Abortion

[Esau of Isaac]

Could you explain please?

They use a light bit of logic after already building an argument off of flawed thinking. In other words, the idea that the fetus should deserve an orphanage rather than being killed is a line of logic that already forms the conclusion that the fetus intrinsically deserves life.

Not to defend my points (not that I remember anyways), though I did say how my decision was influenced by religion.

You just spoke of sin in your defense.

Once again, bad choice of words? Why do you think I mentioned how easily ruined it is by a sinner?

I don't know. But if you're not fine with all human life being deserving of life, then why do you believe the fetus should have a fundamental right to life?

Of course he is.

Are his severed arms and legs, or his headless torso, all of them alive and well, people?

Huh, than that's an exaggeration if I ever saw one.

I'm missing where someone being incapable of removing an unwelcome entity from her body despite her decision is not holding her prisoner, and keeping her from controlling her own self.

And besides, that's her fault (if she was not raped/in danger of dying) that that "unwelcome entity" is in her body. That's like saying it's not the shephards fault that a wolf came inside his backyard and ate his sheep because he forgot to lock the doors. Or that it's not a bodyguards fault that his client got killed because he decided he'd rather fly to Hawaii and spend a vacation there instead of guarding his client. It was totally her fault.

No, it wasn't, unless she consented to the pregnancy. What you are essentially saying is that it is my fault if I take a walk outside and get struck by lightning, because by walking outside I must have decided that I am fine with being struck by lightning.

No, but it's not like it's just another organ either.

I never said it was another organ. I said that it's living inside of the mother and growing in her body. A woman should not have to endure that if she does not want to.

Really? Is conception really that painful?

Is childbirth painful? Yes, it is. But it doesn't have to physically hurt quite a bit to be mentally straining.

Yes it is. Ok, ok, if we really want to get technical, it's her and her lovers fault. But besides that, it's totally her fault for deciding to have sex in the first place.

Would you likewise say that anyone that gets in a car consents to being in a car crash?

And I did not "handwave away choice after harping on its values". Reread a little more closely will you? I said that here in America, we have the choice to make foolish decisions and then suffer the consequences of those foolish decisions. Sheesh.

Your quote said that we are also free to deal with the consequences if we wish. Which would be what she would be doing in the first place by getting an abortion.

Yes, your right, if it doesn't have a brain yet. If it does have a brain at that point, no, it's totally another person, just like you or me. Once it has a brain, then whether you think so or not, it is in fact living.

It's living before it has a brain.

It just needs a helluva lot of life support from his/her mother is all. So let me repeat the question. Do you think "Abortion" is any less unfair or wrong to the unborn child (who has a brain) than "No Abortion" is to the mother?

Just before I answer with my previous words, I want to inquire as to whether you are aware that the fetus's brain does not start construction until the fourth week, and does not enter into any kind of real semblance of real activity until quite some time down the line?

I agree with it less as time goes on, but the mother should have the right to remove unwelcome things from her body, whatever it is.

Yes, because they have no brain to think or feel with. Do babies, at any point before birth, have any brain? If so, which point?

They do indeed. The brain is started within the second month, and is completed around the fourth or fifth month, I believe.

Yes, yes, I know that. But you said "discussing which issues are logical". Just how does that have anything to do with the issue we're talking about right now, which is abortion?

Because we're discussing which of the ideas is most logical?

I am not sure what you are asking.

We're already discussing the issue of abortion, so why are we trying to talk about "what kind of issues are logical", when we're already arguing about the issue of abortion? If I was interested in finding out what kind of issues are logical to talk about, and what kind of issues are not, I'd have argued that a long time ago. But I'm not, I'm interested in arguing the issue of abortion instead of arguing about whether the issue of abortion is a logical issue to talk about or not.

This is the second time that you have attempted to fault me for discussing with you a tangent with which you have gone off on. This entire line of discussion was based off your interjection that logic is not necessarily necessary in a debate, and that emotion was a primary aspect of it instead.

If you continue to do this, I will begin ignoring you.

That's assuming that oceans really are what formed first. Willing to prove it?

No, it's assuming that Earth existed as a barren and lifeless oblate spheroid before eventually forming oceans from a large abundance of oxygen and hydrogen.

I am contesting the idea of the Bible, that the oceans came first, not confirming it; you are now acting as though I am your opinion and you are mine, and you're honestly starting to weird me out.

The earth wasn't a "large ball of water", it was formless at first. Like I said though, how exactly is it impossible that the water came before there was Earth?

Because oceans require it to form within the Earth's atmosphere, which requires something of sufficient mass to hold. Arguing that oceans came first and then rock formed withing them is borderline retarded.

Right, and how do you know that? How exactly do you know that the Earth was barren and lifeless before it had water?

Because Earth is a planet, and to be a planet, there are prerequisites that must be fulfilled.

If you're asking me to prove that the Earth did not start in the form it has today, then this discussion will be particularly saddening.

I'm saying that bending under social pressure is a pretty poor excuse for why you made a choice you regret. The one making the choice must take the blame.

Arguing that you must birth a child to take the blame for pregnancy is ridiculous; you don't get to decide what is most responsible for a person to have to follow, and you sure as hell have no grounds for interfering in another's life without a logical ground to stand on.

The woman should be able to take the blame any way she damn well pleases, and that includes having an abortion.

Abortion: baby has no choice. Life: mother has no choice. Then you have to decide whose choice counts for more.

Why should the baby have a choice in anything at all?

[Chalis]

300+ posts; this needs to die.

I will refrain from going any further off topic than said that has been taken elsewhere.

Really? Is conception really that painful?

You really don't get it. He's not talking about physical pain.

Nine months, if you can believe it, is a long time.

If a mother was pregnant, would a pre-existing child have been ecstatic or miserable? In any case, she gets an abortion and he never finds out. Life goes on and it was as if nothing happened as opposed to:

She can't have it for whatever reason and has to adopt it out. Child lives with knowing that he had a sibling he would never see again.

Yes it is. Ok, ok, if we really want to get technical, it's her and her lovers fault. But besides that, it's totally her fault for deciding to have sex in the first place.

And I did not "handwave away choice after harping on its values". Reread a little more closely will you? I said that here in America, we have the choice to make foolish decisions and then suffer the consequences of those foolish decisions. Sheesh.

They could, but now there are cures to these consequences. Abortions.

Why should unborn fetuses have the rights while the mother's get stripped?

Now let me end with my own statement:

It was HER choice to have sex.

It was HER choice to use the non-guaranteed faulty product as prescribed by her doctor.

It is HER choice to go through with pregnancy.

It is HER choice to abort the fetus.

It is HER choice to live with it.

It is HER choice if she cares to remember about the incident.

It is NOT the LAW'S decision of what a SHE has final say of her body, legal or not.

It is NOT YOUR CONCERN whether it could have been a viable child.

It is NOT YOUR CONCERN whether it could have even made it to adulthood.

She could be a stranger, a teacher, a friend, a co-worker, your girlfriend, your sister, your grandmother; it doesn't matter because she has final say with her body, period.

The socialite who gets a man fired for spilling water on her and sues his restaurant for pain and suffering; the company owner who gives himself a raise while firing 400 people; the man who puts his mother in a low-care nursing home while spending her money on a new car for himself. The cases were all publicized, and while most people would condemn them, they weren't doing anything illegal - just immoral.

[Meteor]

Arguing that you must birth a child to take the blame for pregnancy is ridiculous; you don't get to decide what is most responsible for a person to have to follow, and you sure as hell have no grounds for interfering in another's life without a logical ground to stand on.

The woman should be able to take the blame any way she damn well pleases, and that includes having an abortion.

Why should the baby have a choice in anything at all?

I didn't say it should obligate the mother to have the baby. I said it was a poor excuse.

Because it has potential.

[Crystal Shards]

I didn't say it should obligate the mother to have the baby. I said it was a poor excuse.

Because it has potential.

Potential means nothing. I have the potential to become a Congresswoman. I have the potential to die from a heart attack. I have the potential to strip off all my clothes on national television. I don't have the potential to become President of the United States (as I was not born a US citizen). I do not have the potential to come back to life after dying and lying in my grave for ten years. I do not have the potential to go back in time. But you know what? None of that matters.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Esau of Isaac]

I didn't say it should obligate the mother to have the baby. I said it was a poor excuse.

How is it a poor excuse in the slightest?

Because it has potential.

..And? I have the potential to become an astronaut. That doesn't mean I should be treated like an astronaut.

In fact, let's go past potentialities and move to eventualities: I'm going to die. At some point, I will take my last breath, and then I will no longer be living. I don't just have the potential to do this, it will happen no matter what. But am I treated as dead? No, because I'm not dead.

[Meteor]

Potential means nothing.

Potential is everything.

Because no matter how much peer pressure one is under, it is the individual who makes the ultimate choice to have sex or not.

So because you aren't an astronaut, you shouldn't be given the opportunity.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Potential is everything.

Because no matter how much peer pressure one is under, it is the individual who makes the ultimate choice to have sex or not.

So because you aren't an astronaut, you shouldn't be given the opportunity.

Potential is nothing. You don't get in college because you might become something. You get in because they know you have the talent and the money to go somewhere.

Parenting should be much of the same.

Edited November 24, 2008 by bunny

[Shuuda]

Potential is everything.

But potential is worthless without effort.

[Ragnell]

If a fetus doesn't qualify as human, what does? Babies are born with more bones than adults and aren't near the full potential of their development. If mothers can kill a fetus, can they kill an infant? How about a small child? Or a teenager, they aren't done growing yet. Saying something that has the potential to be human isn't a human is a VERY slippery slope. In my opinion, it is wrong to kill any form of a human when not in self defense. It's murder.

[Meteor]

Murder isn't the worst thing in the world. Would you rather be executed or tortured?

[Esau of Isaac]

Because no matter how much peer pressure one is under, it is the individual who makes the ultimate choice to have sex or not.

And it is the individual who makes the ultimate decision to kill the fetus before it becomes a person.

So because you aren't an astronaut, you shouldn't be given the opportunity.

If I'm not an astronaut, I shouldn't be treated as one. That follows with the fetus as well. Don't treat it as a person just because it is human.

If mothers can kill a fetus, can they kill an infant? How about a small child? Or a teenager, they aren't done growing yet.

No, because they possess sapience. Not to mention that it is not living inside of the mother.

Saying something that has the potential to be human isn't a human is a VERY slippery slope. In my opinion, it is wrong to kill any form of a human when not in self defense. It's murder.

So it is murder to remove my tonsils? To fall and scrape myself?

Edited November 24, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Meteor]

And it is the individual who makes the ultimate decision to kill the fetus before it becomes a person.

If I'm not an astronaut, I shouldn't be treated as one. That follows with the fetus as well. Don't treat it as a person just because it is human.

Yes. For some people, that is the responsible action and I approve.

We're going to have to leave it at disagreement there, then.

[Ragnell]

And it is the individual who makes the ultimate decision to kill the fetus before it becomes a person.

If I'm not an astronaut, I shouldn't be treated as one. That follows with the fetus as well. Don't treat it as a person just because it is human.

No, because they possess sapience. Not to mention that it is not living inside of the mother.

So it is murder to remove my tonsils? To fall and scrape myself?

No. Your tonsils and skin cells wont ever become a full and unique human being by themselves. A fetus, however will become a completely unique person if it isn't killed first. And where exactly is the line drawn for when a baby gets rights? This could be argued forever and may have dangerous results. I don't want any discussion on when a person gets the right not to be killed. Once the sperm and egg meet, and you get your DNA, you are a person in my view and shouldn't be killed except in self-defense.

[Esau of Isaac]

No. Your tonsils and skin cells wont ever become a full and unique human being by themselves.

So it is genetic individuality that makes a human?

And what of my skin cells, which can be made into viable embryos?

A fetus, however will become a completely unique person if it isn't killed first.

And I will die eventuality. That doesn't change the fact that I'm not dead yet.

And where exactly is the line drawn for when a baby gets rights?

When it leaves the mother's body, I would presume. Even if it were a person, it wouldn't change my decision to allow the woman to have total control over her own body.

This could be argued forever and may have dangerous results. I don't want any discussion on when a person gets the right not to be killed. Once the sperm and egg meet, and you get your DNA, you are a person in my view and shouldn't be killed except in self-defense.

And you refuse to back up this view?

[bunny: spider bitten]

No. Your tonsils and skin cells wont ever become a full and unique human being by themselves.

That's not something you can prove. More than that, though, it's not to say that having them removed for science is often possible and worth more than losing them in the back alleys. While I doubt that Tonsils have any special unique cells to make them of any major use, they've come up with better science for less useful things. NASA uses glass that weighs three times air for Shuttle insulation.

I mean, if I don't want skin cells I can rub some off my arm. If a woman wants to get rid of a baby, she can toss herself down some stairs. That helps no one, though.

[Divine Hero Nguyen]

Where does life exactly begin? Does it begin right at conception? Or does it begin when the fetus becomes self-aware? The problem with the abortion debate is that there is a gray area where everyone agrees life starts at. This goes beyond women's or fetus's rights. It is nearly impossible to define murder if no one can accept when life begins.

I am pro-choice myself but I can tolerate pro-life legislation as long as it does not ban abortion for rape and when the women's life is at stake. While the fetus has the potential to become a human, it requires the mother to nourish it, and therefore, dependent on the mother's body. Because the baby is a "parasite" (bluntly putting it this way, no offense), the mother has the right to do whatever she wishes to do with her body. Though, one has to understand that because they do have potential to become humans, abortion should the last option if possible...

However, I think everyone can agree that abortion should be looked down upon (much like smoking and alcohol but we still legalize those.) Maybe, more sex ed would be more effective than abortion?

[Esau of Isaac]

Where does life exactly begin? Does it begin right at conception? Or does it begin when the fetus becomes self-aware? The problem with the abortion debate is that there is a gray area where everyone agrees life starts at. This goes beyond women's or fetus's rights. It is nearly impossible to define murder if no one can accept when life begins.

Life began once, two billion years ago, and hasn't since. The materials that form the fetus are living before they ever come together.

[Meteor]

And once they do come together they form a new entity.

[Esau of Isaac]

And once they do come together they form a new entity.

An entity that is every bit as lacking in terms of personhood as the materials that made it up, yeah.

[Divine Hero Nguyen]

Life began once, two billion years ago, and hasn't since. The materials that form the fetus are living before they ever come together.

If I must be more specific, when is a fetus considered a person then? ._. It is a gray area where no one can agree upon...

[Defeatist Elitist]

Think of things this way:

If you continuously cause somebody harm and hinder them against their will, then you will usually (legally) be removed from an area where you can do that. Apply that to a fetus, and bam, you have an abortion. An abortion is essentially just the removal of the fetus from the mother's body.

[Esau of Isaac]

If I must be more specific, when is a fetus considered a person then? ._. It is a gray area where no one can agree upon...

Personhood is definitely a more gray area, but I find it most logically consistent for it to begin when the individual gains sapience.