Foca

[RDK]

Because it gets no chance whatsoever of surviving.

I don't really know what you're trying to say here, but if I have to take a shot in the dark, refer back to my comment about potential vs. actual.

How are they independent if they DEPEND on nutrients from the mother?

...um, that was my whole point. They're not independent.

In fact, the baby can be considered a parasite even after attaining consciousness. Until it's born, it survives only via the mother. If you were to take it out of the womb prematurely, it would die.

By this do you mean that if you tore off a piece of skin that it will develop into a human? Because no, thats impossible.

No, I mean that every "human" cell in your body has the same genetic ingredients as you do.

How is he saying that at all?

Go back and read what he originally posted.

Humans are basically sacks comprised of developed DNA. Fetuses are sacks of undeveloped DNA.

Most definetely not.

Human beings have a self-aware consciousness. Fetuses do not.

And "undeveloped" implies that it has the mere potential to become developed. We don't infer rights onto potential entities; if that were not the case, then you are committing murder every time you jack off, bust into a left sock, and throw it at the bottom of your hamper.

Also, with your mentality, it should be your patriotic duty to the sanctity of life to go out and procreate as often as rapidly as you can. By not having sex with as many women as humanly possible, you're denying hundreds of potential babies their right to life.

 

[Firus]

And "undeveloped" implies that it has the mere potential to become developed. We don't infer rights onto potential entities; if that were not the case, then you are committing murder every time you jack off, bust into a left sock, and throw it at the bottom of your hamper.

Also, with your mentality, it should be your patriotic duty to the sanctity of life to go out and procreate as often as rapidly as you can. By not having sex with as many women as humanly possible, you're denying hundreds of potential babies their right to life.

Unless something goes wrong, they WILL become developed. Once they are fetuses, no extra work is required to form a baby except for the delivering of it. It is not potential as the same sense as a potential baby of mine sometime in the future. It's stupid to make such a comparison, as it is to make the comparison of born human being a dead human because it will die eventually. They cannot be effectively declared as being dead eventually until they have an illness of some sort or something of the like that will definitively cause their death. It's a stupid comparison anyways. Every living thing will die eventually. Not everything will live eventually.

 

[cmpr94x]

Also, with your mentality, it should be your patriotic duty to the sanctity of life to go out and procreate as often as rapidly as you can. By not having sex with as many women as humanly possible, you're denying hundreds of potential babies their right to life.

How could you possibly jump to that conclusion? If one has sexual intercourse, with contraceptives or without, they are making a commitment.

 

[BFDD]

Not everything will live eventually.

No not all things will live. But everything living was at some point eventually living. If that makes sense. Each individual egg/sperm may live eventually, just as a fetus may or may not live eventually.

Unless something goes wrong, they WILL become developed. Once they are fetuses, no extra work is required to form a baby except for the delivering of it.

Any woman who has had a child will tell you that giving birth is A LOT more work than having sex.

The if nothing goes wrong argument still applies to eggs and sperm. If nothing goes wrong the egg will become fertilized and form a child. A sperm will fertilize an egg and form a child if nothing goes wrong. The only difference is that a lot more things can go wrong before fertilization. Not having sex or using a contraceptive means that the sperm/egg's development went wrong.

How could you possibly jump to that conclusion? If one has sexual intercourse, with contraceptives or without, they are making a commitment.

But by not having sex or using a contraceptive sperm and egg cells(potential babies) die. Why is a fetus any more of a life?

 

[cF=)]

Every living thing will die eventually. Not everything will live eventually.

You said it best yourself, a fetus will eventually not live... if it's aborted. The choice of doing so, however, has nothing to do with potentiality. The fetus is still completely dependent on the mother, that's why it's according to HER choice that we'll know whether it will live or not.

bust into a left sock

hahahahaha, too good. feels nice doesn't it?

 

[Firus]

No not all things will live. But everything living was at some point eventually living. If that makes sense. Each individual egg/sperm may live eventually, just as a fetus may or may not live eventually.

I don't see how this helps your argument at all, although I could just be confused...

Yes, a fetus may not live eventually...but a child could technically not live eventually if someone smacks them in the head with an axe. We're not condoning that, I assume, so why is this a good point to make? Yes, a fetus may not live eventually. Just because it may die on its own doesn't mean we should give it a hand.

Any woman who has had a child will tell you that giving birth is A LOT more work than having sex.

You misinterpreted what I meant when I said "work". It's hard to explain in words...I didn't mean it doesn't require any more effort, I mean that no more actions have to be taken specifically to form the fetus and make it a baby. I know this probably isn't helping, I really don't know how to put this where it won't be slightly ambiguous. Like, the fetus is already formed...all you have to do is to take care of the already created fetus so it can develop.

If it needs further explaining, I'll try.

The if nothing goes wrong argument still applies to eggs and sperm. If nothing goes wrong the egg will become fertilized and form a child. A sperm will fertilize an egg and form a child if nothing goes wrong. The only difference is that a lot more things can go wrong before fertilization. Not having sex or using a contraceptive means that the sperm/egg's development went wrong.

No no no. This isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that, assuming that the baby doesn't die during delivery, it will become a live, separate baby. The sperm and egg still have to meet. It's more of a "If this happens" in that case, I'm talking about an "If this doesn't happen".

But by not having sex or using a contraceptive sperm and egg cells(potential babies) die. Why is a fetus any more of a life?

Because the fetus is basically a baby. I know it's surviving off the mother, it's not independent, etc. etc. but it is as good as a baby at that point. That's like saying that by hitting your head against something hard and killing brain cells, that's no more of a life than a baby. A sperm is not a baby without an egg, and vice versa. The fetus just needs to develop, alone.

You said it best yourself, a fetus will eventually not live... if it's aborted. The choice of doing so, however, has nothing to do with potentiality. The fetus is still completely dependent on the mother, that's why it's according to HER choice that we'll know whether it will live or not.

This argument doesn't work...a one-year-old child is just as dependent on the parents as the fetus. Without the parents, the baby cannot afford the food, shelter, etc. to survive. Up until a certain age all humans are dependent upon at least one other. I don't see how dependence determines whether it's up to the mother or not, because I don't think you'd condone the killing of a child because the mother can't take care of it.

Again. Sex is not a right. It is a pleasurable act which people will want to do, but it bears consequences. If there's a chance of contraceptive failure, which there is, people have to take that into account and act accordingly. If they simply cannot afford to have a baby then they simply cannot afford to have sex. I seriously don't know why people think that it's extreme to ask people to not have sex if they can't deal with the possible consequences. No one's telling you you can't have sex, just don't have sex if you don't want a baby.

 

[illinialex24]

This argument doesn't work...a one-year-old child is just as dependent on the parents as the fetus. Without the parents, the baby cannot afford the food, shelter, etc. to survive. Up until a certain age all humans are dependent upon at least one other. I don't see how dependence determines whether it's up to the mother or not, because I don't think you'd condone the killing of a child because the mother can't take care of it.

I think what he means is that the fetus is dependent on a specific person, while a baby is dependent on any other human being. IE, anyone with formula or breast milk can feed a child these days and it does not have to be the biological mother that takes care of a baby. However, in the fetus state, the biological mother is the one and only person who can care for her at least until possible but very unlikely in the near future surgical advances. What I am talking about would be moving a fetus likely in the first or second trimester to another womb, but it would require radically newer surgical techniques.

 

[BFDD]

I seriously don't know why people think that it's extreme to ask people to not have sex

Its a very very strong biological urge. It is no different than feeling the urge to eat. Except eating you have to do. I agree that if you can't handle the consequences then don't do it. But like it or not an abortion is a way to deal with the consequence. I disagree with it but as I have said before it is up to the individual to decide for themselves.

No no no. This isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that, assuming that the baby doesn't die during delivery, it will become a live, separate baby. The sperm and egg still have to meet. It's more of a "If this happens" in that case, I'm talking about an "If this doesn't happen".

So what? Why does it matter that they still need to meet?

You misinterpreted what I meant when I said "work". It's hard to explain in words...I didn't mean it doesn't require any more effort

It was mostly a joke, my main point was the paragraph after it.

 

[Eor]

I agree people shouldn't have sex if they're not mature or capable of handling the consequences. But guess what? Telling them not to does nothing. It's proven not too. It doesn't work.

 

[cF=)]

This argument doesn't work...a one-year-old child is just as dependent on the parents as the fetus. Without the parents, the baby cannot afford the food, shelter, etc. to survive. Up until a certain age all humans are dependent upon at least one other. I don't see how dependence determines whether it's up to the mother or not, because I don't think you'd condone the killing of a child because the mother can't take care of it.

Wrong, a baby is dependent on A parent, not necessarily HIS. That's why what you said is non sequitur. A woman is allowed to remove a parasite from her womb up to three month into pregnancy because the fetus does not have preceding rights over her mother's. If you think otherwise, show me why a non participating member of society should have inherent rights not given to participating members. I see every pro-choice arguments crying over how a fetus is human life, but for which reason is this particular life sacred?

Overall, abortion reduces crime rate. This reason's enough for me to keep it like it is.

Again. Sex is not a right.

AHAHAHAH, get the **** out religious zealot.

It is a pleasurable act which people will want to do, but it bears consequences. If there's a chance of contraceptive failure, which there is, people have to take that into account and act accordingly.

By 'acting accordingly', I could say abortion is a rational idea for teenagers who cannot take care of an unwanted child, contraceptive failure or not. That does not support in any way a restriction of sex or why abortion is bad.

If they simply cannot afford to have a baby then they simply cannot afford to have sex.

Again, you're arguing for reasons to not have sex when you haven't even defined yet why abortion is bad. Get back on topic rather than deriving from it.

I seriously don't know why people think that it's extreme to ask people to not have sex if they can't deal with the possible consequences. No one's telling you you can't have sex, just don't have sex if you don't want a baby.

Because people can deal with the consequences the way they want, not the way YOU judge morally correct or not. Please provide reasons why abortion is bad before arguing sex should be left for reproductive means.

 

[Firus]

I think what he means is that the fetus is dependent on a specific person, while a baby is dependent on any other human being. IE, anyone with formula or breast milk can feed a child these days and it does not have to be the biological mother that takes care of a baby. However, in the fetus state, the biological mother is the one and only person who can care for her at least until possible but very unlikely in the near future surgical advances. What I am talking about would be moving a fetus likely in the first or second trimester to another womb, but it would require radically newer surgical techniques.

So what...? I don't see how it matters that it's dependent specifically on one person or if it can rely on any one person. Moving a fetus would be a better option in the future, but right now it's not viable, you're right.

Its a very very strong biological urge. It is no different than feeling the urge to eat. Except eating you have to do. I agree that if you can't handle the consequences then don't do it. But like it or not an abortion is a way to deal with the consequence. I disagree with it but as I have said before it is up to the individual to decide for themselves.

Just because it's a way to deal with it doesn't mean it's the RIGHT way to deal with it. If some jerk is following me around, harrassing me, and being an overall idiot, I'm probably going to get pretty angry. One fix is to smash his face in and break every bone in his body, another is to vent my anger later in some other way. Now, if I succumb to the urge to break every bone in his body, I should probably have to pay for his medical bills instead of just getting off scot-free, correct? Well, same here. If you can't control the urge to have sex and get pregnant, then carry out the delivery and put the baby up for adoption. I'm just for individual rights as anyone else, I just don't see why it's a right to have sex and then avoid the consequences.

So what? Why does it matter that they still need to meet?

Because the fetus isn't theoretical anymore...? It still has development to do, but no intervention is required for it. It will develop without any sort of assistance.

It was mostly a joke, my main point was the paragraph after it.

Oh, okay.

Wrong, a baby is dependent on A parent, not necessarily HIS. That's why what you said is non sequitur. A woman is allowed to remove a parasite from her womb up to three month into pregnancy because the fetus does not have preceding rights over her mother's. If you think otherwise, show me why a non participating member of society should have inherent rights not given to participating members. I see every pro-choice arguments crying over how a fetus is human life, but for which reason is this particular life sacred?

I don't see why it matters that it's a specific person. Either way, someone's going to have to sacrifice some of their time, money, and effort for this fetus/baby. Why do the woman's rights suddenly come first just because the baby is completely dependent on her?

Also, as for the "non-participating member of society" argument, why is it that illegal immigrants who might not even have a job and aren't paying taxes are receiving benefits such as social security and in-state tuition at colleges? I know this is a separate debate, but if we're going to argue about it not having rights because it's not participating, then let's go after ALL members who are doing so.
The baby will likely eventually become a completely functional, contributing member of society.

As for your complaint that this particular life is not sacred, it's no more sacred than any other life...but all lives are sacred enough that you wouldn't be killing them. The argument is that a fetus is a human life, same as all other lives, so it shouldn't be taken.

You ask why the baby's life is so sacred...I ask why the mother's life is so sacred? Why does she get to choose if the baby lives or dies JUST because it's dependent on her?

Overall, abortion reduces crime rate. This reason's enough for me to keep it like it is.

What? How does it reduce crime rate? Are just referring to the fact that unwanted children who might become criminals are killed before they can become criminals?

If so, how can this be proven that abortion is the direct cause of a reduction in crime rate?

AHAHAHAH, get the **** out religious zealot.

Wh-what? I hate it when people make assumptions, it bugs the crap out of me. I'm not religious at ALL. I consider myself agnostic. And I don't particularly care for religious zealots either. Nice try, though...

Having electricity isn't a right either...I guess I'm amish now?

There are a LOT of things which aren't rights. All I'm saying is that sex is not a right...am I wrong? Last I checked there wasn't an inherent right to have sex in the Constitution, or anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, though?

By 'acting accordingly', I could say abortion is a rational idea for teenagers who cannot take care of an unwanted child, contraceptive failure or not. That does not support in any way a restriction of sex or why abortion is bad.

So in other words, by 'acting accordingly' you would do anything possible to stop having a baby rather than just containing yourself and avoiding the issue altogether?

There is no "restriction of sex". I am not supporting such a restriction. I'm suggesting that people restrain themselves if they can't deal with the consequences. Apparently that's too much to ask for.

Again, you're arguing for reasons to not have sex when you haven't even defined yet why abortion is bad. Get back on topic rather than deriving from it.

Yes, I have. I've already explained this. Perhaps you weren't there when I posted my posts explaining so, but that doesn't mean I haven't said it.

Also, the fact that you could just not have sex rather than going through the entire process of abortion is actually highly relevant if you ask me.

Because people can deal with the consequences the way they want, not the way YOU judge morally correct or not. Please provide reasons why abortion is bad before arguing sex should be left for reproductive means.

This isn't just me imposing my moral ideas, and I take umbrage to the fact that you think I am. If the fetus can be considered a life, then according to the laws, it should be illegal to have an abortion. I consider the fetus a life, and I don't think it's a roundabout derivation to do so.

I never said sex should be just for reproductive means, either (putting words in my mouth again)...I really don't give a crap if people want to be promiscuous as hell and have sex daily. I'm just saying that if you do that, you shouldn't be totally unable to support a baby or at least put it up for adoption. I know 9 months of pregnancy can't be pleasant at all, but that's a possible side-effect of sex which people are going to have to prepare themselves for.

 

[SuperBowser]

Because the fetus is basically a baby. I know it's surviving off the mother, it's not independent, etc. etc. but it is as good as a baby at that point. That's like saying that by hitting your head against something hard and killing brain cells, that's no more of a life than a baby. A sperm is not a baby without an egg, and vice versa. The fetus just needs to develop, alone.

No, it isn't. Considering your whole argument rests on this assertion, it would nice if you proved it.

People keep calling the fetus a ''baby'' in this topic and it's dishonest. At least call it the ''potential to be a baby''.

 

[Firus]

Yes, it is. Assuming nothing like an abortion occurs, it will become a baby. And every time I call it a potential baby to acknowledge that it has to develop first, people start saying it's no different from sperms and eggs being potential babies. There is a rather large difference between the two, so I'm trying to find some way to differentiate.

 

[SuperBowser]

Here's a way: call it a fetus.

And it's funny because no one's really provided a good answer for why a sperm and egg or a blastocyst about to implant on the uterine wall are so special from a fetus. It's just an arbritrary line that you are choosing with no science to back it up.

 

[Firus]

Because there is no imagination necessary for them to become a baby? A fetus only needs time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

 

[BFDD]

So people should have to be 21 to drink apple cider? All it takes is time for it to ferment, so that makes it alcohol.

 

[Aesir]

Because there is no imagination necessary for them to become a baby? A fetus only needs time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

If the medical field defines death as brain dead, aka when brain functions cease to exist. It would only make sense that you would define life as when brain functions begin or when the necessary components develop.

That's the only logical conclusion.

 

[cF=)]

Because there is no imagination necessary for them to become a baby? A fetus only needs time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

No, it not only needs time, but requires the entire environment of the mother to do so. I'll respond to the rest of your rebuttal soon enough, all I know is that you went completely wrong by pretending the mother has no role to play in his development.

 

[SuperBowser]

Because there is no imagination necessary for them to become a baby? A fetus only needs time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

Let me fix that for you.

Because there is no imagination necessary for them to become a baby? A sperm and egg only need time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

 

[RDK]

Firus, I'll bring this up yet again, since it's obvious you didn't read my last rant. According to your line of logic, we should be allowed to run around killing old people.

Because there is no imagination necessary for them to become a baby? A fetus only needs time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

There is no imagination necessary for them to become dead people. An old person only needs time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

 

[Firus]

Let me fix that for you.

Because there is no imagination necessary for them to become a baby? A sperm and egg only need time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

You're right. Sperm and eggs obviously come together magically. Sex is not necessary. And then once they get within a certain radius of each other, they're guaranteed to create a fetus. Right?

Firus, I'll bring this up yet again, since it's obvious you didn't read my last rant. According to your line of logic, we should be allowed to run around killing old people.

There is no imagination necessary for them to become dead people. An old person only needs time. The necessary ingredients are all there.

You obviously didn't read my reply to your last rant, otherwise you'd know that I did, in fact, read it. I also already argued against that logic, which is a rather stretched reductio ad absurdum argument.

No, it not only needs time, but requires the entire environment of the mother to do so. I'll respond to the rest of your rebuttal soon enough, all I know is that you went completely wrong by pretending the mother has no role to play in his development.

Yes, it does need the entire environment of the mother...when did I ever pretend the mother plays no role in the development? You assumed.

When I say it only needs time I mean no specific action needs to be taken to cause it to grow. It's in the right environment, it just needs to continue doing what it is.

 

[Oracle]

This whole "shooting a football player in the kneecap" analogy is completely ridiculous. We don't bestow rights onto something that potentially requires rights; we bestow rights on something that actually requires rights.

You say "But in a few months, the [baby / fetus/ what have you] will become a human being, with real feelings, emotions, and brain activity!" By this line of logic, we should be able to go around murdering old people, since perhaps in a few months, they're going to die anyway.

Calling fetuses "unborn children" is like referring to old people as "undead adults".

It's not "potential". It is certain that he will be a football player. This isn't "he will probably be a football player", this is "he will be a football player. Besides, under American law, Enrique would almost certainly win a lawsuit against me for shooting him in which I paid probably a large amount of money to make up for the money he would have gotten had I not shot him.

 

[SuperBowser]

You're right. Sperm and eggs obviously come together magically. Sex is not necessary. And then once they get within a certain radius of each other, they're guaranteed to create a fetus. Right?

You're right. Fetuses obviously turn into babies magically. A mother, hormones, maternal diseases, haematological diseases, anatomical variants, her womb's environment, genetics, toxins, virii and luck are not necessary (ignoring the vast amount of fetuses that spontaneously abort). Once they're a fetus, they're guaranteed to become a baby. Right?

Arbitrary line. Stop pretending it isn't.

 

[Firus]

I swear, it's like if I don't say everything I've said throughout my entire argument in every post, you guys pretend I've never said it.

It takes luck, it takes certain conditions, but no SPECIFIC ACTIONS have to be taken to cause the baby to develop from the fetus. I even said

Unless something goes wrong, they WILL become developed.

I acknowledge that a baby doesn't automatically turn into a fetus and that there are possible problems that can occur. But what, are you going to argue that "Oh, the fetus COULD die before it's delivered so it's okay if we kill it."? I hope not, because I wouldn't think you'd be okay with killing a person because they might've gotten killed in a natural disaster.

It's not an arbitrary line. There's a difference between mere development having to take place and a physical action having to take place. A rather large one. Otherwise you could argue that there's no difference between having the intent to murder someone and once you've stabbed someone and all they have to do is lose enough blood.

 

[SuperBowser]

So I assume all forms of contraception are a no-go for you?

The problem is that, following your assertion, you believe a fetus deserves all the rights a human possesses. You've yet to demonstrate why a fetus gets special treatment over a sperm and egg. At the end of day, it is still an unwanted bunch of cells that cannot live outside the mother's womb and the woman wishes to have removed from her body.

 

[RDK]

When I say it only needs time I mean no specific action needs to be taken to cause it to grow. It's in the right environment, it just needs to continue doing what it is.

So do old people in the context of dying. They're in the right environment; all they need to do is just continue doing what they're doing.

From your viewpoint, you should consider elderly people "potentailly dead". It's the same exact type of development you're talking about. You're mentally jumping the gun when you confer rights onto something that has yet to attain the status that requires those rights.

There is virtually no distinction between the sperm and the egg before "conception" and after, especially before it has even attached to the uterine wall.

It's not "potential". It is certain that he will be a football player.

So there's absolutely zero chance that he could get hit by a bus the next day and end his potential career? Because that's what it is--mere potential. He has not attained the status of football player yet.

You can even apply this same logic to the fetus example. Contrast the fetus with the football player and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I swear, it's like if I don't say everything I've said throughout my entire argument in every post, you guys pretend I've never said it.

It takes luck, it takes certain conditions, but no SPECIFIC ACTIONS have to be taken to cause the baby to develop from the fetus.

What?

Attaching to the uterine wall isn't a specific action? Pumping countless hormones, nutrients, and passive immunities into the fetus isn't a specific action?

Just what do you consider a specific action?

If you consider sex as specific, but not these, then you probably failed high school biology. All of theses are just as important as sex, just on a much less grand scale.

I acknowledge that a baby doesn't automatically turn into a fetus and that there are possible problems that can occur. But what, are you going to argue that "Oh, the fetus COULD die before it's delivered so it's okay if we kill it."? I hope not, because I wouldn't think you'd be okay with killing a person because they might've gotten killed in a natural disaster.

You're assuming the fetus is a person, which it is not.

If fetuses that have not gained consciousness are people, then so are every single one of my skin cells. Looks like I'm already possibly up for life in prison, because I just scratched my left buttcheek, and I'm pretty sure I murdered several hundreds of "skin people" in the process.

 

[Oracle]

So there's absolutely zero chance that he could get hit by a bus the next day and end his potential career? Because that's what it is--mere potential. He has not attained the status of football player yet.

Well of course there's a chance of that, just as there are very small chances of a completely random disease or mutation that could kill a fetus. That's completely irrelevant to the example, however. Assuming he is not hit by a bus (which will probably not happen), Enrique will be a football player. He just isn't yet. It is certain, save for a few really, really small chances of him dying of a completely random event, which is most certainly not a reason to say I'm not responsible for his football career.

You can even apply this same logic to the fetus example. Contrast the fetus with the football player and you'll see what I'm talking about.

What? Explain

 

[Firus]

Actually, I've never really considered it, and it's not entirely relevant to this issue so I'm not in a rush to make a decision.

You ought to phrase that differently, because not every fetus is unwanted and not every woman wants it outside of her body. I know in context it makes sense, but that sounds rather horrible. It also makes it sound like, "Who WOULDN'T want an abortion?" Which makes it sound like I'm trying to stop all women from reaching their goal.

At the end of the day, a child can be an unwanted bunch of cells that someone doesn't want to deal with. Just because something can be called "unwanted" and "a bunch of cells" doesn't mean it's all of a sudden nonliving and can be discarded.

It is dependent on the woman...and yes, it's inside her body. But unless it's going to physically harm her (in which case, I am all for an abortion), I don't see why she should just get rid of it, possibly on a whim.

 

[RDK]

Well of course there's a chance of that, just as there are very small chances of a completely random disease or mutation that could kill a fetus. That's completely irrelevant to the example, however. Assuming he is not hit by a bus (which will probably not happen), Enrique will be a football player. He just isn't yet. It is certain, save for a few really, really small chances of him dying of a completely random event, which is most certainly not a reason to say I'm not responsible for his football career

For the millionth time, by that logic, I should be able to come over to your house and slit your aorta because, assuming you don't drink from the Fountain of Youth anytime between now and when you die, you will eventually pass away. Leaving things as they are, you are going to die.

Better sooner than later, no?

It is dependent on the woman...and yes, it's inside her body. But unless it's going to physically harm her (in which case, I am all for an abortion), I don't see why she should just get rid of it, possibly on a whim.

You don't consider pregnancy harmful? I dare you to walk up to any woman that has gone through pregnancy and tell her she didn't have a hard time, both physically and mentally.

 

[Firus]

You don't consider pregnancy harmful? I dare you to walk up to any woman that has gone through pregnancy and tell her she didn't have a hard time, both physically and mentally.

Somehow I saw this coming.

Pregnancy is hardly harmful to the point of being life-threatening, normally. That wouldn't make much sense if the only way for the species to survive is for someone to go through a hazardous 9 months. It isn't a rollercoaster ride (well, aside from the morning sickness), but it's not normally dangerous. That's what I mean.

If a woman has a high chance of dying in childbirth, for example, an abortion may be necessary.

 

[SuperBowser]

Actually, I've never really considered it, and it's not entirely relevant to this issue so I'm not in a rush to make a decision.

Oh, I think my question is totally relevant to the discussion. But I'm glad you're considering the question thoughtfully and I respect your opinion far more for thinking it through logically

I was specifically talking about a woman with an unwanted preganancy rather than all pregnancies in my previous post. Regardless, unless you can show that a developing fetus somehow has an equivalent status to a baby (or viable fetus) and that abortion is inherently different to preventing a sperm and egg meeting, your argument cannot logically follow through to the next stage.

(Btw I can tell you right now there are loads of things that can go wrong in pregnancy. At best, it takes a great physical and mental toll on a person and at worst it can kill you. Most intelligent people would tell you it's foolish not to see a doctor while you are pregnant. Just look at the rate of pregnancy related morbidities/mortalities in an undeveloped country.)

 

[BFDD]

Pregnancy is hardly harmful to the point of being life-threatening, normally. That wouldn't make much sense if the only way for the species to survive is for someone to go through a hazardous 9 months. It isn't a rollercoaster ride (well, aside from the morning sickness), but it's not normally dangerous. That's what I mean.

Are you female? It is a lot easier to say oh its not that bad when you won't be the one dealing with it. Being pregnant sucks. No woman will say otherwise. Shouldn't it be up to the person going through the pregnancy to decide whether or not they want to have an abortion? Rather than some guy that just has to watch?

It takes luck, it takes certain conditions, but no SPECIFIC ACTIONS have to be taken to cause the baby to develop from the fetus.

So again, anyone under the age of 21 shouldn't be allowed to drink cider? no specific actions are required for it to become alcoholic so it should be considered alcohol.

 

[Oracle]

For the millionth time, by that logic, I should be able to come over to your house and slit your aorta because, assuming you don't drink from the Fountain of Youth anytime between now and when you die, you will eventually pass away. Leaving things as they are, you are going to die.

Better sooner than later, no?

No. Just no. While my death and the life of the fetus are both inevitable, Live is good. Hence the measures taken to preserve it. Dying is bad, so we want to avoid death.

 

[Firus]

Oh, I think my question is totally relevant to the discussion. But I'm glad you're considering the question thoughtfully and I respect your opinion far more for thinking it through logically

Hm, you do have a point, now that I think about it.

After giving it some thought, personally, I'm still not sure if I'd use them, but for other people, I don't particularly care; I'm for other people using them if they so wish.

I was specifically talking about a woman with an unwanted preganancy rather than all pregnancies in my previous post. Regardless, unless you can show that a developing fetus somehow has an equivalent status to a baby (or viable fetus) and that abortion is inherently different to preventing a sperm and egg meeting, your argument cannot logically follow through to the next stage.

I know what you were talking about, I'm just saying it was worded in a way in which it could've been misinterpreted.

A fetus, throughout development, begins to develop vital organs and starts to live, basically. It couldn't do so without the mother, but the baby can't just come tumbling out right away and be independent. It can't think yet, but unlike a sperm or egg cell, it is developing the things that humans have. Sperm cells kept in one's body are not going to ever live. The same goes for eggs. They cannot live by themselves.

Compare this to a relationship, for example. If you stop two people from ever meeting, they never have a relationship. You're not breaking anything up, because there was nothing to break up. But if you let them meet up and then sabotage the relationship, you're breaking it up because their relationship will end. There will be hard feelings there, but not in the case of the relationship never existing. There was no real opportunity of something larger there. I hope that was a clear analogy.

(Btw I can tell you right now there are loads of things that can go wrong in pregnancy. At best, it takes a great physical and mental toll on a person and at worst it can kill you. Most intelligent people would tell you it's foolish not to see a doctor while you are pregnant. Just look at the rate of pregnancy related morbidities/mortalities in an undeveloped country.)

Yes, I agree. I know pregnancy isn't 100% safe by any measure, and I know it's probably a pretty crappy experience. However, in the developed societies, a lot of them are prevented; and again, if the mother is in peril, I wouldn't wish for her to have to carry out the pregnancy.

I wouldn't really want to have to tell anyone that they have to go through that, but on the other hand, it seems like you can just prevent the 9 months of pregnancy by yourself. It's not like you're creating this event for the woman and telling her she has to endure it, it's kind of her fault for getting herself pregnant.

Are you female? It is a lot easier to say oh its not that bad when you won't be the one dealing with it. Being pregnant sucks. No woman will say otherwise. Shouldn't it be up to the person going through the pregnancy to decide whether or not they want to have an abortion? Rather than some guy that just has to watch?

I never said it wouldn't be that bad, I'm just saying it's not life-threatening throughout, as long as you're not careless. I know being pregnant sucks.

I am male, but if it means any more to you I know three women personally who would agree with me, one of whom has had three children.

So again, anyone under the age of 21 shouldn't be allowed to drink cider? no specific actions are required for it to become alcoholic so it should be considered alcohol.

Cider doesn't have alcohol in it until it's fermented. A fetus, however, has organs and such of a living human being before it becomes a baby.

 

[RDK]

Cider doesn't have alcohol in it until it's fermented. A fetus, however, has organs and such of a living human being before it becomes a baby.

What? You're telling me that, before the end of the first trimester, the fetus has the fully developed organs of a human being?

In all honesty, you guys have already lost the argument. At this juncture you're just refusing to see why your viewpoint is ridiculous.

 

[Oracle]

I'm surprised no one has brought up the argument that an abortion in some cases would prevent the baby from living a crappy life.

In all honesty, you guys have already lost the argument. At this juncture you're just refusing to see why your viewpoint is ridiculous.

Even though you pick and choose which points to respond to in peoples arguments and completely ignore some posts?

What?

Attaching to the uterine wall isn't a specific action? Pumping countless hormones, nutrients, and passive immunities into the fetus isn't a specific action?

Just what do you consider a specific action?

If you consider sex as specific, but not these, then you probably failed high school biology. All of theses are just as important as sex, just on a much less grand scale.

He means that after I have impregnated a woman, I have to do absolutely nothing for the baby to be born. Everything else is automatic

 

[RDK]

I'm surprised no one has brought up the argument that an abortion in some cases would prevent the baby from living a crappy life.

I really don't care whether or not it will have a crappy life at this point; it's not a human being, therefore it doesn't really matter.

Even though you pick and choose which points to respond to in peoples arguments and completely ignore some posts?

I choose to ignore parts of your guys' posts because either A) I've already addressed them adequately and you've ignored my replies, or B) they're just so stupid as to not merit an intelligent response.

He means that after I have impregnated a woman, I have to do absolutely nothing for the baby to be born. Everything else is automatic

Wrong. Just because you do not play a part in the further development of the fetus doesn't mean it's automatic, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, this is simple biology.

 

[BFDD]

Cider doesn't have alcohol in it until it's fermented. A fetus, however, has organs and such of a living human being before it becomes a baby.

Cider contains everything necessary to produce alcohol. Just as a fetus contains everything necessary to create a baby. You admit that before fermenting the cider is not alcoholic until fermentation. So you admit that just because it has potential to become alcoholic does not mean it is alcoholic. So how can you claim that because a fetus has the potential to become a baby it is living? Any organs it has are undeveloped and are not functioning organs yet. Like the sugar in the cider is undeveloped alcohol that hasn't formed yet.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the argument that an abortion in some cases would prevent the baby from living a crappy life.

Not a very good argument. Anti-abortionists are arguing that the baby is alive. If you claim that it is ok to "kill" the fetus if its life might be bad then there is nothing wrong with someone killing themselves if they have a crappy life.

It is much better to determine when the fetus is actually considered alive. Few will argue against removing a tumor, but most will agree that killing a baby is bad.

 

[Aesir]

Even though you pick and choose which points to respond to in peoples arguments and completely ignore some posts?

Though RDK delt with this rather quickly I want to point out why you would blame RDK for ignoring posts when your side has done the same.

No one even bothered touching this quote:

If the medical field defines death as brain dead, aka when brain functions cease to exist. It would only make sense that you would define life as when brain functions begin or when the necessary components develop.

That's the only logical conclusion.

Is there a reason?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Just dropped in and this thread is WAY off-topic.


The issue in question is the freedom of choice act not whether abortion is right or wrong.

As far as I can see, even assuming Roe is the controlling standard , it doesn't change anything. The language merely places Roe's holding in Congressional law as opposed to constitutional, at least as of current. There are no provisions to force for example, unwilling doctors to perform abortions.

Furthermore it's tied to Roe V. Wade, so it's ever overruled or a Constitutional change occurs that renders Roe null, the law goes too. Basically, I don't care either way, FOCA does nothing whatsoever.


An amusing aside, this law actually does less then that if it passes. Remember how I said "assuming Roe is the controlling standard"? Well, it's not.

Roe V. Wade was effectively overruled by Casey, basically the entire text of the decision was overruled minus the case itself and the result.

Because FOCA depends on fetal viability being the controlling test for abortion rights, something which was overruled in Casey in favor of a test of government interest versus the mother's interest.

Furthermore, the controlling test is not heightened scrutiny, but "undue burden". Because the language is that of heightened scrutiny (in other words, the government cannot "deny or interfere on a woman's right to choose", as opposed to language like "imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to chose") and the court has not ruled that the government can heighten the scrutiny, it's also unconstitutional.


So, the FOCA act cannot go into effect, except for the "essential holding" that a woman has the right to choose (and the justification for that), Roe has been overruled in favor of Casey. Since FOCA explicitly depends on Roe's viability and heightened scrutiny provisions, the act basically doesn't exist. Basically it's a stupid law, and shouldn't be passed for that reason, but does nothing upon passage because it's already been ruled against.


another aside:

If the medical field defines death as brain dead, aka when brain functions cease to exist. It would only make sense that you would define life as when brain functions begin or when the necessary components develop.

That's the only logical conclusion.

Brain-death is an effective standard for humans because post-birth the body cannot perform the essential functions of life without the brain. Basically, it's easier then testing, "is the organism capable of performing locomotion?" because we know from extensive experimental evidence that it cannot perform the functions of life.


However, pre-birth the body is able to perform all the essential functions of life without a brain, at least prior to it's development.


Really, this is a useless aside because whether the fetus is alive is irrelevant. It's accepted that it's living because it would be impossible for it to develop if it wasn't alive.

The question for abortion is "a woman's right to privacy vs. governmental interest/the fetus' rights" not whether it's alive.