Abortion.

[warri0r45]

(1) I don't see how the argument that "the mother created it, she decides what to do with it."

 

 

 

If a mother smothered her one day old baby because she could not support it, or if it were to have some debilitating condition, she would get the majority of her life in prison and be publicly crucified by media.

 

 

 

(2) If a mother has her child killed one day before it's born, it's somewhat alright?

 

 

 

(3) A zygote is a human being. We were all Zygotes. Did you magically turn from "non-human" to "human" by leaving the womb? We have evidence now of fetus' displaying heartbeats at only 3 weeks. Of sucking their thumbs at 6 (which if that is not a human behavior, you need an examination).

 

 

 

(4) This sounds more like a debate on eugenics. Find out your kid is not going to be born healthy, so you go ahead and "spare" him a lifetime of misery. Sounds noble, doesn't it?

 

 

 

(5) My brother died a day after he was born. I spent SIX WEEKS in ICU without a natural heartbeat. 22 years later, I am healthy as can be with no outstanding medical conditions. And yes, my family was doing very badly monetarily back then.

 

 

 

(6) There are alternatives to abortion. You make every adoption center sound like freaking Oliver Twist. They are not. Most adopted children in this nation find loving parents, many don't even know about their adoption.

 

 

 

Lets say couple A: A college couple where the girl gets knocked up after a drunken binge. Couple B: A middle-aged married couple, the wife is barren.

 

 

 

What scenario makes more sense to you? Couple A having their child killed in the womb because they don't want to take care of it? They don't wish their parents to know? Or for the girl to bring it to term, put it up for adoption and Couple B having the chance for a child.

 

 

 

(7) My argument summed up in one point: There are alternatives. Be more careful with sex, use better protection, "GROW UP" about pregnancy and deal with it (most mothers would not turn their backs on their daughters because they were pregnant), or heck, raise the child yourself!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I have gotten emotional in this post. Abortion is single-handedly the only thing in this world that makes me white-knuckle pissed off. If someone would like to offer counterpoints, I'd love to cool down and answer. Hell, I could even do polls for you.

 

 

 

(1) Unless there's something authoritative in law which states what she does with it, I'm not comfortable with every Tom [bleep] and Harry insisting they know the right thing to do. Do you feel you have the right to tell a mother what she must do with respect to abortion?

 

 

 

(2) There are limits to abortion in law. If it still happens 1 day before pregnancy, which I understand is illegal basically everywhere, I'm not a fan. The earlier, the better, to avoid the complicated stages of neural development and pain perception.

 

 

 

(3) Wrong terminology. A zygote is a single cell of combined sperm and egg. After first division it's no longer a zygote. You and I are human beings. A human zygote is a human zygote. As I said previously, the argument kind of lacks it's emotional appeal when you say 'killing human zygotes is wrong' opposed to 'killing people is wrong.'

 

 

 

(4) You should be careful not to compare this to Hitler's eugenics. It in no way deserves that tag as we can quantitively define and describe a deisease. We can't do the same for 'attractive.'

 

 

 

(5) Good thing your mother didn't choose to abort. You'll always get the exact same reaction from a fully grown human being. We all don't want to die. A zygote can't know what it wants to do or not do. It's not aware of anything.

 

 

 

(6) And alternatives are great. Your hypothetical is great too. If only we lived in an ideal world, right?

 

 

 

(7) Some people are very careful and still get pregnant. Should we make abortion illegal because of those irresponsible ones?

[kelem_ryu]

Mr Kant, i have a question: Can you explain to me, why killing an unborn baby as soon as you would consider it human isn't moral?

 

 

 

It depends on what you consider a moral action to be. So explain to me what you consider to be a moral action, and then I will answer your question.

 

 

 

Oh.. thought this would be a game, where you pretend to be Kant and argue on his behalf using his set of ideas and Hume would hold against using Humes ideas. Guess i kinda misinterpreted. :oops:

[heartless619]

There are the following cases of unwanted pregnancy:

 

 

 

1. Rape

 

2. Accidents

 

3. A handicapped baby

 

 

 

In case 1, it's pretty clear. Abortion.

 

 

 

In my opinion anyone who won't allow an abortion in cases 2 and 3 is a very narrow-minded person. The 16-year old couple had a little accident. You want to ruin that young woman's life so a fetus that hasn't even reached a state of conciousness can live. And what life will it have? A desperate teenager that can't enjoy being young any more as mother. Yay. If your baby has a serious handicap, it's in my opnion the best to end that life as soon as possible. You want to give your child a life of joy, not of constant misery because he/ she can't see, can't walk, etc. Is it cruel? To me it isn't. It doesn't know anything, so why not start over and give a child a life everyone can enjoy?

 

 

 

i agree with the first one...

 

#2 - first off if a 16 year old has sexs anyway its rape....so...it just leads to number 1...duh?

 

 

 

and how am i narrow minded if i dont agree with you on number 3?

 

just because someone is born handicapped doesn't meen they deserve to die..they should have an equal chance at life to....lol the last part you said to...a life everyone can enjoy?

 

 

 

do you think i would enjoy your child around me if Its being rude and obnoxious? so are you saying that poor kids in Africa and where ever else should all have been aborted..because they are constantly suffering from starvation?

 

 

 

id say your a pretty shallow person.

[Barihawk]

There are the following cases of unwanted pregnancy:

 

 

 

1. Rape

 

2. Accidents

 

3. A handicapped baby

 

 

 

In case 1, it's pretty clear. Abortion.

 

 

 

In my opinion anyone who won't allow an abortion in cases 2 and 3 is a very narrow-minded person. The 16-year old couple had a little accident. You want to ruin that young woman's life so a fetus that hasn't even reached a state of conciousness can live. And what life will it have? A desperate teenager that can't enjoy being young any more as mother. Yay. If your baby has a serious handicap, it's in my opnion the best to end that life as soon as possible. You want to give your child a life of joy, not of constant misery because he/ she can't see, can't walk, etc. Is it cruel? To me it isn't. It doesn't know anything, so why not start over and give a child a life everyone can enjoy?

 

 

 

That sentiment is disgusting. By that mentality, you are condoning eugenics. Why don't we just go round up all the blind and lame people in the world and shoot them in the head to put them out of their misery.

 

 

 

I can't even begin to state how disgusting that post is. I'm sorry, but you remind me of freaking Hitler. You make it sound like killing a baby is a public service.

 

 

 

 

 

And to Warri0r:

 

 

 

1. When the law applies, yes. And I will support every law initiative to consider abortion murder. Whether it's an undeveloped Zygote, or a fetus that is just becoming self-aware, it still has the right to be born.

 

 

 

2. I was playing devil's advocate there. In fact, it is legal in China to kill the baby just before birth as a means of population control. I was combating here the stigma that "life begins at birth," which I consider BS.

 

 

 

3. You got me there, I forgot my biology. Embryo would be a better term. However, you are correct that it lacks an emotional appeal.

 

 

 

4. I didn't mean Hitler's eugenics. There is a recent surge in eugenics research that seems to be picking up speed (ie cloning, genetic manipulation, etc) that I am sure will make normal humanity a subspecies. By saying that you are doing the baby a favor by not making it live through MS or blindness, you are pretty much making it a subspecies. Not worthy of living amongst us healthy people.

 

 

 

5. Hence the reason I make these statements. An embryo may not have conscious thought (the brain does not kick on until 3-5 weeks into the term) but by aborting it you are snuffing out that future fully grown human being. You snuff out it's ideas, thoughts, dreams, and aspirations. Every human deserves the right to grow up (as we hear countless times on news reports when a young child is killed). Does the embryo not deserve the same?

 

 

 

6. It's been my understanding that most pro-choicers are exceedingly pessimistic. Apparently, every adoption agency looks like Oliver Twist and every child born to unwanting parents is going to be blind, Deaf, lame, and be mentally challenged. When neither of these things is true. It's the minority kicking the majority's [wagon].

 

 

 

7. Like I said before, it's poetic justice. All actions have consequences, all causes effect. Grow up and accept them. If 15-year olds want to have immature irresponsible sex, they should be prepared for the consequences. Should a life be snuffed out just because they don't want their parents to know?

 

 

 

Speaking of which. When parents find out their little girl is pregnant, the anger is almost always short lived. No matter if you are dirt poor or filthy rich, your parents and grandparents would always be willing to help out and accept the baby into the family.

[kelem_ryu]

(1) I don't see how the argument that "the mother created it, she decides what to do with it."

 

 

 

If a mother smothered her one day old baby because she could not support it, or if it were to have some debilitating condition, she would get the majority of her life in prison and be publicly crucified by media.

 

 

 

(2) If a mother has her child killed one day before it's born, it's somewhat alright?

 

 

 

 

There is an important difference here. In case 2) the mother can give the child to child care or whatever, if she doesn't want the baby. In case 1) the baby is inside her body. What if she doesn't want it there? What options does she have? Instead of aborting she could of course as well just starve for a week or two. This would probably kill the baby. I doubt this is illegal. She could also do excercise like mad. This would also kill the child and would hardly be illegal. Or she could just abort the pregnancy. Mothers to be all through history choose that option, even though it was illegal. Women died during the process, because it was unsave and they knew it would be.

 

 

 

I don't get what anti abortion people are suggesting. Do they want to force women to carry out their babies? You can't, short of tieing them to a bed and feeding them intreavenous.

 

 

 

Is abortion killing? I think so. Eating meat is killing to. Killing is about as natural as pregnancy is.

 

 

 

Is killing right? Probably not. Yet there is no line you could draw. There are some Hindus, who wear face masks and sweep the floor they step on with a broom, so they don't kill smallest creatures. Where do you want to draw the line? Not killing humans you say? But killing a random animal to feed on is okay? It's certainly not necessary to feed on meat.

 

 

 

Sure abortion shouldn't be done too lightly probably, but i can't shake the feeling that people who just claim "killing is wrong" or even "killing humans is wrong" just see in black or white.

 

 

 

Imo even killing is okay, if it is what you must do. We all know the story of the tree of knowledge. Enough people miss that there is a second tree there. The tree of life. My interpretation is that eating from that tree would make you realize that life just is good and evil and nobody asks of you to just do good. I might be wrong of course.. hm.. i could make a topic about this one. Might be interesting.

 

 

 

I guess i got pretty emotional myself.

[Barihawk]

Is abortion killing? I think so. Eating meat is killing to. Killing is about as natural as pregnancy is.

 

 

 

Are you serious? We don't eat the meat of humans. I'm sorry, but that analogy is absurd.

[warren211]

what i dont get here is... if a mother kills her baby after its born, its illegal. if she kills it before its born, its arguably ok? you can kill your child early, but can't drown it or smother it after. does this make sense?

[kelem_ryu]

Is abortion killing? I think so. Eating meat is killing to. Killing is about as natural as pregnancy is.

 

 

 

Are you serious? We don't eat the meat of humans. I'm sorry, but that analogy is absurd.

 

 

 

Well then tell me when killing is okay in your eyes! Is it okay to kill for food? for freedom? is it okay to kill a tree to make toilet paper out of it? how do you justify killing?

 

 

 

 

 

what i dont get here is... if a mother kills her baby after its born, its illegal. if she kills it before its born, its arguably ok? you can kill your child early, but can't drown it or smother it after. does this make sense?

 

 

 

as answer i give you:

 

 

 

(1) I don't see how the argument that "the mother created it, she decides what to do with it."

 

 

 

If a mother smothered her one day old baby because she could not support it, or if it were to have some debilitating condition, she would get the majority of her life in prison and be publicly crucified by media.

 

 

 

(2) If a mother has her child killed one day before it's born, it's somewhat alright?

 

 

 

 

There is an important difference here. In case 2) the mother can give the child to child care or whatever, if she doesn't want the baby. In case 1) the baby is inside her body. What if she doesn't want it there?

[Rebdragon]

You missed my point. Everybody can choose their partner, so i can't "cheerfully spread my seed" to the woman who doesn't decide me to be fitting. Also women have a) more means for birth control and B) knows when a condome is used. A man doesn't know if she really uses the anti baby pill (correctly) ("you don't need a condome, i'm using the pill anyway." does she? how am i supposed to know?). A man can't decide to abort. Seeing that women have way more control over the whole progress they have more responsibility.

 

 

 

If the parents don't live together and the child stays at only or mainly with one of them, then the one the child lives with obviously is responsible for the childs education. Okay i put it somehow misleading. Nobody should be forced to pay allimente. I think it should be the responsibility of the state, to make sure it's citizens have enough to life of. As soon as the child is born it's a citizen after all. However you shouldn't be able to force somebody to pay for the child. If you would have given it to child care, nobody would have to pay, but if one of the parents keeps the child all of the sudden the other parent can be forced to pay.

 

 

 

And here is my point again. The mother can choose to carry the baby to birth. The father can't. I mean for all i know a woman could trick me into making her a baby and then force me to pay allimente just out of spite. I couldn't do that. It would be technically impossible.

 

I think I can feel Sumpta's vibes right now asking my hand to slap you.

 

 

 

A child is the responsibility of both it's parents. This "but she can prevent it better" crap doesn't give you the right to assume that you should get off easy after you impregnated some girl. And for the love of god, no girl is going to have a baby out of spite for you, unless you really think you're that much of a [bleep].

 

 

 

Oh, and we have welfare already, and free schooling. It may not be perfect, but judging by your response it seems like you don't understand that the state already offers what you're asking for.

[Barihawk]

Well then tell me when killing is okay in your eyes! Is it okay to kill for food? for freedom? is it okay to kill a tree to make toilet paper out of it? how do you justify killing?

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

We are talking about humans here. Not animals. I don't care if you are from Earth First, we are not discussing that. Trees are not sentient.

 

 

 

And soldiers know they have the risk of death. A child does not.

[kelem_ryu]

 

A child is the responsibility of both it's parents.

 

 

 

Period. A statement. You paid attention in school. Care to explain, why this makes more sense then what i proclaim?

 

 

 

 

This "but she can prevent it better" crap

 

 

 

So i am wrong about that? A woman doesn't know if i put on a condome and i in turn can read on her forehead wether she took an anti baby pill, has a hormone spiral or whatever? Also who ultimately makes the decision wether to abort or not? (ideally we will discuss this together, but who has the final say?)

[kelem_ryu]

Well then tell me when killing is okay in your eyes! Is it okay to kill for food? for freedom? is it okay to kill a tree to make toilet paper out of it? how do you justify killing?

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

We are talking about humans here. Not animals. I don't care if you are from Earth First, we are not discussing that. Trees are not sentient.

 

 

 

And soldiers know they have the risk of death. A child does not.

 

 

 

So your argument against abortion isn't that killing inherently is wrong, but just that killing humans is wrong? And you reason that killing humans is wrong, because you say so i guess?

 

 

 

EDIT: double post. sorry about that.

[Rebdragon]

A child is the responsibility of both it's parents.

 

 

 

Period. A statement. You paid attention in school. Care to explain, why this makes more sense then what i proclaim?

 

Are you serious? Fine, how about this: you both created the baby, you're "bond" is what created it, just because she's the one carrying it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to both of you.

 

 

 

What do you see that's wrong with that? Do you seriously think that the baby, which you created with a girl (that you hopefully love...), is solely the responsibility of her? By that logic, fathers shouldn't even be in the lives of children, since they apparently don't have any responsibility to their child.

 

 

 

Both the mother and father are responsible for the creation of the baby. By parallel logic, that leads to the child being the responsibility of both parents. Get it?

 

 

 

This "but she can prevent it better" crap

 

 

 

So i am wrong about that? A woman doesn't know if i put on a condome and i in turn can read on her forehead wether she took an anti baby pill, has a hormone spiral or whatever? Also who ultimately makes the decision wether to abort or not? (ideally we will discuss this together, but who has the final say?)

 

Who has the final say? Except in cases where the girl aborts without her partner knowing the fetus ever existed, both the male and female in the relationship have the final say. In the few cases where the father is completely and uttely against the idea of keeping the baby, but the mother decides not to do an abortion, sure the mother made a decision, but it's a decision that effects both the parents. The child is still the responsibility of both parents, the creation of both parents, whether or not the father is a [bleep] and leaves the girl to fend for herself.

 

 

 

Hypothetically, would you walk out on some girl after impregnating her? Does your sense of morality tell you that's all right?

[dwarfdude3]

abortion is a good thing, I'm all for it. I figure, as long as the mother is considering aborting the baby, it probably won't have a very good life and is likely to eventually accidentally get pregnant themselves and then want an abortion. So, spare the kids the trouble while you can.

 

 

 

Besides its not like you're alive when you're a fetus so you're not gonna remember anything. Do you remember getting circumcised? It's the same kinda thing.

 

 

 

And by the way, don't fall for the anti-abortionists 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' crap, its just a way of making the anti-abortionists look better.

[Ambassadar]

Besides its not like you're alive when you're a fetus so you're not gonna remember anything. Do you remember getting circumcised? It's the same kinda thing.

 

 

 

So you would be ok with killing infants since they are in the same boat?

[Lenin64]

What it comes down to is, you may think it is wrong, but it needs to be legal for the mother own safety. If it were illegal, I'm sure plenty of people would seek out other methods of abortion. Go to some seedy abortion centre run out of someones house, in a unsterile environment. Where he will probably prod you with a rusty coat hanger. Or get someone to kick the crap out her stomach.

 

 

 

Now, all you pro-lifers, what would be a greater crime to let die, a fetus which doesn't know it's mouth from it's a-hole. Or a young woman, too scared to deal with a child she would never be able to care for, who didn't have the right facilities avaliable to her?

 

Actually, our mouth and anus do come from the same hole. So there is nothing to tell apart at first...

 

But really, making something illegal does not guarantee anything. when you have to have it you have to have it. People will get abortions no matter the law, and here's a thought: just because something is legal does not mean everybody will do it. Sbortion being legal does not mean hundreds of thousands will be getting abortions each day.

[Ambassadar]

But really, making something illegal does not guarantee anything. when you have to have it you have to have it. People will get abortions no matter the law, and here's a thought: just because something is legal does not mean everybody will do it.

 

 

 

Just because something is legal doesn't mean everybody will do it. It does mean that more people would do it than would do it when it was illegal.

[Sumpta]

And here is my point again. The mother can choose to carry the baby to birth. The father can't. I mean for all i know a woman could trick me into making her a baby and then force me to pay allimente just out of spite. I couldn't do that. It would be technically impossible.

 

I think I can feel Sumpta's vibes right now asking my hand to slap you.

 

 

 

Thank you! You said it all, I couldn't agree more with everything you said.

 

 

 

This "but she can prevent it better" crap

 

So i am wrong about that? A woman doesn't know if i put on a condome and i in turn can read on her forehead wether she took an anti baby pill, has a hormone spiral or whatever? Also who ultimately makes the decision wether to abort or not? (ideally we will discuss this together, but who has the final say?)

 

 

 

What are you talking about? A woman doesn't know if you put on a condome? How could she not know? I don't mean to be crude, but it's not like she's in another country while you're having sexual relations with her.

 

 

 

It's really simple to break down the responsibility issue.

 

You don't trust your bed-partner:

 

* she says she takes the pill/alternative anticonception - you use a condom/alternative anticonception

 

* she says she doesn't take the pill/alternative anticonception - you use a condom/alternative anticonception

 

 

 

You would trust your bed-partner with your life:

 

* she says she takes the pill/alternative anticonception - you don't use a condom/alternative anticonception unless you like it better that way

 

* she says she doesn't take the pill/alternative anticonception - you use a condom/alternative anticonception

 

 

 

If you didn't use a condom and she got pregnant, you were too easy of trust, which is pretty stupid, but doesn't exempt you from your responsibility. The state doesn't expect you to take on any fatherly duties, except paying an alimony which is usually hardly enough to actually raise a child. Both mother and father are well-protected by the law.

 

 

 

A woman does have the power to end a pregnancy on her own. She doesn't need the consent of the natural father to do so. In my neverending naivity, I'd think that that would be worse for men. They'll never really know if they haven't impregnated a girl sometime.

[assassin_696]

There are the following cases of unwanted pregnancy:

 

 

 

1. Rape

 

2. Accidents

 

3. A handicapped baby

 

 

 

In case 1, it's pretty clear. Abortion.

 

 

 

In my opinion anyone who won't allow an abortion in cases 2 and 3 is a very narrow-minded person. The 16-year old couple had a little accident. You want to ruin that young woman's life so a fetus that hasn't even reached a state of conciousness can live. And what life will it have? A desperate teenager that can't enjoy being young any more as mother. Yay. If your baby has a serious handicap, it's in my opnion the best to end that life as soon as possible. You want to give your child a life of joy, not of constant misery because he/ she can't see, can't walk, etc. Is it cruel? To me it isn't. It doesn't know anything, so why not start over and give a child a life everyone can enjoy?

 

 

 

That sentiment is disgusting. By that mentality, you are condoning eugenics. Why don't we just go round up all the blind and lame people in the world and shoot them in the head to put them out of their misery.

 

 

 

I can't even begin to state how disgusting that post is. I'm sorry, but you remind me of freaking Hitler. You make it sound like killing a baby is a public service.

 

 

 

Oh give over, I would have thought you'd have been able to realise the difference between taking away the life of a conscious, developed seperate entity with memories, experiences and the viability to life, and aborting a fetus which has no consciousness and is not self aware, let alone able to feel pain.

 

 

 

Kant, as I've said earlier in nearly all my posts an embryo that has just been conceived left to its own devices will not become a human being. It needs its mother for the first 20 weeks or so, although generally it needs the mother for much longer, hence why 48 weeks is the normal pregnancy duration.

 

 

 

That's Hume's point, a sperm also has the potential to form a human being, but it need an egg to fertilise.

 

 

 

Right, but a sperm doesn't have fully human DNA. Neither does an egg. Does an embryo?

 

 

 

It has a complete set of chromosomes, yes, but so does every cell in your body, and lose millions if not billions of those daily.

 

 

 

Where can you draw the line? I don't think you can from a point of pure reason or logic, so we need to be realistic and realise that in some cases it is far more sensible to allow an abortion and benefit the quality of life of the parents

 

 

 

This is a false dilemma. You can't know that the quality of life of the parents will be worsened by going through with a pregnancy.

 

 

 

Actually, you can. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that a couple living in abject poverty, who already have many children and are barely able to support them would not have their quality of life made any better whatsoever by carrying through with the pregnancy.

 

 

 

than to bring a child into a world of suffering and pain based on the logic that a conglomeration of cells should be considered a human being with the same rights as a fully developed, genuinely seperate one.

 

 

 

Another false dilemma, one that I have already addressed in previous posts.

 

 

 

You discussed it, but you didn't respond to my response at all.

[warri0r45]

There are the following cases of unwanted pregnancy:

 

 

 

1. Rape

 

2. Accidents

 

3. A handicapped baby

 

 

 

In case 1, it's pretty clear. Abortion.

 

 

 

In my opinion anyone who won't allow an abortion in cases 2 and 3 is a very narrow-minded person. The 16-year old couple had a little accident. You want to ruin that young woman's life so a fetus that hasn't even reached a state of conciousness can live. And what life will it have? A desperate teenager that can't enjoy being young any more as mother. Yay. If your baby has a serious handicap, it's in my opnion the best to end that life as soon as possible. You want to give your child a life of joy, not of constant misery because he/ she can't see, can't walk, etc. Is it cruel? To me it isn't. It doesn't know anything, so why not start over and give a child a life everyone can enjoy?

 

 

 

That sentiment is disgusting. By that mentality, you are condoning eugenics. Why don't we just go round up all the blind and lame people in the world and shoot them in the head to put them out of their misery.

 

 

 

I can't even begin to state how disgusting that post is. I'm sorry, but you remind me of freaking Hitler. You make it sound like killing a baby is a public service.

 

 

 

 

 

And to Warri0r:

 

 

 

1. When the law applies, yes. And I will support every law initiative to consider abortion murder. Whether it's an undeveloped Zygote, or a fetus that is just becoming self-aware, it still has the right to be born.

 

 

 

2. I was playing devil's advocate there. In fact, it is legal in China to kill the baby just before birth as a means of population control. I was combating here the stigma that "life begins at birth," which I consider BS.

 

 

 

3. You got me there, I forgot my biology. Embryo would be a better term. However, you are correct that it lacks an emotional appeal.

 

 

 

4. I didn't mean Hitler's eugenics. There is a recent surge in eugenics research that seems to be picking up speed (ie cloning, genetic manipulation, etc) that I am sure will make normal humanity a subspecies. By saying that you are doing the baby a favor by not making it live through MS or blindness, you are pretty much making it a subspecies. Not worthy of living amongst us healthy people.

 

 

 

5. Hence the reason I make these statements. An embryo may not have conscious thought (the brain does not kick on until 3-5 weeks into the term) but by aborting it you are snuffing out that future fully grown human being. You snuff out it's ideas, thoughts, dreams, and aspirations. Every human deserves the right to grow up (as we hear countless times on news reports when a young child is killed). Does the embryo not deserve the same?

 

 

 

6. It's been my understanding that most pro-choicers are exceedingly pessimistic. Apparently, every adoption agency looks like Oliver Twist and every child born to unwanting parents is going to be blind, Deaf, lame, and be mentally challenged. When neither of these things is true. It's the minority kicking the majority's [wagon].

 

 

 

7. Like I said before, it's poetic justice. All actions have consequences, all causes effect. Grow up and accept them. If 15-year olds want to have immature irresponsible sex, they should be prepared for the consequences. Should a life be snuffed out just because they don't want their parents to know?

 

 

 

Speaking of which. When parents find out their little girl is pregnant, the anger is almost always short lived. No matter if you are dirt poor or filthy rich, your parents and grandparents would always be willing to help out and accept the baby into the family.

 

 

 

1) That's fine, be a lobbyist for what you believe in, just make sure you don't fall into the trap of believing you in fact have divine right to tell a mother what she can and can not do when the choice to abort is within the limits of law.

 

 

 

2) Yes, "life begins at birth" is BS. Life eventuates from a mechanical dividing machine into an embryo with a heartbeat and pain perception and beyond. Where to draw the line of where life begins can be a simple 'at conception' or something far more difficult to pin point.

 

 

 

3) Yes, I don't like the emotional appeal. I admire Ambassadar in particular for debating a human zygote as a person and bringing up many difficult philosophical issues to answer, but the argument then carries huge emotional appeal. To debate such issues and avoid an emotional bias, you need specificity in what you are debating against. Ambassadar's argument was that zygotes are people, killing people is wrong and therefore killing zygotes is wrong (feel free to correct me Ambassadar). My arguments countering Ambassadar's then evolved into a questioning of why not debate against killing a human zygote instead of lumping them in with the category of people? Hell, why not divide the whole gestation period into weeks and argue against terminating the pregnancy at a specific point? This would undoubtedly destroy emotional appeal because the connotation when saying 'killing people' is much more real and unsettling than the connotation when saying 'killing zygotes' or even 'killing blastocysts' or 'killing 1 week old embryos.'

 

 

 

4) Eugenics is a difficult issue and you bring up a difficult scenario.

 

 

 

5) Herein lies the polar opposite views of the debate. You're bringing emotion into it by comparing what you are infact not doing to what you are. In terminating an undeveloped embryo, you are not snuffing out dreams, hopes, aspirations, etc. Can you see what I'm saying? Is the mentality here that the position has less appeal when you actually look at what it is you are doing rather than what you are not? They are future possibilities, as you pointed out; you are arguing a hypothetical as if it were the current state of the embryo and people thrive on that emotion in thier arguments and disgust in abortion. They think of little children playing in fields of green grass when talking about biochemical entities who feel nothing and whose current purpose is to divide.

 

 

 

Yes, it will likely grow up and have aspirations, dreams, hopes, etc, but it dosen't actually have those things now. People then make the connection that they are wiping out something analagous to a fully grown and concious human, which no doubt gets people worked up. If you were to kill an embryo with none of these qualitites, why are we bringing them up in the debate? A possible answer could be people like the oomph or emotional undertones of 'killing a future human with dreams and aspirations' over 'killing a conglomeration of dividing cells with no pain perception or awareness of self.'

 

 

 

6) I'm not saying that the adoption program is dismal like that. I don't know enough about it to do so. Your hypothetical seemed to have all pieces fit into each other nicely and as for how frequently these occurances happen in real life, I'm not sure. I think it's great when a mother can agree to go through a pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption to a truly deserving couple. The key word being 'agree.' I'm not about to say what she must or must not do with her embryo even if I am a truly deserving infertile parent. It would be seen as rather intrusive and rude of me.

 

 

 

7) That wasn't the question. You asked me about the rights of an embryo of irresponsible parents when I asked you if abortion should be outlawed even though those who do abort aren't always irresponsible. In other words, should the actions of those irresponsible ones determine the legality of abortion for those who genuinely need it?

[Kant]

It has a complete set of chromosomes, yes, but so does every cell in your body, and lose millions if not billions of those daily.

 

 

 

But a cell in my body will not become a human by any natural means. A zygote will.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, you can. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that a couple living in abject poverty, who already have many children and are barely able to support them would not have their quality of life made any better whatsoever by carrying through with the pregnancy.

 

 

 

That's because you define quality of life in a materialistic sense. There are more things that bring happiness in this world than money. If the couple already has many kids, cannot afford it, and did not abort them I'm assuming that they don't define quality of life in monetary terms either.

 

 

 

 

 

You discussed it, but you didn't respond to my response at all.

 

 

 

Was this response the one where you said that you "know" that there's worse things than death? I believe I responded to that.

[Flodder450]

the cousin of my girl frein get pregnant on age 13 and did an abortion

 

and another case i know is that the sister of a girl of my town did an abortion too, my view of this is: murder of a human being that could had a very good life but on the other side if the child is not gonna make it, its the only option, and they could let adopt that child by another family

 

 

 

thats my view of it

 

 

 

Flodder450

[Ambassadar]

1) That's fine, be a lobbyist for what you believe in, just make sure you don't fall into the trap of believing you in fact have divine right to tell a mother what she can and can not do when the choice to abort is within the limits of law.

 

You are correct as long as that unborn child you are killing is not a human. If they are a human then they should have full protection under the law.

 

 

 

Yes, "life begins at birth" is BS. Life eventuates from a mechanical dividing machine into an embryo with a heartbeat and pain perception and beyond. Where to draw the line of where life begins can be a simple 'at conception' or something far more difficult to pin point.

 

If you aren't sure then shouldn't you err on the safe side of things which according to what you just said would be conception?

 

I admire Ambassadar in particular for debating a human zygote as a person and bringing up many difficult philosophical issues to answer, but the argument then carries huge emotional appeal.

 

Ty for the compliment. If my argument carries huge emotional appeal then great but don't confuse that with an emotional argument. The actual argument is cold hard logic and data.

 

 

My arguments countering Ambassadar's then evolved into a questioning of why not debate against killing a human zygote instead of lumping them in with the category of people?

 

To which I countered give me a suitable definition of what a person is which you haven't done yet. :P That being the case if you don't know shouldn't you be erring on the side of caution until you do know? Lives are at stake over this issue.

 

 

 

Hell, why not divide the whole gestation period into weeks and argue against terminating the pregnancy at a specific point?

 

Because there isn't a point you can say "Ok, suddenly this unborn child is a person but they weren't a person five seconds before that point." That means they were either a person the entire time since conception or else they aren't a person until they are born.

 

 

 

In terminating an undeveloped embryo, you are not snuffing out dreams, hopes, aspirations, etc. Can you see what I'm saying?

 

Does a newborn baby have dreams, hopes, and aspirations?

 

 

 

Yes, it will likely grow up and have aspirations, dreams, hopes, etc, but it dosen't actually have those things now. People then make the connection that they are wiping out something analagous to a fully grown and concious human, which no doubt gets people worked up. If you were to kill an embryo with none of these qualitites, why are we bringing them up in the debate?

If you were to kill a newborn infant that had the exact same situation then why would it all of a sudden be wrong to do it then?

 

 

 

 

Oh give over, I would have thought you'd have been able to realise the difference between taking away the life of a conscious, developed seperate entity with memories, experiences and the viability to life, and aborting a fetus which has no consciousness and is not self aware, let alone able to feel pain.

 

 

This goes back to my questions from before. Do we define who is or isn't a person by their thoughts and consciousness? If that is the case then a person in a coma or unconscious is not a person.

 

 

It has a complete set of chromosomes, yes, but so does every cell in your body, and lose millions if not billions of those daily.

 

But those other cells don't meet the criteria I set forth earlier in being separate human life. An embryo meets that criteria.

[assassin_696]

It has a complete set of chromosomes, yes, but so does every cell in your body, and lose millions if not billions of those daily.

 

 

 

But a cell in my body will not become a human by any natural means. A zygote will.

 

 

 

A zygote will only form a human being under special circumstances, and the analogy could possibly be extended to any single cell if human cloning was ever brought in, or indeed artifical random meiotic shuffling.

 

 

 

Actually, you can. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that a couple living in abject poverty, who already have many children and are barely able to support them would not have their quality of life made any better whatsoever by carrying through with the pregnancy.

 

 

 

That's because you define quality of life in a materialistic sense. There are more things that bring happiness in this world than money. If the couple already has many kids, cannot afford it, and did not abort them I'm assuming that they don't define quality of life in monetary terms either.

 

 

 

I define quality of life in a sense of having one's health, and the means to support ones self. If you want to call that materialistic, fine, but I can't see how a kid in Africa who's living in abject poverty and gets AIDS from his mum will really look for much else in life. We must be very lucky to be able to take health and basic amenities for granted, or dismiss them as 'materialistic'.

 

 

 

You discussed it, but you didn't respond to my response at all.

 

 

 

Was this response the one where you said that you "know" that there's worse things than death? I believe I responded to that.

 

 

 

Wrong, it wasn't that response. Rather, it was the response that stemmed from that. Namely the empirical observation that death is a simple lack of consciousness, and so fearing what we cannot know anything about (hell) but can be reasonably sure does not exist, is foolish.

 

 

 

This is why I dislike pure reason, you're right in so far as we cannot know what nothingness is like, but we can be damn sure that this world can contain terrible cruelty and suffering, and yet you can bring a child into this world, knowing full-well that it will suffer terribly, and somehow defend it on some philosophical grounds that there might be some kind of hell, so we're somehow playing it safe? And that the logic or reason works?

 

 

 

Oh give over, I would have thought you'd have been able to realise the difference between taking away the life of a conscious, developed seperate entity with memories, experiences and the viability to life, and aborting a fetus which has no consciousness and is not self aware, let alone able to feel pain.

 

 

 

This goes back to my questions from before. Do we define who is or isn't a person by their thoughts and consciousness? If that is the case then a person in a coma or unconscious is not a person.

 

 

 

No, I think we should probably define a human being as someone or something which has complete viability as a seperate entity, and a zygote doesn't have this, but a comatose patient does.

 

 

 

 

It has a complete set of chromosomes, yes, but so does every cell in your body, and lose millions if not billions of those daily.

 

But those other cells don't meet the criteria I set forth earlier in being separate human life. An embryo meets that criteria.

 

 

 

So again, it's hinging on how we define human life, and when it begins. An embryo only meets my criterion of being viable as a seperate entity past 20 odd weeks, although this normally stretches to 48 for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

If you define it based on potential, then yes a zygote has the potential to form a human being, under the circumstances of it being in a healthy womb (1/3 zygotes are aborted naturally anyway). But then so does a sperm, different conditions but it still has the potential given a further set of circumstances, namely fusion with an egg as well as a womb. And so we can keep extending it back.

[Ambassadar]

Assassin, please don't forget to respond to the last two quotes in my last post as well. :P

 

 

 

Just making sure you didn't miss them since the majority was responding to Warrior.