Court justices in the majority opinion in 1973’s Roe v. Wade had a lot of trouble rationalizing around the revered 2,400-year-old oath of physicians. The justices hedged that the authority of Hippocrates did not prevent the committing of abortions in Greece and Rome. They continued that most Greek thinkers and physicians actually commended abortion and that only the Pythagorean school of philosophers frowned upon abortion and suicide. Only Hippocrates and the minority Pythagorean thinkers opposed abortion, and the future teachings of Christianity fit well with Pythagorean ethic. Thus, the justices concluded that the Hippocratic Oath is "a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct" (2).

There is no argument that the Oath was a minority opinion among Greek physicians, but it was certainly Hippocrates’ opinion and intention to distinguish his school of doctors who practiced in an ethical framework set apart from Greek mainstream medicine. If the status-quo medicine of the day satisfied Hippocrates, then he would not have needed to establish his new guidelines for medical ethics.

Basically, you've thrown someone else's argument into our faces to make you look more credible. Nice. The bit where he talks about life beginning at conception is still his opinion.

"A fetus is not alive" Yes it is.

So is an ant, but no one has a problem killing that.

Comprised of cells: Check
Organizational patterns: Check
Energy Use: Check
Maintains homeostasis: Check
Growth: Check
Reproduction: Check, unless you don't consider things alive until they reach reproductive maturity.

Stop using this argument against them.


Again, can't think for itself, and doesn't feel pain.

"Women will have them anyways" So what? Theft is illegal, but people still do it.

Stop using this argument against them.

Actually, women having them anyway is still a very valid argument. Because it has the exact same result; the fetus is still terminated, but it also puts the women in danger.

And theft being illegal? Completely different thing, that was an irrelevant analogy.

"Better for society" This is basically eugenics, which I guess is an arguable point, but not a very solid one.

Not a solid one? Neither is, "It's a fetus, you can't kill a fetus!" But people still listen to that one.


No one has the right to tell a women that she can't have an abortion, no matter what the circumstances are, and nothing is going to change that. If you pro-life people are going on about the fetus' rights, why don't you think about the women for a change?

[Korashk]

Until it is completely accepted scientifically and medically that birth is the beginning of life and not conception, no, I will not stop using this argument.
Not sure if you misunderstood or are trying to be sarcastic.

[Korashk]

Again, can't think for itself, and doesn't feel pain.
Oh, I'm aware. Does not change the fact than once it reaches the fetal stage if development it's alive.

Actually, women having them anyway is still a very valid argument. Because it has the exact same result; the fetus is still terminated, but it also puts the women in danger.

And theft being illegal? Completely different thing, that was an irrelevant analogy.
The analogy is completely apt. The position that because something will be done regardless of its legality so it should be legal, Is a non-sequitur. I used theft as an example of this. Just because people will steal things regardless of theft's legality does not mean that theft should be legal. To anti-choice people, a fetus is a full on human being. Hell, so are zygotes and embryos.

According to the premises of their argument, abortion is functionally the same as murder.

Not a solid one? Neither is, "It's a fetus, you can't kill a fetus!" But people still listen to that one.
So what? Your point here is "they use bad arguments, so I can too." That's not how logic works.

No one has the right to tell a women that she can't have an abortion, no matter what the circumstances are, and nothing is going to change that. If you pro-life people are going on about the fetus' rights, why don't you think about the women for a change?
I'm pro-choice, I was merely addressing that those specific arguments are faulty and/or weak.

[georgiamay]

The analogy is completely apt. The position that because something will be done regardless of its legality so it should be legal, Is a non-sequitur. I used theft as an example of this. Just because people will steal things regardless of theft's legality does not mean that theft should be legal. To anti-choice people, a fetus is a full on human being. Hell, so are zygotes and embryos.

Ok, theft is something that is quite obviously wrong. People don't have the right to go up to someone and say "hey, I'm going to steal your TV."
But with abortion, the woman does have the right to not have the baby if they chose not to. To me, they're different thing.

I'm pro-choice, I was merely addressing that those specific arguments are faulty and/or weak.

Personally, I don't think they're faulty or weak. I think pro-life arguments tend to be the weak ones, considering all they are, are appeals to emotion.

[Korashk]

Ok, theft is something that is quite obviously wrong. People don't have the right to go up to someone and say "hey, I'm going to steal your TV."
But with abortion, the woman does have the right to not have the baby if they chose not to. To me, they're different thing.
Those are different things, and that argument is not one of the weak ones. I was addressing the "they'll still do it even if it's illegal, so make it legal" argument.

Personally, I don't think they're faulty or weak.
Well the ones I pointed out, are. Doesn't matter what you think. A fetus is alive so that argument is simply factually incorrect, "they'll still do it even if it's illegal, so make it legal" is a non-sequitur, and arguing from a eugenics standpoint is going to make it hard to convince most people, even if there's nothing wring with the argument from a mechanical point of view.

[Bluesman]

I find it laughable how giving evidence from a reliable source is "Throwing someone else's argument in your faces to make me look more credible." You want to know what I think? Fine. Most of the people here are stubborn and unwilling to recognize that there just may be another view point out there. I hope you guys realize that there are plenty of people, scientists and doctors included, that believe life begins at the point of conception. Pro-life arguments do not just appeal to emotion, but morality and common sense. I stand by my original argument that in order for two people to have sex they should be prepared that there is a risk of pregnancy. If they are not prepared to take that risk, abstinence is 100% effective. People are fucking stupid. I know that very well, but stupidity has consequences. If that means pushing out a baby, then so be it.

[RAWWR]

For me, abortion is just sick and wrong, a baby is a baby, and to be honest, i'm even against the morning after pill, if your gonna get pregnant, then your gonna get pregnant, having latley miscarried reinforced my feelings about abortion, babys are beautiful, and people should value that. Many of my family members have stuggled with fertilisation, and It just makes me think of all those people who throw that away.
However You need to give the mother her rights, and as much as I am repulsed by the thought of killing an innocent child who could bring so much joy to either the mother or another person who is struggling to get pregnant, it is ultimatley up to the parents and their choice.

[The Dark Lord]

Most of the people here are stubborn and unwilling to recognize that there just may be another view point out there.


Just like yourself then

I hope you guys realize that there are plenty of people Pro-life arguments do not just appeal to emotion, but morality and common sense. I stand by my original argument that in order for two people to have sex they should be prepared that there is a risk of pregnancy. If they are not prepared to take that risk, abstinence is 100% effective. People are fucking stupid. I know that very well, but stupidity has consequences. If that means pushing out a baby, then so be it.

Could you outline the Pro-life arguments which appeal to morality and common sense. Surely it is common sense that if someone doesn't want something, they shouldn't have it? If you don't want a shirt then you return it to the store, what's so complicated?

[Bluesman]

Just like yourself then



Could you outline the Pro-life arguments which appeal to morality and common sense. Surely it is common sense that if someone doesn't want something, they shouldn't have it? If you don't want a shirt then you return it to the store, what's so complicated?

You are comparing animals and objects into something that, even if you believe life begins at birth, will mature into a human being! Animal, object, baby? Not really comparable are they?

The foundation of my argument is that an innocent baby is being torn apart inside its mother's womb. Is that not enough?

[The Dark Lord]

You are comparing animals and objects into something that, even if you believe life begins at birth, will mature into a human being! Animal, object, baby? Not really comparable are they?


Well they are actually, my post compared them.

The foundation of my argument is that an innocent baby is being torn apart inside its mother's womb. Is that not enough?

No it's not actually.

[Korashk]

]The foundation of my argument is that an innocent baby is being torn apart inside its mother's womb. Is that not enough?
Well, since your argument is based on this premise, then no. As your premise does not accurately describe the process of the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions.

EDIT: I assume you're talking about the process wherein the doctor enters the womb with surgical equipment, cuts the fetus into parts, and then removes the parts. What most abortions are, is simply removing the fetus from the womb. It then dies.

[embers]

You are comparing animals and objects into something that, even if you believe life begins at birth, will mature into a human being! Animal, object, baby? Not really comparable are they?

Humans are animals. I don't see your point. Take my earlier point with eating eggs. If you really hold this stance of abortion justified by these particular views of yours, that a foetus will develop into an animal, therefore it cannot be denied access to life, then you should be against eating eggs.

Why? Because human foetuses will develop into animals. And animal foetuses will develop into animals.

The foundation of my argument is that an innocent baby is being torn apart inside its mother's womb. Is that not enough?

No.

It's not a baby. The fact that its birth will probably cause major problems for its parents and family also means it is not innocent. It is not being torn apart, as most cases of abortion are removing a foetus from the womb and letting it die.

[georgiamay]

The foundation of my argument is that an innocent baby is being torn apart inside its mother's womb. Is that not enough?

You say your argument isn't appealing to emotion, however the foundations of your argument do appeal to emotion.

[Bluesman]

Well if the thought of a baby being torn apart/removed/killed period doesn't even bother you, your mind is simply fucked up. I'm not sure theres anything more to be said...

[Vonn]

Well if the thought of a baby being torn apart/removed/killed period doesn't even bother you, your mind is simply fucked up. I'm not sure theres anything more to be said...

Technically it's not even a baby at the time.

[Korashk]

Well if the thought of a baby being torn apart/removed/killed period doesn't even bother you, your mind is simply fucked up. I'm not sure theres anything more to be said...
You yourself said that you don't think it should be legal to force a person to unwillingly support the life of another, yet you think abortion should be illegal.

Hypocrite.

[Bluesman]

I know I'm going to get absolutely murdered for this, get told I lost the debate, so on and so forth. Go ahead and say it, I do not care. Once and for all I am done. Not because I concede or anything, simply because I obviously can no longer keep this civil. I get more pissed off about abortion the most anything else in this world, and I've tried to keep that to myself but it's simply not working. Obviously I'm no expert debater, just someone with very strong views on many things. If I can't keep my arguments civil, I'd prefer just not to argue. Sorry guys... I'm just done here. I probably won't be using VT as much for awhile anyways, theres a lot of other, more important stuff going on in my life.

[embers]

I know I'm going to get absolutely murdered for this, get told I lost the debate, so on and so forth. Go ahead and say it, I do not care. Once and for all I am done. Not because I concede or anything, simply because I obviously can no longer keep this civil. I get more pissed off about abortion the most anything else in this world, and I've tried to keep that to myself but it's simply not working. Obviously I'm no expert debater, just someone with very strong views on many things. If I can't keep my arguments civil, I'd prefer just not to argue. Sorry guys... I'm just done here. I probably won't be using VT as much for awhile anyways, theres a lot of other, more important stuff going on in my life.

Debating isn't a matter of changing your own opinions if proven wrong, anyway, as I've been told/shown recently. But whatever other important stuff there is in your life, good luck with it.

[Sage]

I know I'm going to get absolutely murdered for this, get told I lost the debate, so on and so forth. Go ahead and say it, I do not care. Once and for all I am done. Not because I concede or anything, simply because I obviously can no longer keep this civil. I get more pissed off about abortion the most anything else in this world, and I've tried to keep that to myself but it's simply not working. Obviously I'm no expert debater, just someone with very strong views on many things. If I can't keep my arguments civil, I'd prefer just not to argue. Sorry guys... I'm just done here. I probably won't be using VT as much for awhile anyways, theres a lot of other, more important stuff going on in my life.

tl;dr:

-Everybody who thinks differently than me is fucked up
-I admit to not being good at debating but I'll keep posting in the debate board anyway
-I don't have actual arguments, this is just how I feel
-cue dramatic exit post

This is why I can't stand debating abortion with people. If you can't keep your emotions in check and divorce your heart from the logic, facts, and sensible arguments, the entire discussion is just going to collapse into one enormous clusterfuck.

[georgiamay]

Well if the thought of a baby being torn apart/removed/killed period doesn't even bother you, your mind is simply fucked up. I'm not sure theres anything more to be said...

See, this just proves my point. You keep bringing in emotion, and emotion isn't an argument, you're just trying to make people feel bad, thus, agree with you. That's not how it works.

My mind is fucked? HA.
Telling people of the opposite opinion to you that their mind is fucked because they don't agree doesn't exactly make you look credible.

I know I'm going to get absolutely murdered for this, get told I lost the debate, so on and so forth. Go ahead and say it, I do not care. Once and for all I am done. Not because I concede or anything, simply because I obviously can no longer keep this civil. I get more pissed off about abortion the most anything else in this world, and I've tried to keep that to myself but it's simply not working. Obviously I'm no expert debater, just someone with very strong views on many things. If I can't keep my arguments civil, I'd prefer just not to argue. Sorry guys... I'm just done here. I probably won't be using VT as much for awhile anyways, theres a lot of other, more important stuff going on in my life.

Whatever it is, good luck with it.

But honestly, debating should be about standing your ground, not running away when you're outnumbered.
I also find it amusing that you've admitted that you don't have an argument, but you're appealing to emotion.

[Bluesman]

If it will really make you happy, I can keep this up. I have to warn you though I wont be posting much at all... huge ass tests coming up in school, a flood of math homework, and some "slight" family problems (nothing that I really want to go on about) are going to be taking up a majority of my time. Tell me what you guys want... I'll be lucky if I get a post a day on this forum though.

[The Dark Lord]

If it will really make you happy, I can keep this up. I have to warn you though I wont be posting much at all... huge ass tests coming up in school, a flood of math homework, and some "slight" family problems (nothing that I really want to go on about) are going to be taking up a majority of my time. Tell me what you guys want... I'll be lucky if I get a post a day on this forum though.

Oh No!.... Actually I don't care.

[Bluesman]

That's great. You'll still see me around VT sometimes, but most likely not as much. This was actually a pretty good debate, so thanks for that...

[KaelKaos]

I just think it's ironic that we are letting a bunch of congressMEN decide on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy or not. Shouldn't it be the women who decide? They're the ones who have to carry a baby for 9 months then subsequently birth it, not us men.

[suza23]

Well I personally am pro choice like most reasonable people.

A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body and yes there should be restrictions on how far into the pregnancy a woman should be able to get the abortion.

But overall the government shouldn't have a say in what a person does with their pregnancy it is a personal choice that should remain a CHOICE.

Being pro life is basically saying that everyone who gets raped and pregnant should have to be forced to have that baby or in general you are forced to have a baby. There are cases where babies are diagnosed with a disease that will kill them within weeks/months of being born and you guys want to put the mother through that trauma just because you think abortions are wrong? Have your opinions but keep them to yourself stop trying to make abortions illegal if you don't like them then don't have one don't make it so everyone else cant

[Sogeking]

...Have your opinions but keep them to yourself stop trying to make abortions illegal if you don't like them then don't have one don't make it so everyone else cant


>implying the law can't be changed
>implying this isn't a debate board

[Iceman]

>implying the law can't be changed
>implying this isn't a debate board

:no:
That's all I have to say about that post.

Anyways he is free to post his opionions here.

[Sogeking]

I never said he couldn't. But he said for the opposing side to stop posting theirs. Which is bull because opinions are supposed to be expressed in debate boards with evidence to back them up regardless of the legality of a certain acts.

[Iceman]

{deleted}

I never said you said all that.

The only thing I said was :no:

And you can go back up and look if you don't believe me.

[Sogeking]

read my post again

[Iceman]

I did. My post still stands. No need to change it.

[RaineBow]

I think that it should only be legal if you were raped. Any other times, I wouldn't really support, but a woman should do anything they want with their bodies. But, i lost two siblings to abortion. I remember being excited to be a big sister when I was in kindergarten (yeah I know it sounds sort of lame...) and when I found out the baby supposedly 'died' I was crushed. The other child would have been older then me, He would have been 15/16 years old now.

But, if a woman does get an abortion, I think there should be a restriction on how far along she has to be (I feel stupid for asking this, but isn't a baby basically alive if you're 7 months pregnant with he/she)

This will probably get me flamed or something, but this debate sort of reminds me of religious views. There really isn't a right answer, it just depends on what you believe in/ what you think is right.

For me personally, considering my history with abortion, I probably would still keep the child, no matter what the circumstances were. I'd feel as though I lost a family member, and I couldn't go through that again.

Please do not double post, there is an edit button for a reason.

[Sage]

This will probably get me flamed or something, but this debate sort of reminds me of religious views.

You're right. This is just like a religion thread: One side makes emotional appeals while the other uses rationale.

[georgiamay]

I think that it should only be legal if you were raped.

Then every woman would say they were raped. It would never be enforced.
And who are we to tell one women she's allowed to have an abortion, and another women that she's not?

I lost two siblings to abortion.

You lost two fetus'.

I remember being excited to be a big sister when I was in kindergarten (yeah I know it sounds sort of lame...) and when I found out the baby supposedly 'died' I was crushed. The other child would have been older then me, He would have been 15/16 years old now.

Exactly, would. They weren't killed, they were simply never born. My mum had an abortion before I was born. You know why? Because she didn't think she was ready to have a baby. If she'd kept it, I might not be here now. You might not be either if the older "child" was born.

But, if a woman does get an abortion, I think there should be a restriction on how far along she has to be

There is one. It's 24 weeks.

[slappy]

I think all the men in this thread (including me)
Shouldn't be talking about this stuff because it is none of our business

[Genghis Khan]

I think all the men in this thread (including me)
Shouldn't be talking about this stuff because it is none of our business

What? This is a topic like every other one. Just because it is a problem that concerns women doesn't mean men don't have a say in it. It takes intelligent and rational thinking to come to a valid conclusion about value judgments such as these, not leaving it up to the gender/race/nationality to whom it might concern.

Aside from that, it's difficult to say where one can draw the line in terms of when you're committing murder. The Catholics define it as murder because you're not allowing the child to live, but, the question following this is, when does that murder take place? Is it when the sperm meets the egg? When the heart makes its first beat? When the transformation from embryo to baby is complete? It's all pretty complicated shit man.

I guess the generally accepted conclusion is that one must consider the situation the woman is in. Was she raped? Is she going through a difficult time anyway? Family problems? Poor? etc. Personally I don't agree with going on a sex rampage and having to flush out a living creature every time.

[Sogeking]

What? This is a topic like every other one. Just because it is a problem that concerns women doesn't mean men don't have a say in it. It takes intelligent and rational thinking to come to a valid conclusion about value judgments such as these, not leaving it up to the gender/race/nationality to whom it might concern.



Try telling that to half the people in this thread who thing Conservative men shouldn't speak for women when it comes to abortion.

[Iceman]

Try telling that to half the people in this thread who thing Conservative men shouldn't speak for women when it comes to abortion.

We can give our opinion too. I would love to see someone try to say that I can't give my opinion over the issue, because I am not of the female sex. I really just want to see the reasoning explained.

[Genghis Khan]

Try telling that to half the people in this thread who thing Conservative men shouldn't speak for women when it comes to abortion.

That is the target audience that my remark was aimed at. Anyway, that's a whole different issue, I was just voicing mah opinion.

[FainAgain]

I think Anyone who has an abortion just because they dont want a child (there are aforementioned exceptions) should have their abortion then go strait to trial for murder in the first degree. I lost three siblings to abortion (im an only child) and i will resent my mother forever for that. There is something for you to think about.

[CaptainObvious]

I think Anyone who has an abortion just because they dont want a child (there are aforementioned exceptions) should have their abortion then go strait to trial for murder in the first degree. I lost three siblings to abortion (im an only child) and i will resent my mother forever for that. There is something for you to think about.

what exactly is the effective difference between her having 2 abortions and just using a condom and never getting pregnant in the first place? You don't have the siblings either way. This is just you being irrationally emotional.

[Korashk]

If abortion is murder then miscarriages are manslaughter and it shouldn't matter if the woman was raped or not.

[georgiamay]

I think Anyone who has an abortion just because they dont want a child (there are aforementioned exceptions) should have their abortion then go strait to trial for murder in the first degree.

If I stood on an ant, would you be this fussy about it? If abortion is done pretty early, the fetus is no more advanced or closer to being human than an ant.

I lost three siblings to abortion (im an only child) and i will resent my mother forever for that. There is something for you to think about.

You lost three fetus'.

[Sith Lord 13]

There is one. It's 24 weeks.

Only in some places.

[Infidelitas]

I believe abortion to okay when the person has been raped.. If its just because you didnt take the pill or didnt use a condom I'd say no.

[iangillan]

I think It`s OK,on first 2 months,before the creation of human beings in womb.

(If Abortion is a Murder,then Masturbation is a Genocide.)

[dopaper]

it is bad i hate it i used to have a bro but he got Abortid

[Jess]

^
you used to have a brother? was he already out of the womb? no. he was a fetus. or rather, it was a fetus. think you meant you could have had a brother.

[georgiamay]

I believe abortion to okay when the person has been raped.. If its just because you didnt take the pill or didnt use a condom I'd say no.

What if a condom splits? That's not the woman's fault either. And are you saying that it should be illegal unless a woman was raped?

I personally think it's wrong to say that it's okay for some women to have an abortion, but not for others. So because something bad happened to one person (rape), they're allowed to do something "bad" because of it? That's not how things work.

^I'm not pro-life, I'm pro-choice, I just don't like the way people seem to think that one woman has the right to chose whereas another woman doesn't.

[Sith Lord 13]

^
you used to have a brother? was he already out of the womb? no. he was a fetus. or rather, it was a fetus. think you meant you could have had a brother.

Don't start a language war. What he said wasn't factually incorrect, it just has a different emotional slant. He could just as easily correct every time you use the word fetus to child, which is also correct. [Child, noun - A son or daughter of any age]

[Infidelitas]

What if a condom splits? That's not the woman's fault either. And are you saying that it should be illegal unless a woman was raped?



If the condom spilts, thats another thing. but if you get part way through the pregnancy and just decide that you dont want the baby anymore, because you cant be bothered, i see that as being wrong.

[The Ninja]

All women should have the right to an abortion, I don't care whether she got pregnant because she wasn't careful or if she got pregnant because she was raped, either way she has the right to control her own body. I understand the argument of anti-abortionists though, they think that its taking the rights away from the fetus. But still the rights of a living person are more important than the rights of an non-living fetus.

[Jess]

Don't start a language war. What he said wasn't factually incorrect, it just has a different emotional slant. He could just as easily correct every time you use the word fetus to child, which is also correct. [Child, noun - A son or daughter of any age]

Didn't know that.

[Sogeking]

All women should have the right to an abortion, I don't care whether she got pregnant because she wasn't careful or if she got pregnant because she was raped, either way she has the right to control her own body. I understand the argument of anti-abortionists though, they think that its taking the rights away from the fetus. But still the rights of a living person are more important than the rights of an non-living fetus.

When do you thing the fetus is "alive"?

[The Ninja]

When do you thing the fetus is "alive"?

There've been studies and I believe I heard that the fetus can feel pain at 28 weeks. Although I don't consider the fetus "alive" until it comes out I think it would be incredibly wrong to inflict pain on anything that can feel it. Another reason that I'm pro-abortion though is that if the government doesn't make them legal women might end up getting one in the back of a van or alley. A women might even beat herself up so that she doesn't have to have the baby.

[Sogeking]

There've been studies and I believe I heard that the fetus can feel pain at 28 weeks. Although I don't consider the fetus "alive" until it comes out I think it would be incredibly wrong to inflict pain on anything that can feel it. Another reason that I'm pro-abortion though is that if the government doesn't make them legal women might end up getting one in the back of a van or alley. A women might even beat herself up so that she doesn't have to have the baby.

So you feel that it is okay to kill it before it can feel pain?

[iangillan]

So you feel that it is okay to kill it before it can feel pain?

We can not call it killing,because in first 10 weeks (2-3 months) it was not formed as a fetus.It `s just something more then sperm which we ejaculate when masturbating.After 10 weeks it is formed as a fetus.

On other side..
What would we do if we on ultrasound see some incurable deformity with fetus.Isn't it better to abort or let it live in suffering.

[georgiamay]

If the condom spilts, thats another thing. but if you get part way through the pregnancy and just decide that you dont want the baby anymore, because you cant be bothered, i see that as being wrong.

I don't know how it works anywhere else, but in the UK, at least two doctors need to agree to the abortion for it to take place. For a woman to say, "I can't be bothered" wouldn't do. They'd have to say that it would cause them a great deal of stress, and that they feel if would have a negative effect on them emotionally and mentally, or that they don't think they'd be able to look after a child.

I don't think any woman would just decide that they don't want a baby anymore, they always have a reason for it. Maybe they don't feel ready to have a baby, or they don't think they can afford to bring it up, and they don't think they bring themselves to go through with an adoption.

And I respect that you see it as wrong, because I think that if I woman can look after a baby, she should have the baby, but that doesn't change the fact that she has the right to choose. It's her body, and it's her fetus, so she can decide what she wants to do with it.

[Sogeking]

We can not call it killing,because in first 10 weeks (2-3 months) it was not formed as a fetus.It `s just something more then sperm which we ejaculate when masturbating.After 10 weeks it is formed as a fetus.
Uh:


Kill
1a. : to deprive of life : cause the death of

It is still technically killing.

other side..
What would we do if we on ultrasound see some incurable deformity with fetus.Isn't it better to abort or let it live in suffering.
Killing off fetuses because it has a deformity of some kind won't send a nice message to the people who are born with disabilities.

[embers]

It is still technically killing.

A fetus is arguably not alive, you can't deprive someone of something they never had.

[iangillan]

Uh.

It is still technically killing.

Killing off fetuses because it has a deformity of some kind won't send a nice message to the people who are born with disabilities.

Uh (me too,Uh)

Technically it is not killing,because you can not kill something what is not alive.(I mean in first 2-3 months).

I`m really sorry if I offended anyone, but It was my opinion.I think that I would do this way.

[Sogeking]

A fetus is arguably not alive, you can't deprive someone of something they never had.


Technically it is not killing,because you can not kill something what is not alive.(I mean in first 2-3 months).


You guys are saying this as if I was regarding the fetus as a person. I wasn't. I'm just saying that abortion does indeed take the life out of the cells of a fetus. And cells are living after all. Thus, it is still considered, killing.

[embers]

You guys are saying this as if I was regarding the fetus as a person. I wasn't. I'm just saying that abortion does indeed take the life out of the cells of a fetus. And cells are living after all. Thus, it is still considered, killing.

Killing as in taking the life out of cells. In that sense, is an ant not worth more than a fetus? Not only is it a collection of living cells, but it has basic sense and acts on instinct.

[iangillan]

I wasn't. I'm just saying that abortion does indeed take the life out of the cells of a fetus. And cells are living after all. Thus, it is still considered, killing.

If we talking abou cells,you`re right....??? Cutting hair is killing (in hair are cells).
Circumcision is hell-killing, tearing the grass,also.....etc.
You forgot that alive person is collection of many different cells,Not one cell and not collection of many same cells.

[Sogeking]

If we talking abou cells,you`re right....??? Cutting hair is killing (in hair are cells).
Circumcision is hell-killing, tearing the grass,also.....etc.
You forgot that alive person is collection of many different cells,Not one cell and not collection of many same cells.

All I'm saying is that abortion is killing whether it be one single cell or a fully developed fetus capable of living outside the womb. You said it wasn't killing anything. It technically is. It was just a correction. I don't know you guys are saying all this stuff to me.

[Sith Lord 13]

The simple fact is, you're killing that which has the capacity to think. That's where the issue is.

[anonymous.john]

The simple fact is, you're killing that which has the capacity to think. That's where the issue is.

Are you? Can you demonstrate that a fetus can actually process thoughts and stimuli?

Are you against the "Morning After" pill?

When does life begin? Conception, birth, 28 Weeks, late second trimester? Tell me.

Does potential life count? Do sperm?

What does a mother do if they were raped/victims of incest/financially unstable?

[The Ninja]

Are you? Can you demonstrate that a fetus can actually process thoughts and stimuli?

Are you against the "Morning After" pill?

When does life begin? Conception, birth, 28 Weeks, late second trimester? Tell me.

Does potential life count? Do sperm?

What does a mother do if they were raped/victims of incest/financially unstable?

Refer to my signature

[iangillan]

Are you? Can you demonstrate that a fetus can actually process thoughts and stimuli?

Are you against the "Morning After" pill?

When does life begin? Conception, birth, 28 Weeks, late second trimester? Tell me.

Does potential life count? Do sperm?

What does a mother do if they were raped/victims of incest/financially unstable?

Can I answer?.....

*Fetus can not actually process thoughts and stimuling.

*I`m for Morning-After pills.( I support totally birth control,condom,pills,etc)

*Sperm is not a life,life is complex organism developed after fertilisation (egg cells fertilised by sperm).

*It`s a personal decision of mother,(some mothers abort,some don`t).

[Sith Lord 13]

Are you? Can you demonstrate that a fetus can actually process thoughts and stimuli?

Immaterial. It has the capacity to, so long as there is no outside interference, even if it doesn't at the moment.

Are you against the "Morning After" pill?

No. Prevent fertilization is a viable means of birth control.

When does life begin? Conception, birth, 28 Weeks, late second trimester? Tell me.

Life begins at implantation in the uterine wall. This is the point where, under normal circumstances, the fetus will develop the ability to think, thus meaning it has the capacity for thought.

Does potential life count? Do sperm?

Of course not. Sperm takes outside involvement to develop the capacity to think.

What does a mother do if they were raped/victims of incest/financially unstable?

Adoption.

[iangillan]

Life begins at implantation in the uterine wall. This is the point where, under normal circumstances, the fetus will develop the ability to think, thus meaning it has the capacity for thought.

I don`t Agree.Life begins with fertilisation (conception),(fusion of sperm cell and owum).It this moment is created embryo.After about 2 weeks embryo implant in the uterine wall,on this moment start developing of human being.

[FainAgain]

The decision begins with sex. The moment a woman (or girl) decides to have sex, she takes a gamble. Her decision has been made. Did she not want a child, she should have abstained. To say that a fetus is not alove is absurd. I agree with iangillan.

To say that a woman should be able to choose, is to say that she did not have the initial choice (with the exeption of rape, in which case abortion is perfectly acceptable). To have an abortion is like losing all your money in vegas and crying because it didnt go like you planned. sex is a gamble.

[Vonn]

The decision begins with sex. The moment a woman (or girl) decides to have sex, she takes a gamble. Her decision has been made. Did she not want a child, she should have abstained. To say that a fetus is not alove is absurd. I agree with iangillan.

I agree with you. People should never have sex unless they want a baby. To hell with pleasure and intimacy in a relationship! (The obvious solution here is to learn to love gay sex.)

To say that a woman should be able to choose, is to say that she did not have the initial choice (with the exeption of rape, in which case abortion is perfectly acceptable). To have an abortion is like losing all your money in vegas and crying because it didnt go like you planned. sex is a gamble.

The woman is the one who has to play the host for nine months. Maybe she wanted sex but not a baby. Sex was the choice, but whether or not a child ends up developing is not her choice; it's chance. She could end up pregnant even though there was a condom, or she was on the pill, etc., obvious precautions that indicate she did not and does not want a baby. Her body, her rules.

Honest question: besides emotional trauma, what separates the morality of aborting a baby conceived out of consensual sex or rape? The end result is the same, and both of them boil down to the fact that the woman did not want the child. Can you be pro-life, but still be willing to let a baby get aborted because of rape?

DrStrangelove, maybe it's just me, but your Vegas comparison sounds more like having sex and discovering the girl is pregnant rather than getting an abortion. Could you explain it better or try a different one?

[slappy]

The decision begins with sex. The moment a woman (or girl) decides to have sex, she takes a gamble. Her decision has been made. Did she not want a child, she should have abstained. To say that a fetus is not alove is absurd. I agree with iangillan.

To say that a woman should be able to choose, is to say that she did not have the initial choice (with the exeption of rape, in which case abortion is perfectly acceptable). To have an abortion is like losing all your money in vegas and crying because it didnt go like you planned. sex is a gamble.

It is also the guys fault for lying about having a condom on or wearing a condom that was too big because he is ashamed of the size of his gents.

[Iceman]

It is also the guys fault for lying about having a condom on or warring a condom that was too big because he is ashamed of the size of his gents.

*wearing

It doesn't always burst because it is to big. There are a variety of factors that can lead to one bursting.

But both need to take part of the blame, unless it was forced upon.

[iangillan]

I agree,We both should take responsibility.
But mostly we guys don`t think about this.Let's be honest,guys,Who of us think about protection and contraception,when we are horny,Me first,but i think that most of you also.

[Roses_Are_Yellow]

My mom got rid of her other two pregnancy's because they were boys. The only reason i'm around today is because I'm a girl. She wanted a mini version of herself..in fact, she used to dress me up like her personal doll, and coached me to pose for the camera when i was just barely two years old. I bet if the other two were girls, they would be around today.

Sorry...I'm going through an anti-mom stage...hard to explain....

[Jess]

^
I understand how you feel. I believe that India and China kill off their baby girls because they favor boys. In India then you can't know what the gender is.

[somethingrandom]

I kinda wanna jump into this debate since it's an interesting one. Personally, I find the idea of abortion incredibly repulsive, and I would advise anybody and everybody against having one, but I think that it should be legal to some extent. You shouldn't be able to abort a baby once he/she can survive outside the womb, and you shouldn't be able to have an abortion if you know the kid's gender. Other than that, it should be legal, but there should be lots of alternatives (being able to anonymously leave your kid at a hospital, adoption, social support, etc)

[Jess]

I would advise anybody and everybody against having one

yeah well women will still have it. people can keep telling them it's murder, it's wrong, there's better options but women will still have abortions because it's completely their choice. no one else should tell them what to do.

[Vonn]

I kinda wanna jump into this debate since it's an interesting one. Personally, I find the idea of abortion incredibly repulsive, and I would advise anybody and everybody against having one, but I think that it should be legal to some extent.

Forget the not-baby for a minute and put yourself in the almost-mother's position. There are circumstances where it would be wise to abort the baby before it's even alive, lest its life and the life of the mother go down the river.

You shouldn't be able to abort a baby once he/she can survive outside the womb, and you shouldn't be able to have an abortion if you know the kid's gender.

Okay, I find this agreeable. If you wait too long to make the decision, you might as well wait out the rest of the pregnancy.

Other than that, it should be legal, but there should be lots of alternatives (being able to anonymously leave your kid at a hospital, adoption, social support, etc)

Yes, because those always work out in the baby's favor. Abortion when it's hardly sentient, if at all; or a miserable existence that may result in mental illnesses and/or death. Which to pick...

Do people actually leave their newborns on doorsteps [-]on a dark and stormy night[/-]? Honestly, that's quite dramatic and dangerous.

[User Deleted]

I think people should feel free to abortions legally. First off, like you said, if you are raped you should have acess to an abortion. Second, if the two can not afford the child it is unfair to the young to suffer a lack of food and care. Third, call me cruel, if someone seriously young to have a child was denied an abortion, couldnt they kill the child out of stress (people do strange things when stressed by my experience) And lastly, the goverment shouldnt be allowed to interfere with things so personal, but they still occationally do anyways.

[somethingrandom]

Forget the not-baby for a minute and put yourself in the almost-mother's position. There are circumstances where it would be wise to abort the baby before it's even alive, lest its life and the life of the mother go down the river.

That's why adoption should be available (see the last thing for details) and then the mother won't be obliged to have an abortion or risk screwing up a kid's life

Yes, because those always work out in the baby's favor. Abortion when it's hardly sentient, if at all; or a miserable existence that may result in mental illnesses and/or death. Which to pick...

Sarcasm??

Do people actually leave their newborns on doorsteps [-]on a dark and stormy night[/-]? Honestly, that's quite dramatic and dangerous.

No, there's a program at a couple of hospitals here in Canada where you can leave your kid at the hospital within the first few weeks. You don't have to identify him/her or yourself, you just have to leave him/her there. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than having an abortion

[Vonn]

That's why adoption should be available (see the last thing for details) and then the mother won't be obliged to have an abortion or risk screwing up a kid's life

And if the kid(s) screws up the parent(s')'s life?

Sarcasm??

Yes, but feel free to answer the question. I'm curious now.

No, there's a program at a couple of hospitals here in Canada where you can leave your kid at the hospital within the first few weeks. You don't have to identify him/her or yourself, you just have to leave him/her there. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than having an abortion

Why is it better than having an abortion? What are the odds of it having a stable start in life?

[somethingrandom]

And if the kid(s) screws up the parent(s')'s life?

Well, I don't think that abortions should be meant to stop screwed up parents. They should be legal because they stop screwed up kids. If you look at the statistics, there was a HUGE crime drop in the United States 1990s. Coincidentally (well, not really), abortion was legalized in 1973. The kids who are most likely to go into crime were being aborted, so when those kids would've reached the age of 16-18, there were less criminals than there used to be. The same thing is happening right now in Canada.

Yes, but feel free to answer the question. I'm curious now.

What question?

Why is it better than having an abortion? What are the odds of it having a stable start in life?

It's better than having an abortion because, frankly, a fetus is a life in some sense. Sure, it shouldn't be protected as a life if it's not capable of surviving outside the womb, but it's better for him/her to be born than to have an abortion. And the odds are pretty good of him/her having a stable life if he/she is given the proper support and a good foster family to live with.

[Jess]

sometimes though, an abortion is better. and isn't it supposed to be safer than giving birth? yeah, I think so

[Korashk]

This is aimed at everyone in this thread expressing this sentiment that sometimes abortion is better for the fetus because of its potential life circumstances:

Who the fuck are you to make that call?

[CaptainObvious]

This is aimed at everyone in this thread expressing this sentiment that sometimes abortion is better for the fetus because of its potential life circumstances:

Who the fuck are you to make that call?

well obviously the statement is true, because the converse (that everyone in the history of the world would choose having lived over never having lived) is absurd.

that said it's not a particularly good argument, since i think it's safe to assume that the marginal fetus in our current world would probably prefer having the chance to live vs. never living.