Abortion Debate

[Pluvia's other account]

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".

So basically abortion clinics like we already have. The only difference being that your method means that abortion is illegal and must be carried out in secrecy.

 

[Deleted member]

Okay clearly you don't get it.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Okay clearly you don't get it.

You're not being clear on what you want me to get. If it's, "There can be illegal things in this world with very legal ways of handling them", then I've already mentioned that that wouldn't work for abortion.

And if it's, "Encourage adoption, encourage safe-sex, encourage responsibility, discourage abortion", then I'm pretty sure we already do all of those things.

 

[Deleted member]

No, we don't. Because the stigma is still on adoption and not abortion. Sure, abortion has a stigma, but it's seen as birth control in many cases. It's not.

 

[Bac]

I must say i agree mostly with Pluvia- I don't understand what if any good having this "safe clinics" where abortions would still be undertaken as usual would do in the eyes of a pro-lifer- just because it may be more difficult to get one doesn't mean its gonna be more difficult then 3 trimesters-in other words if women still want it they'll get it.

I'm just interested in what EXACTLY pro-lifers think should happen- all i hear is abortion is murder, abortion is bad- all complaints but NO solutions to the fact that abortion is going to be carried out forever and ever and ever and ever and ever- as long as human beings are still becoming pregnant and not being grown in pods- ala The Matrix.

I want some hard solutions (and if someone says "just don't get them, its not that hard" they aren't contributing much to the solution imo)- no more complaints- or how its "murder" provide some constructive, brainstorming fodder- ergo: fines, jail time, ect... to discourage(i agree with none of these by the way, just trying to light the fire)

And if brainstorming possible solutions is really THAT hard... then i guess we should get used to having to deal with abortions as part of our culture...without complaining(I am in no way targeting anyone in this thread with my comments on complaining- speaking more towards the protester type people on my campus) Little harsh perhaps but I felt it had to be said.

 

[lonejedi]

I thought I'd bring some stats into this debate, since no stats have been brought up.



http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html


"1% of all abortions occur because of **** or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 (This was taken from 1996 I believe, a little outdated, but still useful)

Only 6% happen because of health issues and only 1% happen because of ****. Abortion has become the easy path for people who can't keep their pants on when they need to be kept on.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

No, we don't. Because the stigma is still on adoption and not abortion. Sure, abortion has a stigma, but it's seen as birth control in many cases. It's not.

Abortion already has a lot of stigma as it is, which is how this debate came about really. And of course we could work to decrease the stigma on adoption, we just don't need to make abortion illegal in the process.

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

@jedi: Did you just say 1.37 abortions happen each year? Do you mean million?

@pluvia: I agree that abortion should not be illegal, but the issue in the cases of teens is not the stigma towards abortion and adoption, it is the stigma towards being open about sexual activity and, in the case of teenage girls, the fear of asking your parents for birth control pills.

Avoiding sex should be encouraged, but safe sex should be accepted as an alternative.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

@pluvia: I agree that abortion should not be illegal, but the issue in the cases of teens is not the stigma towards abortion and adoption, it is the stigma towards being open about sexual activity and, in the case of teenage girls, the fear of asking your parents for birth control pills.

Avoiding sex should be encouraged, but safe sex should be accepted as an alternative.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[Eor]

I believe that stopping life from being made is murder, which is why I'm against condoms

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

I believe that stopping life from being made is murder, which is why I'm against condoms

That sounds a lot like a Catholic standpoint, are you also against pre-marital sex? Because that seems like a good way to increase births.

Condoms aren't just for preventing conception, are you willing to allow the transmission of STDs over the unwanted conception of a child?

 

[Aesir]

I thought I'd bring some stats into this debate, since no stats have been brought up.



http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html


"1% of all abortions occur because of **** or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 (This was taken from 1996 I believe, a little outdated, but still useful)

Only 6% happen because of health issues and only 1% happen because of ****. Abortion has become the easy path for people who can't keep their pants on when they need to be kept on.

No offense but that is a bit presumptuous of you.

No one ever stops to think what's going through the woman's mind. It's just assumed if she doesn't have health risks or if the fetus is healthy then it is indeed a scape goat to avoid responsibility rather then taking into account the woman probably felt she wasn't ready to have the child and if the option of having the child was forced on her neither of them would of had a good life.

You could argue all life is meaningful regardless of their status in life, but the fetus isn't alive it's part of the woman's body and she has the right to decide whats best. Pro-life advocates may not agree with her position but it comes down to forcing your morals and ethics on her then you're being oppressive.

I've advocated Abortion before the 3-month period, medically speaking that's before the brain/heart/cerebral cortex develops. Which at that point it's human (or you could argue), not just a blob of human DNA, you require more then a blob of human DNA to gain the same civic rights as a fully developed human being.


Something I should point out: There's no consensus on when Human person hood begins, any one who says otherwise is being dishonest or just doesn't know otherwise.

One interesting thing to note, Human Life is defined as any cell or organism tha contains DNA from the species Homo Sapien. That's the medical definition, so in that respect Breast Cancer cells are human life.

So just having the DNA shouldn't automatically give you that Human Person hood.

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

@Aesir: Anyone using the "DNA makes you human" argument is a fool. If that were true, getting a haircut would be mass murder.

I said it before, humanity is defined by one's ability to make conscious decisions and have judgment.

A fetus with an underdeveloped brain is not a human, it is equivalent to a tissue filled with semen or a passed egg.

 

[manhunter098]

I dont know. By your definition wouldnt a newborn baby not be considered human then? I mean by that point in time I would safely say that the majority of people will say that its human. I would like to push the idea instead, that one is human when they show a "will" to survive. A newborn will eat to stay alive, even though it must be fed it still wants food, its not necessarily a conscious decision, and they certainly dont have any ability to judge, but they do want to live and on that merit the baby deserves that chance. The real issue is understanding when exactly a baby can start to show a desire to live. I mean if a baby is born premature, that doesnt mean it wont it, but its still not as developed as a baby that isnt premature. At some point during pregnancy a baby is capable of actively trying to ensure its own survival (to a certain degree), and I think that at that stage is when they become deserving of human rights.


I have to say though that the DNA argument does work to an extent. There are genetic differences between the DNA of a zygote and the DNA in your skin. Different genes have been switched on and off and thus you can see the cells that are formed after conception are distinct from the specialized cells of a fully developed human. After all if you cut off your finger the cells in it cant suddenly grow into a human can they? But the cells of an embryo can. The argument thus has merit, and is a valid opinion.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

lonejedi do you think contraceptive use should be illegal or are you just morally opposed to it?

Again let me ask these questions to the anti-abortion proponents: When does a fertilized egg become a "human being" and more importantly, 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, i.e., does it potentially violate any rights beyond those that the fetus is claimed to have?

 

[cF=)]

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.

Prove that the combination is an entirely new being, because like you said, I only see the combination of a woman's ovule and a man's sperm. In this case, upon agreement, the man and the woman might decide to both terminate their half together and ask for an abortion. I already gave precise information as to why a new human being won't be born before the 13th week, leaving everything else being as the product of rapid cell growth.

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.

I never said self-awareness was a criteria, I said the "ability to feel pain and pleasure" to be a criteria to human life in the mother's womb. There is a distinct difference between both.

I said it before, humanity is defined by one's ability to make conscious decisions and have judgment.

This definition doesn't make a whole lot of sense because first, you'd have to define consciousness (good luck on that), and secondly, I know adults who don't have any judgement yet This is a little bit too imprecise and you should read the post I gave on page 2 for a logical definition of life in the mother's womb.

I believe that stopping life from being made is murder, which is why I'm against condoms

Ahhh, you should've added you were against the birth control pill too

 

[lonejedi]

lonejedi do you think contraceptive use should be illegal or are you just morally opposed to it?

Neither. I'm all for birth control and condoms. I am a Christian, but that is not the reason why I'm against abortion. It helps, but if I were non-religious I would still maintain my stance against abortion. You guys make arguments about hair being compared to a fetus? What has this topic come to? My biggest beef with abortion is that all it encourages is more sex.

I gave you numbers, 93% have abortions because it's convient. That's a HUGE number. And most of the time people are arguing abortion should be legal beause of ***** and health issues with that's only 7%. If we continue to allow abortions, this number will only increase.

I can understand for health issues, THAT should be a mother's choice. but just because you were too lazy to put on a condom, doesn't mean you should go out and abort.

 

[Aesir]

No idea if your first part was directed at me, so I'll respond to the point that I think is directed at me.

I have to say though that the DNA argument does work to an extent. There are genetic differences between the DNA of a zygote and the DNA in your skin. Different genes have been switched on and off and thus you can see the cells that are formed after conception are distinct from the specialized cells of a fully developed human. After all if you cut off your finger the cells in it cant suddenly grow into a human can they? But the cells of an embryo can. The argument thus has merit, and is a valid opinion.

Bolded: That's not exactly true, in fact you can use those cells from cutting off your finger to clone a new life.

We can't just go off the definition of human life because it opens up a whole slew of things, that's why it's important to decide when human person hood begins.


LoneJedi: You haven't answered the question, and you're being presumptuous again. There's no basis to the claim that woman are getting abortions because they simple are just sleeping around. The inconvenience factor could come from a variety of different issues.

They're to young, not enough money to raise a child well, would rather raise a child in a two parent house hold. ect.

The link you provided shows that as well.

woman of the age 20-24 are likely to have abortions (college age girls) and teenagers below the age of 15 high school aged girls. One of the highest statistics of a woman's income is lower then 15,000, that's not enough to care for a child. Then you have the maternal status, a high majority of woman are not married when they get an abortion which could simply mean they want the child to have a father and not live in a single parent household. Combine all these together simply put woman get abortions because they're thinking logically and realizing it's best to not have the child then to have it.


edit: no one has really made a case that aborting is murder, so in other words pro-choicer advocates are just forcing their morals on the rest of society.

 

[marthanoob]

The human organism first comes into being upon fertilization. When the organism becomes a person is the question.

 

[lonejedi]

LoneJedi: You haven't answered the question, and you're being presumptuous again. There's no basis to the claim that woman are getting abortions because they simple are just sleeping around. The inconvenience factor could come from a variety of different issues.



They're to young, not enough money to raise a child well, would rather raise a child in a two parent house hold. ect.

The link you provided shows that as well.

I don't understand how this hard for you to understand. If they don't have enough money to have a kid, what the heck are they doing having un-protected sex? Obviously they aren't thinking logically if they got pregnant in the first place. Why didn't these girls make the decision on being to young to have kids before they unzipped their pants. Why not just put a condom on. Seriously, they could have made that decision BEFORE they were pregnant.

edit: no one has really made a case that aborting is murder, so in other words pro-choicer advocates are just forcing their morals on the rest of society.

Lol, you yell at me for assuming things, there are alot of people who are pro-choice, who have no relgious backgrounds.

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

@lonejedi: If they aren't financially stable enough to afford a child, which costs about $200,000 to raise, then maybe they cannot afford contraceptives.

Also, in many cultures, including the African-American community, using a condom is not manly and even getting a girl pregnant is a sign of manhood.

 

[snex]

i fail to see why laziness or inconvenience is an invalid reason to have an abortion. if we agree that fetuses are not-people-enough to abort them in some circumstances, then theyre not people at all, and we can abort them for fun if we want to.

given the fact that abortion is (still) fully legal, it follows that it can be performed for any reason or no reason at all. you can even film a live abortion for the specific purpose of selling it as porn if you so wish.

attacking the various reasons some women have abortions is not an argument that abortion should be illegal. it would be just as silly to say that some people buy cars just to destroy them in demolition derbies, therefore we shouldnt sell cars to those people (or even at all).

 

[Crimson King]

Neither. I'm all for birth control and condoms. I am a Christian, but that is not the reason why I'm against abortion. It helps, but if I were non-religious I would still maintain my stance against abortion. You guys make arguments about hair being compared to a fetus? What has this topic come to? My biggest beef with abortion is that all it encourages is more sex.

I gave you numbers, 93% have abortions because it's convient. That's a HUGE number. And most of the time people are arguing abortion should be legal beause of ***** and health issues with that's only 7%. If we continue to allow abortions, this number will only increase.

I can understand for health issues, THAT should be a mother's choice. but just because you were too lazy to put on a condom, doesn't mean you should go out and abort.

If your figures are right, that's still 95,000 women who are forced to have a baby despite being ***** or with medical problems. Those women shouldn't be forced to deal with those problems. By your logic, just because the majority abuses something it should be illegal, then we should legalize alcohol, cars, and well-fare because people abuse those in mass.

 

[Aesir]

I don't understand how this hard for you to understand. If they don't have enough money to have a kid, what the heck are they doing having un-protected sex? Obviously they aren't thinking logically if they got pregnant in the first place. Why didn't these girls make the decision on being to young to have kids before they unzipped their pants. Why not just put a condom on. Seriously, they could have made that decision BEFORE they were pregnant.

Again you just sound like you want to condemn them form making a mistake rather then realizing not everyone's perfect. In a perfect society we wouldn't need abortion everyone would use a condom, or the pill, every child would be wanted. However we don't mistakes happen.

Honestly I stand by the notion that you're being rather presumptuous in implying they're irresponsible when you don't know every single abortion case.

Lol, you yell at me for assuming things, there are alot of people who are pro-choice, who have no relgious backgrounds.

I meant pro-life sorry, I was in a hurry when I wrote that.

Also you don't need religious affiliation to have morals I wasn't trying to imply religious oppression. I'm simply pointing out that those who force their morals on others as law are opressive.

 

[manhunter098]

Bolded: That's not exactly true, in fact you can use those cells from cutting off your finger to clone a new life.

With current technology we arent even sure if we could do that yet. Not to mention we would have to modify the cells first in order to be able to do so. Therefore the cells from your finger still cant simply grow into a new human, you first have to turn them into a different type of cell. You dont have to do anything to the implanted cells of an embryo, they are likely to form into a human on their own with the proper environment and nourishment.

 

[snex]

With current technology we arent even sure if we could do that yet. Not to mention we would have to modify the cells first in order to be able to do so. Therefore the cells from your finger still cant simply grow into a new human, you first have to turn them into a different type of cell. You dont have to do anything to the implanted cells of an embryo, they are likely to form into a human on their own with the proper environment and nourishment.

but that "proper environment" just so happens to be the body of a fully grown human female. shouldnt those females get to state who gets to use their bodies and for what purposes?

even if we grant that a fetus has a right to live, how do we address the rights of every individual human to do what they want with their own body?

 

[manhunter098]

Im not saying those cells do have a right to live off of the mother. Rather Im just saying that the argument that those cells can be considered a human life is valid. A lot of this is up to opinion and personal beliefs, and in spite of that some arguments still may not hold water. But to state that an embryo at any stage is human is a valid stance to take.

 

[Deleted member]

attacking the various reasons some women have abortions is not an argument that abortion should be illegal. it would be just as silly to say that some people buy cars just to destroy them in demolition derbies, therefore we shouldnt sell cars to those people (or even at all).

Easily one of the worst analogies I've ever read, both literally and otherwise. This is your first post in this topic and it feels like you didn't put an ounce of care into it.

A car is inanimate. A fetus is not. A car is something you own completely. A fetus is attached to you. Even when the baby is born, you never own a human. Abortion is speaking for someone who can't speak yet.

By the way, if it isn't obvious, I'm completely on the fence on this issue. Both sides make very legitimate points, although some of the pro-choice points are a little macabre.

That reminds me. In the DWYP abortion debate, I ranted a little about how the shock-value argument was totally legitimate. At work today I realized an amazing point to back that up, but I'll reveal it a little later on, because abortion might be my DWYP topic.

 

[cF=)]

A car is inanimate. A fetus is not.

But on what basis do you say that?! I haven't seen anybody from the pro-life side bring any logical or at least, provable argument that aren't only took from personal moral and lack of knowledge. If you randomly date life at conception, how does this hold as an argument?

 

[Deleted member]

What are you talking about, dude? It's clearly LIFE - the debate isn't that it's life or not, because it most assuredly is life. Rocks don't turn into alive rocks. The debate is whether it is human or not.

 

[cF=)]

Wait, your second sentence clearly states "you never own a human"... how should I take this if it's not related to your previous sentence? And even if you implied "life", what is that supposed to even mean? In which way is "life" a criteria to consider in abortion?

 

[Deleted member]

You're taking that second sentence out of context. Even when the baby is born, you never own a human.

Let's focus on my main point: regardless if the fetus is "human" or not, it's still life. If the Mars rover came about a fetus somehow on Mars, it would be considered life, no matter what. Abortion ends that life, whether it be a human life or not.

 

[snex]

You're taking that second sentence out of context. Even when the baby is born, you never own a human.

Let's focus on my main point: regardless if the fetus is "human" or not, it's still life. If the Mars rover came about a fetus somehow on Mars, it would be considered life, no matter what. Abortion ends that life, whether it be a human life or not.

but we CAN own a life, even if we cant own a human life. so your argument is a non-sequitur. if a fetus is not considered a human life, then one can own it and therefore do whatever they want to it.

and besides that, a woman DOES own her own body, and if she doesnt want other human lives depending on it for their own life, she has the right to make that decision.

you just dont like my analogy because it makes sense. youre always like that. you never have any actual substantive replies to my analogies, you just say they dont count for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the point they make. no **** cars arent EXACTLY like humans, thats why its an ANALOGY! the ANALOGY is not meant to match to the actual situation in a one-on-one correspondence, its meant to address the SPECIFIC argument that it is in response to, and in that capacity, my ANALOGY makes perfect sense. the specific reason that a woman would want an abortion is entirely irrelevant to this debate. if fetuses arent human lives, then women can use any reason they like; and if fetuses are human lives, then women cannot.

 

[AltF4]

Hmm... I've also been really on the fence with this issue. I want to see if anyone can respond to this claim...

Essentially it's just that "a woman should have control over what happens in her body", with a bit of an explanatory analogy.

A woman certainly has control over what happens in her home (that she owns). She has the right to allow anyone into her house, and the right to kick anyone out. If a stranger came into her house one day, and she did not want the person there, she could rightly force the person to leave.

But what if the intruder for some reason needed to stay in the woman's house to live. Suppose it was very cold outside and the person was very old. Well, that doesn't matter. People can't just go barging into places, insisting that they need to stay there to live, and expect to force the woman to allow them to stay.

The woman still has ultimate control over what happens inside her home, and certainly what happens inside herself. Even if you do consider the developing child (at any developmental stage) to he "human", how can you justify forcing the woman to keep the unwanted person inside herself?

 

[snex]

the question becomes, what right has more precedence? the right to live or the right to be secure in one's private property?

and either way you answer that question, youre going to find absurd situations that nobody desires.

 

[Deleted member]

but we CAN own a life, even if we cant own a human life. so your argument is a non-sequitur. if a fetus is not considered a human life, then one can own it and therefore do whatever they want to it.

Well then that's where I would properly shift my argument to saying that it is a human life. No way someone is going to classify a fetus in the same category of life as pets.

and besides that, a woman DOES own her own body, and if she doesnt want other human lives depending on it for their own life, she has the right to make that decision.

Perhaps. She should have thought about that though. There are very deep consequences and killing should not be the permanent solution.

you just dont like my analogy because it makes sense. youre always like that. you never have any actual substantive replies to my analogies, you just say they dont count for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the point they make. no **** cars arent EXACTLY like humans, thats why its an ANALOGY! the ANALOGY is not meant to match to the actual situation in a one-on-one correspondence, its meant to address the SPECIFIC argument that it is in response to, and in that capacity, my ANALOGY makes perfect sense. the specific reason that a woman would want an abortion is entirely irrelevant to this debate. if fetuses arent human lives, then women can use any reason they like; and if fetuses are human lives, then women cannot.

Bro, I don't like your analogy because it's not properly analogous. You don't understand - I'm not pro-life, I'm on the fence. It's not that I immediately disagree with everything you're saying. That particular analogy just failed, that's all. It wasn't parallel in any means whatsoever. Saying I didn't reply substantively is kind of a gross exaggeration - I outlined why the analogy failed a couple posts ago.


Alt, in your scenario, I would have to say that while the child is unwanted, the woman should not have left her door to her house unlocked and wide open. Does that make sense? To prevent needy people from entering your house, keep it safe in the first place.

 

[snex]

Alt, in your scenario, I would have to say that while the child is unwanted, the woman should not have left her door to her house unlocked and wide open. Does that make sense? To prevent needy people from entering your house, keep it safe in the first place.

and women who get ***** were askin for it! do you really think blaming the victim is a good counter-argument? nobody has the right to make themselves dependent on you to live, whether you lock your door or not.

 

[Deleted member]

The woman is not a VICTIM in this situation. She was just careless and irresponsible, which should not translate into killing. Most of the time it's just stupidity.

 

[snex]

how arent they a victim?

another human being is trying to use her for dependence. maybe you think fetuses shouldnt be held responsible for that, but then if they have no responsibilities, why should we consider them humans? part of being human is being responsible for your own actions.

 

[Jam Stunna]

part of being human is being responsible for your own actions.

So is a newborn not a human? How about a one year-old? How about an elderly person with dementia? Are they all no longer human?