Abortion Debate

[Bac]

Anything and everything someone wants to get off their chest about "the A-word" do it here-.
Looked upon by some as murder and as others as freedom of choice- this is and imo will remain one of the most controversial subjects in our culture for a long long time- because lets face it- ****** feels good- if it hurt like hell to have sex im pretty sure abortion would not be much of an issue.

My personal opinion on abortion is as follows: while im not going to get all scientific on yall *****- if someone whines enough i will find some articles and cite the following facts.
Fact 1- brains produce different "waves" beta, alpha ect... these wavelengths or lack there of are used to determine day in and day out whether or not someone should pull the plug on a brain dead relative "or vegetable as they are commonally known"- there is a standard on which you can act- when certain waves are no longer present- it is considered OK to pull the plug.
Fact 2- fetuses do not develop these "death waves" (thats what ill call them for now) for a couple of weeks- months after conception-

-----sooooo putting two and two together i would surmise that it would be perfectly allright to get an abortion before the date when the brain becomes "active" otherwise why isn't everyone up in arms about people in the hospital that are "braindead" being put to death? After that date- i would look down upon abortion as an option for normal cases. Special cases such as ****, or knowing the baby will have a horrible life affecting mutation may influence my mind one way or another.

----Any personal exp. people have had with Abortion that they think will enhance the debate, by all means share. Please share your view on abortion- why you have that view, and anything else you might want to add.

That being said id like to get a little flame off my chest- I attended a State University as a freshman this past year and during that time- twice we had Anti-abortion demonstrators walking around our campus holding huge ****ing signs with pictures of aborted babies. The would proceed to heckle people to take fliers and spread the word and when some women had the gall to tell them off they would be instantly swore at- ****, *****, devil something yada yada yada- Whatever- after seeing a girl almost crying after being called all these names because they found out she had an abortion- i proceeded to "get in the face" of some of the males of the group. long story short verbal abuse occurred and nothing more. Oh and they had a couple 8 year old girls holding signs as well. How ****ed up is it that these parent force these unknowing kids to back them in their goal to end abortion. anyways- i have nothing against people against abortion- i do have something against *******s against abortion who have to act like 10 year olds to get their point across. end flame

Discuss discuss discuss- and lets keep away from personally insulting other people because of their views eh?

 

[blazedaces]

Here was my first post in the DWYP where me and my partner debated this topic (it should be noted this doesn't completely reflect my position on the issue):

The affirmative's opening statement:

The pro-choice vs. pro-life debate tends to boil down to whether or not one believes abortion should be banned, that is, made illegal. Most pro-life proponents argue that the sanctity of life may not be violated, that the life of the fetus (who cannot defend himself), must be respected at all costs. Most pro-choice proponents argue that the choice of, that being the freedom to choose, whether or not to have a child is not dismissible under any circumstances. I will show that ultimately these arguments are irrelevant and that the proper ethical response lies in a utilitarian evaluation of all consequences of making abortion legal/illegal.

Note that I am purposefully ignoring any religious claims made by any side considering the following two reasons: one, different religions make different claims, and two, that in many countries there is a separation of church and state, as in the United States (6).

I will begin by defining some terms (all definitions are taken from The Merriam Webster Dictionary (1)):
-abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
-ethics: The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
-life:
1. The quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
2. The period from birth to death
-utilitarianism: a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number

The argument proposed by pro-life advocates I will call the “sanctity of life argument”. The question “when does life actually begin?” arises. Unfortunately, life is not so strictly defined. I have provided two definitions to highlight the fundamental problem pro-life advocates completely ignore. Does life begin as soon as the sperm and egg combine (or even prior)? Or does life begin after the child can react to sound and produce brain pattern readings showing signs of cognition? The answer is not obvious and may never be answered.

The argument proposed by most pro-choice advocates, however, does not have any vague unanswerable questions to deal with, and I will call it the “freedom of choice argument”: Ethically, an individual (in this case the mother at least) has the right to choose whether not to have a baby (2a).

Now I will begin to bring up issues that can’t be ignored, yet are absolutely ignored by these two common arguments.

There is often no choice at all:

On the other hand, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate tends to overlook the fact that the vast majority of women who have abortions do not, in fact, do so entirely by choice. Circumstances put them in a position where abortion is the least self-destructive option available to them.

According to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute (3), 68% of women who have abortions in the United States say that they cannot afford to have children and 27% cite this as their primary reason for terminating the pregnancy. 20% cite health reasons. 38% are young women either hiding pregnancies from their parents, or ordered by their parents to terminate their pregnancies.

(4)

Furthermore, there are plenty of genetically fatal diseases (I believe this is included in those previous statistics) that can be found prior to birth (5). Why should a mother wait to see her child die, in an often not painless death, at a slightly prolonged time, to avoid aborting the child? The “sanctity of life argument” becomes meaningless since the child’s life will soon end regardless of our actions.

The crux of my argument (that has very little to do with the two arguments proposed by most proponents) lies in evaluating, in a utilitarian manner (2b), the consequences of legalizing abortion.

First I will point out that in a paper entitled The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime (7) (and briefly explained in a book titled Freakonomics) it was shown that the legalization of abortion has resulted in reduced crime rates (and significantly reduced murder rates, nonexclusively of course). It was concluded by comparing the drop in crime in states which had legalized abortion prior to Roe vs. Wade (8), which legalized abortion nation-wide, versus those who did not. Furthermore this theory held up when comparing the same statistics of other countries (like Canada and Australia).

Secondly, I will point out that unwanted children, in an ideal situation where we ignore the idea of baby’s being left in dumpsters, are put up for adoption. The adoption system, unfortunately, is vastly overloaded even with abortion being legal in the United States (9)(10). There are simply too many children needing foster care and not enough parents wanting them. One could argue that an overloaded adoption system results in many children with a lower quality lifestyle than could be afforded to them had they been with a parent or set of parents..

In conclusion, considering that the legalization of abortion resulted in lower crime and murder rates, and considering that the legalization of abortion results in fewer children living a lower quality lifestyle, one can conclude that overall quality and quantity of life is increased by legalizing abortion.

References:
(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com
(2) http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/essays/moral.htm
a. The section titled “The Ethics of Respect for Persons”
b. The section titled “Utilitarianism”
(3) http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
(4) http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/tp/Pro-Life-vs-Pro-Choice.htm
a. The section titled “No Choice”
(5) http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Genetic_Disorders/desc.html
a. Search for the word fatal
(6) http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
(7) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508
a. Unfortunately, to look at this paper you must register for free first
(8) http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
(9) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm
(10) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/waiting2005.htm

-blazed

 

[Kur]

I am pro-life. Not for any religious reason (I am an atheist) but because of the one right that every person on this planet has, the right to life.

If an adult is injured and laying in the hospital with no brainwaves, yes they are basically dead and there having been no incidents of people recovering from this condition (that I know of) it would be feasible to end that persons life.

But that is not at all the same as an unborn fetus. The adult in the hospital has no chance of regaining brain activity. A fetus (barring any problems) WILL have an active brain in a matter of weeks.

If the adult with no brain activity had a 95% chance of a full recovery, would it still be ok to let them die? What if it was only 80%? 50%? If you own mother (or some other person you care for) was laying brain dead in a hospital and the doctor told you there was a 25% chance she would recover within a few weeks, would you wait or just pull the plug and let her die? What if it was somebody you have never met before but for some reason the choice was yours to make?

A healthy fetus has a (very close to) 100% chance of gaining brain activity.


A lot of pro-choice people argue "It is a womans body to do with as she pleases" which is fine, except that it is NOT her body that she is killing. A fetus, though attached to her, is a separate being. It has different DNA. It is NOT her.

Some argue that a fetus does not have the right to live because it relies completely on the mother to survive. How is that any different from a newborn, or a 1 year old, or a 3 year old? A 3 year old child certainly could never survive without the doting care of a parent or guardian.

Also, to defeat this argument, I have a question that I so far have never gotten an answer to (at least not from a person who is pro-choice) In the case of conjoined twins, if one twin has majority control of the shared body, and the other relies completely on the other to survive, is it the sole responsibility of the 'stronger' twin to decide to have their sibling removed (and subsequently killed) in an effort to lead a better, or more normal life? (or any other reason women getting an abortion give) After all, the 'weaker' twin relies completely on the others internal organs for survival, It can not survive at all without its sibling. It is only alive because its sibling is alive. The same as an unborn child.

And I do realize that separation procedures are done on conjoined twins, but that is almost always only if one of them is either dead, dying, brain dead, a parasitic twin, or if they both have a fairly good chance of surviving (barring complications)

Finally, the argument that a fetus is not human and is just a clump of cells, so who cares?

Show me a human fetus that is not made of 100% human cells, with 100% human DNA. A fetus is human. A fetus is obviously alive. So terminating a pregnancy is murder. Murder is described as "the killing of one human by another"

A fetus is a living human. Even if it is not fully developed, neither are some people born without legs, or fingers, or half their brain, etc.


Of course there are circumstances where abortion is an option. If the life of the mother is in serious risk if an abortion is not performed for instance. Or if there is a (near) 100% certainty the baby will not survive birth, though this is very difficult to prove.

There are of course many ways to prevent becoming pregnant in the first place. I understand that none of them are 100% 'safe' and that there are times (though pretty rare) where a **** results in a pregnancy.

What I want to know is how is it the fault of the baby if a condom breaks or their father was a a rapist?

And we live in a world with risks. We take risks in our daily lives. If you have sex and get pregnant, it was a risk you knew was there when you had sex. But we all have to live with the results if a risk does not pay off, just as we have to live with the results of a tragedy. A woman may not have wanted to become pregnant, just as her neighbor didn't want to lose his job, but to put it bluntly, **** happens and we all have to deal with it.

If a woman somehow becomes pregnant and just can not bring herself to raise a child, that is no reason to end its life. There are other ways to go about giving up responsibility.

Giving it up for adoption for one. Just this past week a 4 hour old baby was left on the door step of a church in Phoenix. Churches, police stations, fire departments, and a few other public buildings are recognized 'safe zones' to drop off babies, no questions asked. It seems almost too easy to give a child a chance at life, so why bother going through a surgical procedure to kill a baby?



This really has nothing to do with the topic, but it is really sick, some of the reasons given for abortions.

"It will change my life to have a child" Yeah, no kidding.

"I don't want stretch marks" Always classy.

"I hate the father" Not the babies fault.

"I don't like to use condoms" Way to be responsible.

These are just a few, but even if you are ok with the idea of abortion, can you really agree that these are justifiable reasons to terminate the growth and life of a human being?

 

[Crimson King]

I'm pro-choice simply because I don't have any possibility of having a child or experiencing the pain of pregnancy or experiencing the emotional problems that the mother will have to endure if her baby is the product of ****. Fact is, I'm a male, so I think I should have no real say in whether or not it should be illegal.

Kur, I can easily refute your statements:

"It will change my life to have a child" Yeah, no kidding.

"I don't want stretch marks" Always classy.

"I hate the father" Not the babies fault.

"I don't like to use condoms" Way to be responsible.

The first one usually resorts in the mother and father of the child abandoning it anyway, and I have never heard the second one as a reasonable excuse to have a baby.

For the third, I find it legit. If a mother has a child from a man she hates, say her own father or brother or just another man who really hurt her, she will harm the baby. Post-partum depression has lead to mothers murdering their children in very sick and awful ways. Would you rather the mother kill a fetus, which does not experience pain until a certain point, or would you rather her torture her baby?

For the forth point, it's obvious how that is wrong. If a person will not take the responsibility to wear a condom, then they will not be responsible enough to take care of a child.

Keep in mind, I am not for murdering kids. I think that if the parent will not be responsible enough to take care of the kid, and since adopted kids can go through some pretty hard lives, abortion is the best for everyone. I'd like to think of it as a purely last resort though.

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

I am pro-choice because I believe that the choice is necessary in extreme situations like those that would ruin the mothers life. Also in the case of ****, I believe the woman has the right to protect herself financially without the burden of a child that was in no way her fault.

However, I personally believe that in most situations, the fetus should be birthed and at least given the chance to live. If the mother is unfit to take care of the child, then it can be put up for adoption.

 

[Peeze]

For the third, I find it legit. If a mother has a child from a man she hates, say her own father or brother or just another man who really hurt her, she will harm the baby. Post-partum depression has lead to mothers murdering their children in very sick and awful ways. Would you rather the mother kill a fetus, which does not experience pain until a certain point, or would you rather her torture her baby?

You cant say she will hurt the child. In fact the oppostie is true, most mothers who are abused take good care of their children, and try to protect them from abuse.
And your throwing in postpartum depression was wrong as well. After pregnancy, hormonal changes in a woman's body may trigger symptoms of depression. During pregnancy, the amount of two female hormones, estrogen and progesterone, in a woman's body increases greatly. In the first 24 hours after childbirth, the amount of these hormones rapidly drops back down to their normal non-pregnant levels. Researchers say this fast change in hormone levels causes post partum depression

Further www.Womenshealth.gov says factors that contribute to post partum depression include:
*Feeling tired after delivery, broken sleep patterns, and not enough rest often keeps a new mother from regaining her full strength for weeks.
*Feeling overwhelmed with a new, or another, baby to take care of and doubting your ability to be a good mother.
*Feeling stress from changes in work and home routines. Sometimes, women think they have to be "super mom" or perfect, which is not realistic and can add stress.
*Having feelings of loss — loss of identity of who you are, or were, before having the baby, loss of control, loss of your pre-pregnancy figure, and feeling less attractive.
*Having less free time and less control over time. Having to stay home indoors for longer periods of time and having less time to spend with the your partner and loved ones.

And truthfully, how many mothers have you heard killing their babies because of post-partum depression a year? 5, 6 maybe 10 tops? That in no way justifies the killing of millions of fetuses a year

 

[cF=)]

Kur, you can't take a couple of cells and give it the same properties a human being has because both are not the same! You said it yourself, in a couple of weeks will the baby really appear. That's like saying we could murder old people since they're on the verge of death. After all, in a couple of weeks they would die anyway...

I feel you're trying to stretch the actual definition of a human being to include a non living organism.

 

[manhunter098]

For the third, I find it legit. If a mother has a child from a man she hates, say her own father or brother or just another man who really hurt her, she will harm the baby. Post-partum depression has lead to mothers murdering their children in very sick and awful ways. Would you rather the mother kill a fetus, which does not experience pain until a certain point, or would you rather her torture her baby?

Im not exactly certain if this argument is valid. If she hates the father she can just do a dump and run on him, unless he already has done so with her. But assuming that the father intends to take care of the child, its safety with her is a non issue. This argument really just fades away into the question if its the womans body does she have the right to not experience the pain and risks associated with pregnancy and birth in exchange for the life of the child?





To add in my own views. I think that since leaving the baby in the proper custody is essentially always an option the changing of ones life due to now having a child isnt a valid argument.

All in all I would still say that the abortion of a child in any case is murder, but Im somewhat in favor of allowing that type of murder to be legalized because I think that it would be better for the world to not exceed its carrying capacity for humans, and the killing of a human that has never possessed a mental intention to live is better than the killing of a human that has at least previously had the intention to live. That does mean however once the fetus develops some brain function outside of initial formation of brain tissue that to have an abortion at that time might be a violation of the fetus' intent to live, since we cannot tell at what stage a fetus starts to want to live at. And to draw a line here for clarification, I do feel that a newborn possesses the intent to live because it will not only actively eat if given something its capable of eating, but will bring attention to itself in order to get food, and even if its still an instinctual will to live, its still a mental function and there is no certain time when we can understand it gains that function, except that it definitely cannot possess it until some degree of brain formation has been completed.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I'm pro-choice.

Ideally, It would be good if everyone had the child and put it up for adoption or raised it. But of course, the world isn't black and white, there are some grey areas too.

 

[Kur]

Kur, you can't take a couple of cells and give it the same properties a human being has because both are not the same! You said it yourself, in a couple of weeks will the baby really appear. That's like saying we could murder old people since they're on the verge of death. After all, in a couple of weeks they would die anyway...

I feel you're trying to stretch the actual definition of a human being to include a non living organism.

Non living organism? They are living human cells. They are alive. Just because they can't sit up and say 'momma' is of no consequence.

And I did not say "In a couple of weeks the baby will appear" I said it would have brain activity in a matter of weeks. How does brain activity qualify something as human?

Humans go through various developmental stages throughout their lives. Adults are different from teens, teens from children, children from babies, babies from fetuses, to zygotes, etc. We change so much through our lives, how can you simply pick a stage and say "There, right there it isn't a human, go ahead and kill it if you want"

And again, your 'murdering old people' argument doesn't work. Mainly because I am the one saying we shouldn't kill anybody, fetuses or old people, and secondly, because of the reasons I gave for the brain activity argument.


CK, I don't think it really matters if you are male or female. Remember that a baby is not just a clone of the mother. Half of its DNA comes from a father. A father should have just as much say in what happens to the child.

Not only that, but it doesn't matter what sex you are to know if killing a human is ok or not.

And simply declaring that a woman will abuse her child because she hates the father is completely false.

Do you have any idea how many mothers out there raised their children just fine even if they hated the father? As it turns out I look almost EXACTLY like my father, who used to beat my mother on a regular basis. My mother hates my father more than I thought was possible.

Even women who are ***** tend to take good care of their babies. Most try to bring good of a terrible situation.

And as I've said, if a woman thinks she simply can not deal with it, there are many ways to give the baby a chance at life through adoption and such. And yes, some adopted kids have hard lives, but a lot do not. And isn't a hard life better than no life at all? And I know giving birth is supposed to be the most painful thing in the world (I seriously have doubts about that) but I think a few minutes, hours, or even days of pain is worth the life of a person. Not only that but there are things like C-sections, and epidurals, that greatly reduce the pain the mother goes through.



I am still waiting for a pro-choice answer to my conjoined twins question by the way...

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm pro-life, because after having my son, I realized that a human being does come from those few cells that some are so quick to dismiss. I draw the line at implantation, that is when the fertilized egg implants on the uterus' wall. I have no problem with IUDs or the Plan B pill, because a fertilized egg has no chance to become a baby if its not implanted. After that step though, I believe it is wrong to terminate that life, because it will, under normal circumstances, become a person.

I used to be pro-choice, until I really thought about it. My position was similar to many people: I personally found abortion to be terrible and tantamount to murder, but I felt that a woman should have the right to do so if she chose.

Wait, what?

I personally found abortion to be terrible and tantamount to murder, but I felt that a woman should have the right to do so if she chose.

How is that a consistent position? If I truly believe that abortion is murder, how can I allow anyone to commit it? Should we allow other exceptions for certain people to kill certain other people (this line of reasoning, by the way, also led me to change my views on capital punishment)?

Even if you look at the names themselves: Pro-life vs. Pro-Choice. Pro-Choice. No one is actually pro-abortion, but they put aside their personal beliefs to allow someone else to commit an act that is wrong.

I have known a woman that was ***** by her father and became pregnant. I knew a woman that treated abortion like birth control, and had three in her life. In my personal experience, it is much more common to find the latter case of abortion than the former (in fact, I find that I know several women who have had multiple abortions, but only the one who was actually ***** into pregnancy). I feel bad for the girl who was *****, but adoption exists. Don't give me the "it's not that easy" answer. We're not talking about cooking dinner or riding a bike, someone is going to die as a result of this abortion. We cannot allow the exception (****) to dictate the rule (Roe vs. Wade).

For those who are pro-choice but are personally against abortion, how do you juxtapose those positions? I couldn't any longer, so I changed my mind.

EDIT- I heard David Brooks make a good point about abortion a few months ago (I'm paraphrasing):

The Democrats continue moving to the left on the abortion debate because that's the only direction they can go. If they ever concede that a baby is being killed, then the debate is over.

I think that's how most people characterize their own pro-choice positions without even realizing it.

 

[Deleted member]

^ Amazing post.

 

[OffTheChain]

While I do have moral issues with abortion, I have even bigger issues with people telling others what they cannot do based on their personal preference and regarding their body. Abortion should remain as an option so I am Pro choice.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

^ I agree.

David Brooks argument is flawed. If you're having a debate with someone, and you agree with their point of view, the debate is over. It's doesn't matter what it is.

 

[cF=)]

Non living organism? They are living human cells. They are alive. Just because they can't sit up and say 'momma' is of no consequence.

Completely false, or else masturbation could be considered murder because a "living human cell" died in the process.

And I did not say "In a couple of weeks the baby will appear" I said it would have brain activity in a matter of weeks. How does brain activity qualify something as human?

Abortion normally acts upon a foetus unable to feel pain, unable to suffer and not even knowledgeable of himself. This is why brain activity is extremely important in this context, and fortunately, it does not appear before a couple of weeks after the sex act (I don't have the number of days precisely, but this is well defined in our laws). Inducing human feelings to a bunch of cells does not represent the reality of human development.

And again, your 'murdering old people' argument doesn't work. Mainly because I am the one saying we shouldn't kill anybody, fetuses or old people, and secondly, because of the reasons I gave for the brain activity argument.

Two problems arise with this statement. First, you put old people and foetuses in the same category, something impossible following the scientific definition of human life. Second, my analogy works because you project life in something which will LATER be able to think, feel, and interact with its environment. Basically, if I project that LATER old people will die, why not kill them as soon as possible?

I draw the line at implantation, that is when the fertilized egg implants on the uterus' wall. I have no problem with IUDs or the Plan B pill, because a fertilized egg has no chance to become a baby if its not implanted. After that step though, I believe it is wrong to terminate that life, because it will, under normal circumstances, become a person.

Following scientific knowledge of baby making, you draw your line way too soon as I pointed out already against Kur. You cannot arbitrarily give your newly created bunch of cells any life characteristics until the baby as knowledge of himself, or else, any human cell could be a living entity on his own following your definition.

 

[Crimson King]

One thing I never really understood as to why it's not a valid argument: the baby cannot survive outside of the mother's body until a certain point.

When it's those "living bundle of cells," if you take it out of the environment of the mother, it'll die fairly fast. The whole argument for "pro-choice" is that women should have the right to choose what happens with their body, and since those cells need her body until they mature, wouldn't that pretty much say it IS the mother's choice?

I'd like some clarification on this.

 

[marthanoob]

I'm pro-choice.

Basically, the pro-life argument is an argument from potential. Every egg has the potential to form a baby, given a sperm, so the argument from potential simply doesn't hold.

Is birth control murder too?

If the baby is unwanted, and it is living off of a mother, then it can be defined as a parasite.
dictionary.com - "an animal or plant that lives in or on a host; it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
A human has the right to remove a parasite from her body.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

I... don't care. I have no opinion either way about abortion at all. I think that as a man, it's not my choice, so I don't really have an opinion.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Pluvia, the point that Brooks was trying to make is that there is no middle ground in the abortion debate, no room for movement on either side. You either believe a life is being taken, or you don't.

Imagine we were debating about nuclear power. I could concede that nuclear energy is greener than coal plants, but still be against them because of the risks associated with them. The same can't be said for the abortion debate, because as soon as you concede the other's side only point, then you're on their side (or at least you should be).

That's what I find so perplexing about this whole thing. Most of what I've seen in this thread is, "I disagree with abortion, but a woman should have the right to choose." Which actually means, "I think abortion is taking a life, but a woman should have the right to choose to take a life." Does that make sense?

Besides, when did an elective surgical procedure become a right?

Following scientific knowledge of baby making, you draw your line way too soon as I pointed out already against Kur. You cannot arbitrarily give your newly created bunch of cells any life characteristics until the baby as knowledge of himself, or else, any human cell could be a living entity on his own following your definition.

My son is one year old now, and when he looks in a mirror he doesn't realize that he's looking at himself; he thinks he's seeing another baby. So is it okay if I decide one day that I don't want him anymore and kill him?

One thing I never really understood as to why it's not a valid argument: the baby cannot survive outside of the mother's body until a certain point.

When it's those "living bundle of cells," if you take it out of the environment of the mother, it'll die fairly fast. The whole argument for "pro-choice" is that women should have the right to choose what happens with their body, and since those cells need her body until they mature, wouldn't that pretty much say it IS the mother's choice?

I'd like some clarification on this.

Her choice to do what? To destroy that bundle of cells? When did it become okay to deny life?

Besides, I said that under normal circumstances, a fertilized egg that has implanted in the uterus will become a baby (although, there is a 10-15% chance that the pregnancy will naturally abort itself). Removing the "living bundle of cells" from the womb is definitely not a normal circumstance.

If the baby is unwanted, and it is living off of a mother, then it can be defined as a parasite.
dictionary.com - "an animal or plant that lives in or on a host; it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
A human has the right to remove a parasite from her body.

That is a gross oversimplification of the debate.

I... don't care. I have no opinion either way about abortion at all. I think that as a man, it's not my choice, so I don't really have an opinion.

You contribute 50% of the baby's genetic material. You (presumably) will care for your pregnant partner, and then will care for the child. Of course you have a say in the matter, it's your child too!

 

[marthanoob]

That is a gross oversimplification of the debate.

You have not even attempted to refute it.

 

[Crimson King]

You contribute 50% of the baby's genetic material. You (presumably) will care for your pregnant partner, and then will care for the child. Of course you have a say in the matter, it's your child too!

This is pretty much the one thing I will disagree with until the end. The baby is dependent on the mother until it comes to term. How can I as a responsible human being demand of the mother to bring it to term when many women, despite our medical advances STILL die in pregnancy. When babies, despite our advances, still are still-born. If that woman didn't want the child, and I forced her to have the kid, other than the rights issues there, she would be devastatingly broken.

 

[Jam Stunna]

This is pretty much the one thing I will disagree with until the end. The baby is dependent on the mother until it comes to term. How can I as a responsible human being demand of the mother to bring it to term when many women, despite our medical advances STILL die in pregnancy. When babies, despite our advances, still are still-born. If that woman didn't want the child, and I forced her to have the kid, other than the rights issues there, she would be devastatingly broken.

Of course you can demand for your child to be carried to term. Death during labor is the exception, and a rare one here in the US.

The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/

It takes two people to make a baby, right? If the decision to terminate the baby must be made, then it must be made by both people as well.

You have not even attempted to refute it.

Refute what? Your characterization of a fetus as a parasite? Well then, let's just throw around dictionary.com definitions, shall we?

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

parasite =/= fetus.

 

[Crimson King]

In my 21 years, I have know at least 10 people who have had their mothers die during pregnancy. This is a town of 15,000 people, which doesn't sound like a whole lot, but to those families, it was devastating. One incident is exactly like I brought up. Religious family. The mother was older, in her 40s, I believe, and that had two kids already, but the father wanted more. Her heart couldn't take the stress from birth, and they had told her it'd be critical to do some things to ensure the baby survived. She died, the baby was born premature, and the kids and father were left with no one because the father was just an organist at church and such, and she was the family bread winner.

The other stories abortion wasn't even considered, but the oldest said his mom and dad talked about it because of the risks and dangers implied.

 

[cF=)]

My son is one year old now, and when he looks in a mirror he doesn't realize that he's looking at himself; he thinks he's seeing another baby. So is it okay if I decide one day that I don't want him anymore and kill him?

The first part of this post is non sequitur, but the second one is astonishing: are you asking me if killing a fully grown, developed and thinking human being is murder, or are you wrongly associating a born child to a bunch of cells?

Enlighten me.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

parasite =/= fetus.

You haven't actually shown this. There's nothing to prevent something satisfying the definition of fetus you provide and the definiton of parasite that he provided.

Anyway, let me ask anti-abortion proponents two things. When does a fertilized egg become a "human being" and why should we at that line in the sand confer rights to it? And if abortion were to be legal, what negative impact would this have on society at large?

 

[Kur]

Completely false, or else masturbation could be considered murder because a "living human cell" died in the process.

No, because sperm cells contain only HALF the genetic code required to form a baby. Sperm cells are continually absorbed and recycled by the male body if not used. A sperm cell can not grow into a living human being by itself.

The masturbation argument is completely invalid.

Abortion normally acts upon a foetus unable to feel pain, unable to suffer and not even knowledgeable of himself. This is why brain activity is extremely important in this context, and fortunately, it does not appear before a couple of weeks after the sex act (I don't have the number of days precisely, but this is well defined in our laws). Inducing human feelings to a bunch of cells does not represent the reality of human development.

So, because abortion is usually done early, then it must be ok to do abortions early? Is that what you are saying? Sounds a little... circular to me..

What about partial birth abortions? The baby is carried to term, the doctor turns it around breach, delivers it to the neck, and sticks scissors into the back of its head and scrambles the brains to kill it. Think I am making it up? Google it. What is it about that last couple seconds it would have taken to pull the head out, that makes that baby less than human, and therefor, a waste product?

If you are pro-choice, where do you draw the line? How late is too late to have an abortion? Second trimester, third? What is the difference? It is all just a clump of cells right? Until the baby is removed from the mother, and I guess sprinkled with magic fairy dust to transform it into a human, it isn't a living human being?
If you deliver a baby and then put it back in a split second later, is it no longer a human worth keeping alive? Or was that split second outside of the mother enough to 'humanify' the baby?

Brain activity is not an issue. Re-read my first post in this thread for the reason. There are people who can not feel, pain or otherwise, there are people who are not self aware. These people are still people and deserve as much a chance at life as anybody else. Once the sperm and the egg come into contact, it is no longer 'just some cells', it is a growing human being with a full set of its own unique DNA.

And yes, I can just choose a point to call the 'point of no return' because at this particular point, a drastic change takes place, going from 0% chance of new living human, to something like an 80% chance of a new living human.

And just what do pro-choice people mean when they say "just a bunch of cells"? Who isn't just a bunch of cells? If you aren't "just a bunch of cells" then what are you made of?

Or is it that you have more cells than a fetus?

Two problems arise with this statement. First, you put old people and foetuses in the same category, something impossible following the scientific definition of human life. Second, my analogy works because you project life in something which will LATER be able to think, feel, and interact with its environment. Basically, if I project that LATER old people will die, why not kill them as soon as possible?

No, YOU put old people and fetuses in the same category.

And please, if you have a scientific definition of life, there are 350 million people in this country on either side of this debate that would love to hear it.

And again, I really don't understand what this fascination with thinking and feeling is with people who are pro-choice. Life does not require thought or emotion, or physical sensation. A person in a coma, or even asleep, has NONE of those things yet they are considered alive.

Following scientific knowledge of baby making, you draw your line way too soon as I pointed out already against Kur. You cannot arbitrarily give your newly created bunch of cells any life characteristics until the baby as knowledge of himself, or else, any human cell could be a living entity on his own following your definition.

Again, you are just arbitrarily assigning a condition to fit your views. As I pointed out previously, there are people, fully grown adults, who have no self awareness at all due to defects and injuries. It usually takes a child until the age of 2 or 3 to recognize themselves in a mirror, and until the age of 4 or 5 to realize they are more than just a talking head. It takes from 7 all the way up to 12 years of age for a child to fully understand what death is, and that they will someday die themselves.

By your definition we could 'abort' almost anybody under the age of 9 or 10.

And by our definition any living human cell would NOT be its own entity, simply because any living human cell CAN NOT grow into a separate human being.



CK, the fact that there are occasional deaths and stillborn births is in no way the rule. These kinds of things are extremely unlikely in modern society and if you actually know 10 people who's mother died in child birth in your town, I suggest finding out what is in the water there, or if your doctors degrees are real.

And as far as the mother who was in her 40s with 2 children already, that is just a serious lack of responsibility, and yet another reason why I can't stand religion.

And I have already pointed out that there should be exceptions for abortion. If it can be determined that the mothers life is at serious risk, if it can be determined the baby will not survive birth, or has a fatal defect, for example.

But just because you can not physically give birth to your children does not mean you have no say in whether or not they can be born. A father is needed to create the baby, and a father raises the child just as much as the mother does. You are telling me the father has no rights because of the (usually) less than 1% of it's life it spent inside the mother?



Marthanoob,

The argument for potential does not hold. But not because of the reasons you think. Yes, every egg, given a sperm, can become a baby. But that requires a bit of work doesn't it? Just as I could say "Every pound of plutonium, given a carefully constructed detonating device, can become a nuclear bomb!"

Birth control prevents the egg and sperm from ever joining. No joining, no baby. With birth control there is no potential. No egg will become a baby without sperm.

Also, once the egg and sperm have joined, there is no potential. It has already happened. The egg and sperm have become a growing human being with its own unique DNA, and its own cells, different from the mother or the father. It is human, it is alive, and it is growing. It may not LOOK like a human, or act like a human, but no baby looks or acts like an adult either. It is just an earlier stage of our lives, that's all.

A human fetus is not a parasite. It is as simple as looking at what a parasite is. It is a foreign body that invades, then survives by consuming (preferably without killing) its host.

A human fetus does not invade. The mothers body creates it. And find me any example of a parasite that feeds on its own species. Every animal on the planet must breed and procreate to survive. Carrying your offspring inside your body is simply a way to do that safely. It is so far different from a parasite I actually feel stupid having to explain it like this.



And again, it is NOT the womans right to choose. It is NOT her body. It is the life and body of her offspring. That person growing inside her has the one undeniable, inalienable right that all humans have. That is the right to life, and that far outweighs the mothers right to not be pregnant, unless that pregnancy has a serious risk of ending the mothers life. Then it is her choice. Then she can choose.

And I STILL haven't gotten an answer to my conjoined twins question.

 

[Bac]

Being pro-my idea id like to ask some questions to everyone- pro-choice and pro-life(mainly pro-lifers though). Okay... say abortion is declared illegal
1. What is the punishment for getting one( cause you sure as hell know people still will-abortion in one form or another has been around for centuries- from herbs by Native Americans to other more barbaric forms)- will we lock people up who get abortions in our already overflowing jails for what... 1st degree murder?
2. By outlawing abortion we can be sure that the (illegal) facilities that still carry it on will be extremely less suited to a dangerous medical procedure than ones endorsed by the state...
3. Or women who don't want their baby will just attempt to abort it themselves- extremely dangerous- most likely causing the death of them and the baby- we are trying to save lives right?

more statements then questions... oh well- So imagine Abortion is outlawed/banned/made illegal/fined etc.... what would happen?

Im asking pro-lifers here- What EXACTLY to you want changed?

 

[cF=)]

No, because sperm cells contain only HALF the genetic code required to form a baby. Sperm cells are continually absorbed and recycled by the male body if not used. A sperm cell can not grow into a living human being by itself.

The masturbation argument is completely invalid.

Wait, now it has something to do with DNA? What about removed organs, burnt skin, or anything else related to cells with their full 64 chromosomes? Is it murder? Doesn't seem like a coherent definition to me.

So, because abortion is usually done early, then it must be ok to do abortions early? Is that what you are saying? Sounds a little... circular to me..

It's circular to you, but I guess you just misread the part where it talked about feelings and such. I won't repeat myself for your lack of comprehension.

What about partial birth abortions? The baby is carried to term, the doctor turns it around breach, delivers it to the neck, and sticks scissors into the back of its head and scrambles the brains to kill it.

I believe this is cruel in every way possible, but how is this supposed to turn down abortion? Using a clearly unrelated practise doesn't count for all the abortion cleanly and professionally done everyday. I'll call a misrepresentation on what you said.

If you are pro-choice, where do you draw the line? How late is too late to have an abortion? Second trimester, third? What is the difference? It is all just a clump of cells right?

Absolutely not, humanity is easily dated! Taken from the biology book I read in college, here's a quick summary: as soon as the 10th week, the baby will experience electrical discharge in his brain and three weeks later, his first neurotransmitters responsible for pleasure and pain recognition will appear. Isn't it precise enough to understand that, during the 13th week, our replicating cells will now gain humanity? It's as unbiased as possible and it's a definition that doesn't interfere with any other replicating cells. Therefore, humanity is easily dated in the womb and abortion can proceed.

Brain activity is not an issue. Re-read my first post in this thread for the reason. There are people who can not feel, pain or otherwise, there are people who are not self aware. These people are still people and deserve as much a chance at life as anybody else.

I completely agree, but this is the matter of another topic since these persons are already born and already gained their human status. I don't feel this has to be debated here.

And just what do pro-choice people mean when they say "just a bunch of cells"? Who isn't just a bunch of cells? If you aren't "just a bunch of cells" then what are you made of?

Perhaps this was not defined enough to your liking, and I apologize. Still, a "bunch of cells", in my book, is self replicating cells which only obeys what the DNA is telling them. Afterwards, like I already explained, these cells will create an organ called the brain and it's at this specific place that neurones (brain cells) will carry electrical messages responsible for thought process, feelings, memory and much more.

No, YOU put old people and fetuses in the same category.

I said it but I'll repeat, an argument from potential is illogical since we could POTENTIALLY attribute death to anybody and kill them for the same reason you would save a foetus for his POTENTIAL life.

And again, I really don't understand what this fascination with thinking and feeling is with people who are pro-choice. Life does not require thought or emotion, or physical sensation. A person in a coma, or even asleep, has NONE of those things yet they are considered alive.

I feel this deserves its own topic.

Again, you are just arbitrarily assigning a condition to fit your views.

Not at all, my information is took from a biology course.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

What about unsafe abortion? 10,000 women die in Nigeria every year trying to have an unsafe abortion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7328830.stm

If abortion were to be made illegal, then of course women would start having unsafe abortions. This clearly has a high death rate.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You haven't actually shown this. There's nothing to prevent something satisfying the definition of fetus you provide and the definiton of parasite that he provided.

Anyway, let me ask anti-abortion proponents two things. When does a fertilized egg become a "human being" and why should we at that line in the sand confer rights to it? And if abortion were to be legal, what negative impact would this have on society at large?

The point was that using a dictionary.com definition in a debate gets you nowhere.

There will always be differences about an arbitrary point that people seize on to define humanity. I openly admit that mine is arbitrary, but there has to be some line drawn. No one here would support an abortion carried out in the 8th month, would they? Isn't that just as arbitrary?

There doesn't need to be proof of societal harm for something to be wrong. Those of us against abortion believe that an individual life is being taken. That's all the justification we need to want abortion to be illegal.

And no one has yet to answer my question: how is allowing someone to carry out a procedure you find wrong a consistent moral stance? How can you justify your belief that abortion is wrong, and then allow someone else to have one?

 

[Peeze]

CF your masturbation equals murder analogy is incorrect, because its your own cells dying not someone else's. When your killing a fetus, its not your own cells your destroying, its a combination, an entirely new being. Then it becomes murder.

Yes women can die during pregnancy. Women also can die driving. Do they give up driving all together? No but they accept the risks associated with driving when they get behind the wheel. Women accept the risks associated with sex when they open their legs. Aborting it because "i changed my mind", or "it'll ruin my life is irresponsible".

 

[Pluvia's other account]

And no one has yet to answer my question: how is allowing someone to carry out a procedure you find wrong a consistent moral stance? How can you justify your belief that abortion is wrong, and then allow someone else to have one?

It's not my choice to decide what other people do. If abortion was to be made illegal, then the situation would not improve. I already pointed out above that many women die trying to have unsafe abortions, and many other people above have pointed out that the cells that are aborted are just cells. Also what good would come of making it illegal?

Btw I don't represent what everyone else here thinks, only what I think.

 

[Deleted member]

Pluvia, since when are laws made globally? You can't expect a Nigerian quality-of-life statistic to be relevant to the first world.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The point was that using a dictionary.com definition in a debate gets you nowhere.

I see, I would agree with THAT point, then.

There will always be differences about an arbitrary point that people seize on to define humanity. I openly admit that mine is arbitrary, but there has to be some line drawn. No one here would support an abortion carried out in the 8th month, would they? Isn't that just as arbitrary?

Suppose I said I would. If you concede that your line is arbitrary then wouldn't you have no basis on which to judge mine?

There doesn't need to be proof of societal harm for something to be wrong. Those of us against abortion believe that an individual life is being taken. That's all the justification we need to want abortion to be illegal.

Maybe not to be "wrong," but to be ILLEGAL, I think there does, since you are trying to tell other people what is 'wrong.' But that still doesn't answer the question of whether there actually IS societal harm or not.

And no one has yet to answer my question: how is allowing someone to carry out a procedure you find wrong a consistent moral stance? How can you justify your belief that abortion is wrong, and then allow someone else to have one?

That's easy, because it's still more wrong to attempt to force one's definition of 'wrong' onto other people. You can feel free to convince them by argument of their wrongness, but it is wrong to forcibly insert yourself in order to propagate YOUR idea of 'wrong' into the lives of others.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Pluvia, since when are laws made globally? You can't expect a Nigerian quality-of-life statistic to be relevant to the first world.

Of course.

But that doesn't counter the fact that women would have unsafe abortions if abortion was made illegal. It is not unheard of in the first world.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The first part of this post is non sequitur, but the second one is astonishing: are you asking me if killing a fully grown, developed and thinking human being is murder, or are you wrongly associating a born child to a bunch of cells?

Enlighten me.

I missed this earlier, so I'll respond now. You were the one who suggested that we shouldn't give life characteristics until a human is self-aware. Well, babies aren't self-aware, so by your definition, they are disposable.

 

[Deleted member]

Of course not, but that could be remedied by getting the message out there that adoption should not have the stigma it has. There are several ways of doing this.

I'll give you an example: in British Columbia, Canada, obviously drugs like heroin and cocaine are illegal, but the drug problem in Vancouver is out of control. All over the city nowadays, you'll see "safe-sites", where you can go and shoot up under supervision of professionals. These are government funded buildings. Do you see where I'm getting at?

There can be illegal things in this world with very legal ways of handling them. The safe-sites also focus on trying to "crack" the habit - how? I don't actually know. Reducing dosages?

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Of course not, but that could be remedied by getting the message out there that adoption should not have the stigma it has. There are several ways of doing this.

I'll give you an example: in British Columbia, Canada, obviously drugs like heroin and cocaine are illegal, but the drug problem in Vancouver is out of control. All over the city nowadays, you'll see "safe-sites", where you can go and shoot up under supervision of professionals. These are government funded buildings. Do you see where I'm getting at?

There can be illegal things in this world with very legal ways of handling them. The safe-sites also focus on trying to "crack" the habit - how? I don't actually know. Reducing dosages?

But how would they work this out for abortion? Say for example a 14 year old got pregnant, would she go to one of these buildings to have an unsafe abortion under the supervision of professionals? Or would she go to one of these places to have an abortion?

If abortion was illegal but there were buildings funded by the government that you could go to, to have an abortion, wouldn't that completely ruin the point?

 

[Deleted member]

There can be illegal things in this world with very legal ways of handling them.

Encourage adoption, encourage safe-sex, encourage responsibility, discourage abortion.

I've already proven that while still illegal, there are government buildings that allow addicts to commit technically illegal activities under the watchful eye of professionals. If absolutely necessary, after the woman has given the entire situation plenty of thought, then these safe-zones would be there to assist them with their "necessary evil".

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

IMO, human life begins at the same time that it ends, when one has lost the ability to feel complex human emotions and have synaptic thought.

A fetus with an underdeveloped brain should not be put under the same ethical treatment as a child with a developed brain and can make decisions and feels pain and complex human emotions so stop comparing a three week old fetus to a 5 year old child.

And again, the health and life (referring to social and financial life) of a fully grown mother should not come second to the life of an underdeveloped fetus.

Women deserve the right to protect their bodies in regards to pregnancy just like any other health burden.

Another question to consider is "should the mother be allowed to abort the pregnancy without consent from the biological father? Or does the father have equal weight in the decision to the mother?