Abortion Opinions (no flaming)

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Personally? In all honesty, you can choose to believe this or not, but I don't think I have ever called a woman a sleezy name. I have absolutely no respect for men that sleep around, and I have absolutely no respect for women that sleep around. I personally believe sex is a gift to be enjoyed within the context of marriage and that's it. However, as my personal opinion isn't worth a pig's tail here I usually keep it professional.

 

 

 

Just trying to keep dual standards out of this argument, cause its kinda bs to me to throw them in.

 

 

 

never said you were not professional, but it has been an interesting read, so keep it up

 

 

 

*Goes back to lurking*

 

 

 

~DaS

 

 

 

I'd have to disagree. Having double-standards is a perfect way to refute someone's argument. Its very common in philosophical arguments to use what's called a "respectable ad hominem" argument. That is to say, refuting something someone says, based on other ideas or beliefs they hold.

 

 

 

You can't believe on thing that contradicts another, it simply can't be resonably done. Respectable ad hominem arguments (as opposed to malicious) are very powerful.

 

 

 

We still keep coming back to the rights of a woman to her own life and body. During pregnancy she can't drink, smoke, take some over the counter drugs. She has to give up activities that she may want to do while the fetus develops. She is uncomfortable and feels ill at times.

 

 

 

Does a fetus really have more rights then the woman who is carrying it?

 

 

 

As for calling a man a mammal in order to kill him it would be okay if he was breaking into your house. Kind of like a fetus breaks into a womans body.

 

 

 

A man breaks into your house because he is hungry you can chose to kill him, have him removed by the police or feed him.

 

 

 

Very poor examples.

 

 

 

1) You raise the question about whether or not a foetus has the same rights as the woman. Of course not. But a seven year old doesn't have the same rights as an 18 year old so I don't see how that's relevant. All humans (babies included) have the right to life.

 

 

 

2) A feotus didn't "break" into the woman's body. The last time I checked, the woman brought the baby into her body (along with the man) by having sex. If you invite someone into your house to have dinner with you, surely you can't arrest them for sitting down at your table and eating the food you offered them. I also wonder who you compare "having the police remove the man" and "killing the foetus." By your example, the foetus and man are comparable (similar) so how can you justify killing it as an appropriate method of "stopping it from eating your food." If you did that to a man, you would be charged for murder.

[pianofrieak2]

Thanks Ghost for saying that. I was just thinking that too. I mean, seriously, a fetus, baby, parasite, whatever you want to call it is ALIVE.

 

 

 

If they're alive, then they deserve to be protected. If you decide to have "fun" then your "fun" has consequences.

 

 

 

Besides, each kind reproduces after its own kind. Humans reproduce humans. A fetus=a living human.

[____]

Wow look at all the cockblocked [bleep]s who have no idea what it's like to have a kid you want - let alone one you don't.

 

 

 

Contraception isn't 100% effective. If you people want to wait till you're married till you start bunny-[bleep]ing, so be it. But forcing that on someone else isn't much better than forcing relgion :roll:

 

 

 

And I don't give a [cabbage] about a foteus being a "living person" either. It has no brain waves, has no vital organs. Basically it is as Kat said - a parasite.

 

More so when contraception was being used.

 

 

 

As for people who apparently use abortions as a contraception, when you can provide SOLID PROOF that people do that (and I mean A LOT OF PEOPLE), so often in fact that it's some sort of epidemic, I might actually take that argument seriously.

[jackalope14]

Wow look at all the cockblocked * who have no idea what it's like to have a kid you want - let alone one you don't.

 

 

 

Contraception isn't 100% effective. If you people want to wait till you're married till you start bunny-*, so be it. But forcing that on someone else isn't much better than forcing relgion :roll:

 

 

 

And I don't give a cabbage about a foteus being a "living person" either. It has no brain waves, has no vital organs. Basically it is as Kat said - a parasite.

 

More so when contraception was being used.

 

 

 

As for people who apparently use abortions as a contraception, when you can provide SOLID PROOF that people do that (and I mean A LOT OF PEOPLE), so often in fact that it's some sort of epidemic, I might actually take that argument seriously.

 

 

 

The fetus' heart starts to form after six weeks and from what I know I think that is a vital organ.

[____]

Ok, formed but not self-sustatining use.

 

The mother is the only thing keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Close enough to not having them.

[insane]

But forcing that on someone else isn't much better than forcing relgion :roll:

 

 

 

No one's forcing anyone's views on anyone. We were discussing this intelligently until you came rampaging through here with this last post. Not to mention this "forcing views" issue was addressed last page, with double standards exposed and irrefuted.

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't give a cabbage about a foteus being a "living person" either. It has no brain waves, has no vital organs. Basically it is as Kat said - a parasite.

 

More so when contraception was being used.

 

 

 

Again, see above arguments. Another double standard, explained through the man/mammal analogy. Using the term parasite is just an emotionally-loaded term to make yourself feel better about your opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

Contraception isn't 100% effective. If you people want to wait till you're married till you start bunny-*, so be it. But forcing that on someone else isn't much better than forcing relgion

 

 

 

It's kind of ironic that the second I give my personal views without insulting/forcing them on others is the second someone belittles my views in the name of tolerance.

 

 

 

Wow look at all the cockblocked * who have no idea what it's like to have a kid you want - let alone one you don't.

 

 

 

?

[____]

So you're basically saying your long drawn out attacks one someone who knows EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT is somehow civilized?

 

Believe it or not, what I posted is a hell of a lot nicer than what you did to her.

[insane]

So you're basically saying your long drawn out attacks one someone who knows EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT is somehow civilized?

 

Believe it or not, what I posted is a hell of a lot nicer than what you did to her.

 

 

 

I can't see how calling unborn babies parasites to justify killing them is a nice thing to say.

 

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I believe that if you're going to present an opinion, you've got to be able to prove it. She tried to do that, she did a pretty good job! But GhostRanger pointed out some inconsistencies with her arguments, and all of a sudden we're "uncivilized cockblocked [bleep]s".

[Katryna]

So you're basically saying your long drawn out attacks one someone who knows EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT is somehow civilized?

 

Believe it or not, what I posted is a hell of a lot nicer than what you did to her.

 

 

 

I can't see how calling unborn babies parasites to justify killing them is a nice thing to say.

 

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I believe that if you're going to present an opinion, you've got to be able to prove it. She tried to do that, she did a pretty good job! But GhostRanger pointed out some inconsistencies with her arguments, and all of a sudden we're "uncivilized cockblocked *".

 

 

 

Problem is you want to start from the given of a fedus is a human and has rights of it's own that come before the mothers. From this point there is no way to prove anything. Your point is the give and all others have to disprove it.

 

 

 

My next question for you is do you also believe that a mother who is drinking, smoking, not following doctors orders and putting her fetus at risk should be jailed for child abuse?

[Guest GhostRanger]

So you're basically saying your long drawn out attacks one someone who knows EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT is somehow civilized?

 

Believe it or not, what I posted is a hell of a lot nicer than what you did to her.

 

 

 

I can't see how calling unborn babies parasites to justify killing them is a nice thing to say.

 

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I believe that if you're going to present an opinion, you've got to be able to prove it. She tried to do that, she did a pretty good job! But GhostRanger pointed out some inconsistencies with her arguments, and all of a sudden we're "uncivilized cockblocked *".

 

 

 

Problem is you want to start from the given of a fedus is a human and has rights of it's own that come before the mothers. From this point there is no way to prove anything. Your point is the give and all others have to disprove it.

 

 

 

My next question for you is do you also believe that a mother who is drinking, smoking, not following doctors orders and putting her fetus at risk should be jailed for child abuse?

 

 

 

That's not the problem. Why would a foetus not be a human with rights? If you can give me good reasons why a foetus should not be a human with rights, I'll refute them for you.

 

 

 

In the same way you should give your children alcohol and tobacco, you shouldn't be allowed to put it into a baby you chose to have. But before I'd spend energy trying to enforce solely that issue, I'd work to address child abuse as a WHOLE with more efficiency.

 

 

 

That's the entire problem I find with your argument. You throw the word parasite out and complain about the tortures of pregnancy, yet you fail to take responsibility for having sex when you weren't ready to have a child. Everyone knows that having sex can result in pregnancy and so by having sex, you should understand what's going to happen when you get pregnant. Your pro-choice arguments are nothing more than a way for you and others to opt out of personal responsibility. If you're old enough to be having sex, you're old enough to take responsibilty for what hapepns.

[Astralinre]

So you're basically saying your long drawn out attacks one someone who knows EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT is somehow civilized?

 

Believe it or not, what I posted is a hell of a lot nicer than what you did to her.

 

 

 

I can't see how calling unborn babies parasites to justify killing them is a nice thing to say.

 

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I believe that if you're going to present an opinion, you've got to be able to prove it. She tried to do that, she did a pretty good job! But GhostRanger pointed out some inconsistencies with her arguments, and all of a sudden we're "uncivilized cockblocked *".

 

 

 

Problem is you want to start from the given of a fedus is a human and has rights of it's own that come before the mothers. From this point there is no way to prove anything. Your point is the give and all others have to disprove it.

 

 

 

There's no problem with assuming a fetus is a human. Scientifically, there is no way to argue that it is not an individual human. You can argue all you want about whether or not its stage of developement matter or whether or not it is self-aware, but it is still intrinsically human. It has its own human DNA. It's the same species as the parents from its conception - how is it not a human?

[dwarfie76]

There's no problem with assuming a fetus is a human. Scientifically, there is no way to argue that it is not an individual human. You can argue all you want about whether or not its stage of developement matter or whether or not it is self-aware, but it is still intrinsically human. It has its own human DNA. It's the same species as the parents from its conception - how is it not a human?

 

 

 

Agreed. There is no question that from the moment of conception, when the sperm and egg combine that you have an individual lifeform of the human species.

 

 

 

It's not possible to argue that the fetus has no intrinsic right to life. If it didn't, there would be nothing to stop anyone from killing it. To argue that only the mother has the right to decide if it should live or die is flawed. Similarly, to argue that ordinarily a fetus should be protected from abortion, then to allow exceptions based on the circumstances it was concieved under is flawed, it is still an individual human being regardless of whether or not it's father was a rapist. Also to be against abortion, but in favour of the morning-after pill is also a logical contradiction. There is no black and white argument that can withstand any scrutiny other than to say abortion is wrong, completely and utterly without exception because all human life has some intrinsic value - regardless of whether or not that human will be a normal functional member of society or a vegetable existing only on a respirator. Or to say that human life exists not as an absolute, but on a sliding scale of worthiness of protection. I don't think that many of us would argue against the idea that to allow an anencephalic fetus to come to term rather than abort early is counterproductive. However it is still a lifeform of the human species with it's own individual DNA. The question of where we start drawing the lines is the only real question and is something that can really only be taken on a case-by-case basis.

[Guest GhostRanger]

The question of where we start drawing the lines is the only real question and is something that can really only be taken on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

 

All very well said dwarfie, but I do disagree with the last part here. At conception, a new life form with new DNA is formed. To me, that is a clear line. There's no ambiguity about it. New DNA. New life. I don't honestly care about the circumstances surrounding the situation: don't mess with life.

[dwarfie76]

The question of where we start drawing the lines is the only real question and is something that can really only be taken on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

 

All very well said dwarfie, but I do disagree with the last part here. At conception, a new life form with new DNA is formed. To me, that is a clear line. There's no ambiguity about it. New DNA. New life. I don't honestly care about the circumstances surrounding the situation: don't mess with life.

 

 

 

Fair enough. You wouldn't think of allowing an anencephalic fetus to be aborted though? Given that the condition involves being born without the higher order brain regions and the infant will be blind, deaf, mute, unable to smell or feel pain and have no possible way of achieving consciousness?

[insane]

There's no problem with assuming a fetus is a human. Scientifically, there is no way to argue that it is not an individual human. You can argue all you want about whether or not its stage of developement matter or whether or not it is self-aware, but it is still intrinsically human. It has its own human DNA. It's the same species as the parents from its conception - how is it not a human?

 

 

 

Agreed. There is no question that from the moment of conception, when the sperm and egg combine that you have an individual lifeform of the human species.

 

 

 

It's not possible to argue that the fetus has no intrinsic right to life. If it didn't, there would be nothing to stop anyone from killing it. To argue that only the mother has the right to decide if it should live or die is flawed. Similarly, to argue that ordinarily a fetus should be protected from abortion, then to allow exceptions based on the circumstances it was concieved under is flawed, it is still an individual human being regardless of whether or not it's father was a rapist. Also to be against abortion, but in favour of the morning-after pill is also a logical contradiction. There is no black and white argument that can withstand any scrutiny other than to say abortion is wrong, completely and utterly without exception because all human life has some intrinsic value - regardless of whether or not that human will be a normal functional member of society or a vegetable existing only on a respirator. Or to say that human life exists not as an absolute, but on a sliding scale of worthiness of protection. I don't think that many of us would argue against the idea that to allow an anencephalic fetus to come to term rather than abort early is counterproductive. However it is still a lifeform of the human species with it's own individual DNA. The question of where we start drawing the lines is the only real question and is something that can really only be taken on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

 

Man alive. Both of you are saying exactly what I've been meaning to be saying this entire time. I need to give my brain a break... :P

[Death_By_Pod]

It has its own human DNA. It's the same species as the parents from its conception - how is it not a human?

 

 

 

All cells that undergo mitosis have their own DNA. DNA replication isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t perfect so each cell made on your body has slightly different DNA; better not peel that skin off your arm because it has its own human DNA and is the same species as the parent. Just because it has DNA doesn't make it intrinsically human, sperm, skin, nerve cells etc. are intrinsically human; it isn't that only thing that makes us human.

 

 

 

Without a functioning brain you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a human full stop, you can feed a body nutrients to live but without the brain it's just an empty body. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the problem with foetuses they have no brains and just absorb nutrients that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s given (much like a plant).

 

 

 

 

It's not possible to argue that the fetus has no intrinsic right to life. If it didn't, there would be nothing to stop anyone from killing it.

 

 

 

There is nothing stopping someone from killing it before it becomes a human, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the point of being pro-choice. However this doesn't allow anyone to abort the child; aborting against the mothers will infringes upon the rights of the mother much like physical assault or theft would.

 

 

 

 

All very well said dwarfie, but I do disagree with the last part here. At conception, a new life form with new DNA is formed. To me, that is a clear line. There's no ambiguity about it. New DNA. New life. I don't honestly care about the circumstances surrounding the situation: don't mess with life.

 

 

 

I assume youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re against chopping down trees and stepping on insects. Even if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re a vegan youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re still going to kill other animals indirectly through living. Even if you restrict this argument to just humans, there is no new DNA; it is a rehash of old DNA. If the foetus could spontaneously create its own new DNA and had a functioning brain then I would think you have an argument. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a reaction without and action and in many cases the action doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist, making a foetus isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a special thing; we ignore it more often then not.

[____]

I can't see how calling unborn babies parasites to justify killing them is a nice thing to say.

 

Being emotionally attached to something you don't want isn't much more above being emotionally attached to a brick.

 

Not a great example, but they both have, IMO, as much life as each other.

 

 

 

If it was a wanted pregnancy, then it'd be different. But to the host, an unwanted baby really is just a paractic organism.

 

With all due respect, it wouldn't be much more than a cist.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll admit now that I was harsh, but I'm not going to appologise for it.

[dwarfie76]

 

It's not possible to argue that the fetus has no intrinsic right to life. If it didn't, there would be nothing to stop anyone from killing it.

 

 

 

There is nothing stopping someone from killing it before it becomes a human, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the point of being pro-choice. However this doesn't allow anyone to abort the child; aborting against the mothers will infringes upon the rights of the mother much like physical assault or theft would.

 

 

 

The theft angle makes it seem that you feel a fetus to be "property of" the mother in which case I have to ask at what point you feel a fetus progresses from being the mother's property to a being with it's own rights, and what makes you draw that line at that particular point?

[jackalope14]

I can't see how calling unborn babies parasites to justify killing them is a nice thing to say.

 

Being emotionally attached to something you don't want isn't much more above being emotionally attached to a brick.

 

Not a great example, but they both have, IMO, as much life as each other.

 

 

 

If it was a wanted pregnancy, then it'd be different. But to the host, an unwanted baby really is just a paractic organism.

 

With all due respect, it wouldn't be much more than a cist.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll admit now that I was harsh, but I'm not going to appologise for it.

 

 

 

Like someone said earlier "there are millions of people wanting to adopt." So no that baby is not unwanted. Just because its unwanted by the mother and you call it a parasite doesnt mean it doesnt have the right to life.

[insane]

If it was a wanted pregnancy, then it'd be different. But to the host, an unwanted baby really is just a paractic organism.

 

With all due respect, it wouldn't be much more than a cist.

 

In my opinion, GhostRanger wrote a very nice answer to this.

 

That's the entire problem I find with your argument. You throw the word parasite out and complain about the tortures of pregnancy, yet you fail to take responsibility for having sex when you weren't ready to have a child. Everyone knows that having sex can result in pregnancy and so by having sex, you should understand what's going to happen when you get pregnant. Your pro-choice arguments are nothing more than a way for you and others to opt out of personal responsibility. If you're old enough to be having sex, you're old enough to take responsibilty for what hapepns.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll admit now that I was harsh, but I'm not going to appologise for it.

 

 

 

Coming from you, to me, that's pretty much an apology in my books :P

[Guest GhostRanger]

I assume youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re against chopping down trees and stepping on insects. Even if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re a vegan youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re still going to kill other animals indirectly through living. Even if you restrict this argument to just humans, there is no new DNA; it is a rehash of old DNA. If the foetus could spontaneously create its own new DNA and had a functioning brain then I would think you have an argument. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a reaction without and action and in many cases the action doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist, making a foetus isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a special thing; we ignore it more often then not.

 

 

 

Oh that's a cheap shot at me leaving out the word "human" and you know it. :P I would have to disagree with your assertion that the new DNA being a mixture of the previous DNA makes it not "new." I came up with a lot of comparisons, but then I realized that the point is much too ideological. You either believe its something new or you don't. I don't think I can change your mind about it using any factual data...nor could you provide convincing factual data to prove its not considered "new," since the words new is being used so subjectively.

[Katryna]

I don't care to argue any more. Let abortion become illegal let the women die on kitchen tables. Let them try to use knitting needles or coathangers. Let women fear to have sex, let them stay second class citizens because they take time off work to have babys they don't want. Let them be dependent on the will of me. Doesn't matter to me I helped fight to allow women to have full reproductive rights but who cares.

 

 

 

While your at it why don't you make birth control illegal too I mean ever sperm and egg should have the chance to be a baby. I don't care.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

The theft angle makes it seem that you feel a fetus to be "property of" the mother in which case I have to ask at what point you feel a fetus progresses from being the mother's property to a being with it's own rights, and what makes you draw that line at that particular point?

 

 

 

When the foetus has a functioning brain; this occurs some time in the third trimester. I draw the line here because it is the organ which we associate human qualities with (life and consciousness) without it there isn't much the body can do other then exist because it is being nourished.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Oh that's a cheap shot at me leaving out the word "human" and you know it. :P I would have to disagree with your assertion that the new DNA being a mixture of the previous DNA makes it not "new." I came up with a lot of comparisons, but then I realized that the point is much too ideological. You either believe its something new or you don't. I don't think I can change your mind about it using any factual data...nor could you provide convincing factual data to prove its not considered "new," since the words new is being used so subjectively.

 

 

 

It's not a cheap shot, you should have used given me something more solid; when I get lazy, other people are quick to pounce on me.

 

 

 

People like to think that their unique and important but we are almost exactly the same as everyone else. We share more then 99.9% of the same DNA so even if you are made from your parents you still are more then 99.85% similar to any one parent; I don't think anyone would call 99.85% different to 99.9%. In the real world we consider values such as >2-5% difference to be unreasonable, 0.1% on the other hand would be wonderful for every day use. Thinking we are different and special is the reason why racism still exists.

[dwarfie76]

When the foetus has a functioning brain; this occurs some time in the third trimester. I draw the line here because it is the organ which we associate human qualities with (life and consciousness) without it there isn't much the body can do other then exist because it is being nourished.

 

 

 

OK, so what level of brain-functionality qualifies an organism for protection? A living breathing cow is rather more self aware than a third trimester fetus. Surely we should then protect the cow over the fetus? Is being "human" somehow more valuable than being bovine? If so why? Is your third trimester line extensible if the fetus can be shown to have less than normal brain functionality? Surely, in the case of anencephaly, we can abort the fetus anytime, since even if born doctors wouldn't attempt to resuscitate a baby born with no brain. So if the fetus is somewhere between brain-dead and normal can we extend the abortion deadline? Even to after birth? Why not?