Abortion Debate

[Kur]

kur, your points are all completely arbitrary. you create your own definition of human life and claim it is sacred no matter what. you don't think of practicality and you don't understand the posts aimed at you. it's more like when you try to pull off some super advanced trick on your opponent, only they don't fall for it because it's actually a horrible trick.

del, those images work because those are sentient beings you see suffering, not a large bundle of cells. and i'm not entirely convinced the images on google are completely real, although it doesn't really matter because i'm sure none of us are supporting abortion a month before the child is due to be born.

Arbitrary? Well lets compare notes here and you tell me which is arbitrary and which is not.


Human life begins at..

The moment when genetic material from each parent combines to form a new human.

or

Maybe at some point when a fetus begins to think or feel, or maybe when it is conscious.. who knows.



Right to live..

Every human has the right to live regardless of the origins of that right. This is why murder is illegal.

or

Well you can't really say humans have the right to live, no reason, just because. But murder is still bad because it makes people cry.



A 3 day old fetus..

Is genetically a living human being, separate from its mother. It is the first stage of human life. A geneticist could not tell if DNA from this fetus was from a fetus or a 50 year old adult.

or

It's just a bunch of cells. It will someday become a human if we don't kill it first.



A human is..

A member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Genetically different from all other species.

or

You can't define what is human because it really works against my stance on abortion.



A person is..

A living human being.

or

Some sort of animal that is sentient, or conscious. Though this could be almost anything, it is better for my argument this way.




I've come into this discussion with a completely scientific view point. I've asked questions that nobody here will answer because they know that the answer they have contradicts their views of abortion. And if they lie and say the opposite, it makes them rightfully sound like evil SOBs. I have answered EVERY hypothetical question asked of me and given an explanation for every argument posed against me.

You call my position arbitrary, yet none of you can even decide when 'human life' supposedly starts in your point of view. And those of you that think you know, can't back it up with anything. You might say life starts when brainwaves are active. But why there? Why is your starting point any less arbitrary than mine? At least mine has a point that can be measured, that can be tested through genetics.

And if you can't accept that humans have the right to life, then I don't know what to say. It is simply an intrinsic property of being human. You may as well deny that humans are mammals, or primates, or intelligent.

As I said, this whole debate is BS.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Just to ask, how is the debate bull****?

 

[snex]

its funny how kur decries the lack of "serious" replies to his challenges, but then when i offer one he tries to cry rather than respond to it. smells like admission of defeat to me.

if his position were as solid as he thinks it is, then he could answer my post and it would be obvious how right he is and how wrong i am. but instead of doing so, he just cries. shame, his devastating reply could have been the thing to convert us all over to his side. oh well.

 

[blazedaces]

Kur, you also haven't responded ANY of my posts on the subject.

It's not up to us to prove you wrong, it's up to YOU to prove yourself right! That's how science works. You're just making **** up and not backing it up with anything. If it's such common knowledge, there's the internet out there, go find evidence for it. What's stopping you if it's so easy? You know there's nothing supporting your hulk of bull?

Yelling, screaming, whining, and crying is not going to convince any of us.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

*would like to hear feedback on my latest post*

 

[blazedaces]

*would like to hear feedback on my latest post*

Look... up... the ... logical... fallacy.

I already told you it's a logical fallacy, appeal to emotion. Go look it up. Both scenarios, in history class, or you in this situation, are not producing a valid argument.

Pictures that make you cry does not equal abortions are bad.

Lots of things look disgusting, but are actually very beneficial (like all surgeries).

-blazed

 

[Wikipedia]

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.

I have not read the whole thread but I just wanted to quickly reply to this before I lost my thought.

I don't remember who the doctor was, but it was a leading scientist and doctor for finding the relationship of fetus to mother and the physiological relationship thereof. I was reading it when I was researching my argument for DWYP.

He said that the baby is actually like a flatworm. The baby is essentially sucking nutrition off of the mother, the mother rejects the baby because of the difference of DNA. That is why I do not believe the baby really should be considered part of the mother, which is what the official ruling was on Roe v. Wade: that the mother should be able to decide what to do with the baby since the baby is just like another appendage. That is where the debate is.

Also, in response to the argument of "the fetus would not survive outside of the mother's womb anyways". I generally think of the situation that if you were hiking in the woods and you saw a man that was incredibly frail and ghastly thin from being lost for so long, there is no way he would survive without your help, do you have the right to kill him since he cannot live anyways without your help?

The problem I have with this side of the argument is debating abortions that take place before the 8th week mark. There really is no argument that can be substantiated, I personally believe those fetuses have a soul and therefore should not be killed but there is no way to prove that and I don't believe others should be forced to be controlled by my religious beliefs. Brain activity starts at 12 weeks, they have injected morphine into a womb and subjected a fetus to other stimuli while studying the brain activity and it definitely reacted.

Beyond that though, I guess I really don't have a problem pre 12 week abortions. It also makes me sick that abortions have been taken so lightly, it has become a new form of birth control, the vast amount, I think I saw a number like 82% on Wikipedia, of abortions are described as "not enough preparation at the time of conception". And worldwide only 2 percent are because of ****, incest, or life of the mother or child.

 

[manhunter098]

Kur, no matter how many times you state that humans have a right to live, you have yet to provide any evidence. Laws against murder are proof that society agrees humans have a right to live. It does not prove any innate right to live.

I will definitely agree with you that humanity starts at conception. But you have done nothing to prove that humans have an innate right to live. Also, are humans the only species with a right to live? Or do other species have a right to live? What if we evolve further, into a new species, would we still then have that innate right to live that we do now? What about Neanderthals, if they were to still exist should they have an innate right to live (they are extremely close to humans genetically speaking)? If you are to say that humans have the right to live, then we must have some quality that gives us this right, and you need to bring that quality to light if your argument is to hold any water.

Oh and by the way, you are generalizing quite a bit when it comes to the arguments of those who disagree with you. Im pretty sure I stated that a fetus at any stage is human, and that it shouldnt be illegal to murder it.

 

[derek.haines]

Kur, no matter how many times you state that humans have a right to live, you have yet to provide any evidence. Laws against murder are proof that society agrees humans have a right to live. It does not prove any innate right to live.

Actually, laws against killing people would simply be proof that society agrees that killing another in cold blood is wrong. Every single day, thousands of people have "the plug pulled", or are assisted in suicide by legitimate medical practitioners, or are executed by the courts. Heck, even legitimately killing another is viewed differently under certain circumstances, such as crimes of passion, and those are almost always given lenient sentences.

There is no non-anecdotal evidence that people have an "innate right to live". We have simply agreed as a society that it shouldn't be taken away without a reason.

 

[RDK]

Like it's been said before I still don't think the argument is valid unless we're talking about after the fetus becomes sentient / conscious (usually after 12 weeks). Before that, there's no reason to believe that it's not just a bunch of cells. They're human cells--but then again, so is your skin.

 

[arrowhead]

Arbitrary? Well lets compare notes here and you tell me which is arbitrary and which is not.


Human life begins at..

The moment when genetic material from each parent combines to form a new human.

or

Maybe at some point when a fetus begins to think or feel, or maybe when it is conscious.. who knows.

opinion

Right to live..

Every human has the right to live regardless of the origins of that right. This is why murder is illegal.

or

Well you can't really say humans have the right to live, no reason, just because. But murder is still bad because it makes people cry.

opinion

A 3 day old fetus..

Is genetically a living human being, separate from its mother. It is the first stage of human life. A geneticist could not tell if DNA from this fetus was from a fetus or a 50 year old adult.

or

It's just a bunch of cells. It will someday become a human if we don't kill it first.

depending on semantics, both could be true

A human is..

A member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Genetically different from all other species.

or

You can't define what is human because it really works against my stance on abortion.

a human is also genetically different from all other humans.
ok, let's assume you're right when you say a human is any cell created through the fusion of a sperm and egg from... another human. nothing is accomplished. all you've done is label a fetus as human. you haven't shown why THIS particular human deserves to "live" regardless of the host's opinion

A person is..

A living human being.

or

Some sort of animal that is sentient, or conscious. Though this could be almost anything, it is better for my argument this way.

opinion

I've come into this discussion with a completely scientific view point. I've asked questions that nobody here will answer because they know that the answer they have contradicts their views of abortion. And if they lie and say the opposite, it makes them rightfully sound like evil SOBs. I have answered EVERY hypothetical question asked of me and given an explanation for every argument posed against me.

no you haven't. go back and read the posts directed toward you

You call my position arbitrary, yet none of you can even decide when 'human life' supposedly starts in your point of view. And those of you that think you know, can't back it up with anything. You might say life starts when brainwaves are active. But why there? Why is your starting point any less arbitrary than mine? At least mine has a point that can be measured, that can be tested through genetics.

any definition of life is arbitrary, but that's not the problem. the problem is you arbitrarily label all human life as sacred. you don't even tell us why:

And if you can't accept that humans have the right to life, then I don't know what to say. It is simply an intrinsic property of being human. You may as well deny that humans are mammals, or primates, or intelligent.

there is already an accepted definition for mammal and primate and intelligent is a relative word. we defined them for practical purposes. labelling all humans as having the right to live is arbitrary AND has no practical purpose, so there is no reason to do so.

 

[M@v]

1st off, im a Catholic, but I dont blindly follow the Church. I do agree with them on this subject, with logical reasoning, not the usual"DONT DO IT ITS SINFUL".

Human life starts as soon as the egg is formed. Killing it while it is still a human with a soul, though it doesnt know it, is wrong. Aborting a baby at 8months when it clearly looks like a human and has all of its functions running is perfectly fine? Whats the difference if its in or out of the body? She gives birth and decides she doesnt want it. O, just kill it. Wait a minute, now its considering killing, even though it was near identical on the inside? We "say" its different, But how? DO TELL. Just because of its location its decides if its just an abortion or an act of murder?

 

[Wikipedia]

8 month abortions consist of a very, very small percent and are mostly because the mom or child to a sudden turn for the worse, medically speaking. So you can't say all abortions are wrong just because 8 month abortions are, they don't accurately represent the vast majority of abortions.

 

[blazedaces]

Human life starts as soon as the egg is formed.

So you claim. Who cares if you make up a condition called "human life" and then define it to start when the egg is formed?

Killing it while it is still a human with a soul, though it doesnt know it, is wrong.

Again, so you claim...

Aborting a baby at 8months when it clearly looks like a human and has all of its functions running is perfectly fine?

How often does this happen? Oh right, it almost never happens. We should do that with everything, ignore all the legitimate, good things most of the time, and just look at the negligible circumstances.

The rest of your post is arbitrary nonsense that doesn't need to be addressed.

Support your statements with evidence. Stop just yelling out things and claiming them to be true.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

I already told you it's a logical fallacy, appeal to emotion. Go look it up. Both scenarios, in history class, or you in this situation, are not producing a valid argument.

Apologies, I don't remember you telling me it was a fallacy. Regardless, I don't believe it is.

What you're forgetting is that these pictures are not the argument. Take a look at photojournalism - when you first look at a newspaper of a major event, you'll see the front page picture. Is it appeal to emotion that the newspaper runs a picture of a pencil-thin boy in Africa accompanying an article about African starvation?

Of course not. It's simply a picture showing the harsh truth. That's what cigarette warning labels do, that's what news articles do, that's what I'm doing here. If I was appealing to emotion, I would embellish and sensationalize the facts simply to tug on your heartstrings - but I'm not. Eor asked for a sufficient moral reason - and I told him to Google Search as a start. That's a fallacy? Sorry, but I find that pretty lame. Again, the pictures aren't just the argument. They're the front page photo to the article. Sorry if you find them shocking; sometimes the truth is shocking.

Hindsight is 20/20. A picture speaks a thousand words. You say it's shock value, I say it's just the brutal truth. The pictures are mainly to show that a lot of aborted fetuses look very human, and that's pretty much it.

Lots of things look disgusting, but are actually very beneficial (like all surgeries).

-blazed

Yeah, but that's irrelevant. The abortion is beneficial, sure, but to whom? Certainly not the aborted life.

You need to realize that I agree with a lot with what you're saying, but I think pro-choice advocates should really see it as a necessary evil, not a beneficial boon to society.

 

[cF=)]

Of course not. It's simply a picture showing the harsh truth.

If you look at the vertebrate archetype, you'll see that many animals share a common look inside the mother's womb during their growth. To prove my claim, here's a picture comparing a dog's embryo to a human one after 25 days:

Where's the shocking, inconceivable and cruel truth you were talking about?

 

[snex]

delorted, the reason you are engaging in a fallacious argument is that you are pointing to a picture and hoping that the emotions it invokes in the viewers will lead them to conclude that abortion is wrong.

no matter how emotional a subject is, that is a fallacious argument because it ignores the other consequences. i could just as easily post a picture of thousands of starving children and say "if abortion were legal, this wouldnt exist." its the same fallacy.

when dealing with moral arguments, its impossible to not discuss emotions; but you cant simply present a picture and claim the problem is solved. all angles must be examined.

 

[blazedaces]

The newspaper is committing the same logical fallacy. There is no debate or discussion about whether appeal to emotion or showing a picture in this instance is a logical fallacy or not. It is. The shock value from a photo should not convince one of anything. The evidence should. You're not using the photos as evidence, but just in hopes it'll shock me into feeling bad about it...

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

cF : 25 days it might look alien, but further down the line it looks unmistakably human.

snex : You're right that it's impossible to not deal with emotions. However, like I said in my last post, I'm not just presenting the photos. There have been a good 8 or 9 pages of my thoughts on this thread or so, if I recall correctly.

blazed: It's something one should feel bad about, regardless if they're pro-life or pro-choice. That's basically my entire point. It's a build-off of what Jam Stunna was talking about, slightly. Hear the arguments of both sides, see the visual consequences, make your decision. I still haven't, but I know that no matter what "side" I take, it'll always be the one thing you can never endorse without a heavy heart. Is that a fallacy now?

 

[SuperBowser]

8 month abortions consist of a very, very small percent and are mostly because the mom or child to a sudden turn for the worse, medically speaking. So you can't say all abortions are wrong just because 8 month abortions are, they don't accurately represent the vast majority of abortions.

out of interest, is it even possible to have an ''abortion'' at 8 months?! The fetus is viable long before the 8 month mark and I'd think it would count as murder...

Abortions are only allowed up to a certain time point.

Btw, I think it's a little offensive how some people referred to abortion as something done out of ''convenience'' (not aimed at you Wikipedia). Counselling is required, the procedure is far from pleasant and no woman would call it an easy decision. You don't just take a pill and forget about the baby

 

[Eor]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26182483/

 

[derek.haines]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26182483/

Although the purpose of the link is solid, it's largely discouraged to simply post a link in the debate hall with no explanation as to it's significance.

 

[Eor]

Although the purpose of the link is solid, it's largely discouraged to simply post a link in the debate hall with no explanation as to it's significance.

Well hello there Eric. Considering the last few sentences above me was talking about the mental effects of abortion, it shouldn't take much brain power to link the two together. Perhaps I should of quoted for the slow people

 

[blazedaces]

blazed: It's something one should feel bad about, regardless if they're pro-life or pro-choice. That's basically my entire point. It's a build-off of what Jam Stunna was talking about, slightly. Hear the arguments of both sides, see the visual consequences, make your decision. I still haven't, but I know that no matter what "side" I take, it'll always be the one thing you can never endorse without a heavy heart. Is that a fallacy now?

It's not a fallacy to feel. It's a fallacy to base your decision off of an emotion. Does that make sense?

Do I feel bad about abortions in the third trimester, however rare they are? Yes. Am I basing my stance on abortion about a bad feeling I get about a procedure so rare? No.

And that's my entire point. You telling us to look at these pictures is just meant to make us feel bad about it. Since the feeling really shouldn't logically affect our decision, it doesn't help to look at them. It just clouds the issue and tries to steer the argument away from the facts and towards grotesque images.

-blazed

 

[derek.haines]

Well hello there Eric. Considering the last few sentences above me was talking about the mental effects of abortion, it shouldn't take much brain power to link the two together. Perhaps I should of quoted for the slow people

Just helpin' out.

Seriously though, it's a good article, and it's worth a read (and serious consideration in this debate) for anyone that's interested.

 

[SuperBowser]

Well hello there Eric. Considering the last few sentences above me was talking about the mental effects of abortion, it shouldn't take much brain power to link the two together. Perhaps I should of quoted for the slow people

err, is it aimed at me or everyone? Because I'm not against abortion. I was just saying that it's wrong to reduce a woman's decision to a choice out of simple convenience because that is not at all the case.

I'm not sure what your link has to do with what I wrote...

One point of the law for abortion is that denying abortion to women is bad for their mental health.

 

[cF=)]

cF : 25 days it might look alien, but further down the line it looks unmistakably human.

This picture was posted to provide evidence that the LOOK of a foetus should not interfere with the law we make about abortion. It's just another way to say that your "picture" argument is completely unsound.

 

[Deleted member]

It's not about making the laws - it's in response to the "lump of cells" nonsense. Maybe at first.

 

[RDK]

It's not about making the laws - it's in response to the "lump of cells" nonsense. Maybe at first.

Unless it's sentient and is able to feel pain and emotion of some sort, there's really no point in continuing in this line of thought. Our obligation isn't to potential humans; it's to actual, conscious humans.

The argument that "you should leave it alone because it becomes a human" is a fallacious argument too. If that was so, then don't we have an obligation to all potentially born children to go out and have sex with every woman we meet so that all those babies that could have been born are born?

 

[Eor]

err, is it aimed at me or everyone? Because I'm not against abortion. I was just saying that it's wrong to reduce a woman's decision to a choice out of simple convenience because that is not at all the case.

I'm not sure what your link has to do with what I wrote...

One point of the law for abortion is that denying abortion to women is bad for their mental health.

No, it had to do with dain. My link did have in connection with what you wrote about the mental effects of abortion

 

[whaahppnd]

Sorry, I haven't read the entire 10 pages, but as said before this boils down to whether it should be legal or not.

The thing is, whether legal or illegal, abortions will happen anyway. Might as well legalize it.

Those of you that state that it is essentially murder, do you really believe that killing a not-quite-human fetus is worse than letting it grow into an actual human and then starve or suffer to death?

You are killing a fetus, over which everyone is arguing whether it feels pain or not and whether it is alive or not.
What we know for certain is that the child who is starving to death feels tremendous pain in dying that way.

 

[SuperBowser]

No, it had to do with dain. My link did have in connection with what you wrote about the mental effects of abortion

um, I was talking about before the abortion. You need counselling before abortion. The woman must understand the implications of their decision, what the procedure entails, the inherent risks involved and that they need to be emotionally equipped for the abortion.

Two doctors normally have to agree that the mental or physical health would be harmed more by continuing the pregnancy.

 

[JustKindaBoredUKno]

I was watching the news earlier, and it was talking about the presidential election, how Obama's pro-choice, how McCain's pro-life, etc.

I learned that alot of pro-lifers believe that the baby's right to live begins at conception.

Now I didn't know this... and that kind of bothers me.

Because then wouldn't wearing a condom, preventing the childs birth, be preventing the child's life, thus preventing its right to live?



imo, abortion should be good up until the child can pretty much live outside the mother.

Princeton's definition of birth -the time when something begins (especially life)