CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should people have abortions?
Should people have abortions? Is abortions really killing a living human being ar just removing a bunch of cells? Whats your opinion on this? Be willing to back it up with facts.
experimentation is being done to manipulate cancer cell plasticity into embryonic cells. Perhaps you should do some research.
Regardless, I am not disputing that embryos have the potential for life
that is entirely different than being alive.
I have the potential to go commit a crime. Yet I am not being arrested because i have not committed a crime.
If we are discussing whether or not stem cells are alive, as opposed to potentially arising to life, then they are essentially identical to cancer cells.
undifferentiated, human genome, producing telomerase... the only difference is the potential for life. Both, however, are equally not alive.
Any woman who has ever lost a child during pregnancy - knows that their child was alive from the moment it was conceived. Dead things can not grow and further develop.
Alone, sperm does not have the potential. Just as an egg alone does not have the potential for life. It is when they meet (conception) is when life has the potential to become a human. This process begins immediately. Within two weeks of conception the eyes being to form.
Yes, sperm alone will not turn into a baby of its own accord. Neither will an egg alone.
But neither will a fertilised egg. This fertilised egg needs to be placed into a specific location (a woman's womb), and during the 9 months of gestation numerous health criteria need to be met, in order for this fertilised egg to become a baby.
But neither will a fertilised egg. This fertilised egg needs to be placed into a specific location (a woman's womb), and during the 9 months of gestation numerous health criteria need to be met, in order for this fertilised egg to become a baby.
Well sex usually involves the fertilized egg being in the correct location. So how would that make abortion acceptable? It is a life. If you believe life exists on a single cell level then certainly a fertilized egg meets that requirement. No matter how you look at it abortion is murder.
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality
Under the definition you're using, sperm also has the potential to become a human.
So how would that make abortion acceptable?
You're right, an argument that sperm is a potential human does not show that abortion is acceptable. I wasn't trying to prove the claim that abortion is acceptable (although incidentally I do hold that view); I was only disputing your claim that a fertilised egg is a potential human whereas sperm and unfertilised eggs are not.
It is a life. If you believe life exists on a single cell level then certainly a fertilized egg meets that requirement. No matter how you look at it abortion is murder.
I don't doubt that a fertilised egg is alive (I'm using the tag "Yes, its not even alive" only because it's closer to my position than the other tag; I do think that foetuses are alive). Sperm and unfertilised eggs are also alive. Cockroaches are alive. Parts of your body are alive. But we don't find it immoral to kill sperm with spermicidal cream, to spray cockroaches, or to remove cancerous cells. And we would certainly not call it "murder".
To end the life of something that is alive is to kill it. Abortion is the killing of a foetus. But "killing" is not the same as "murder". Murder is a more restrictive definition, meaning the intentional or reckless killing of a person. Abortion is intentional, and it's killing, but what under dispute is whether or not the killed thing is a person. You have only argued that it is a potential person.
Under the definition you're using, sperm also has the potential to become a human.
How do you arrive at that inane logic? A sperm alone won't develop into a human. You need an egg to complete that task. A sperm alone is not capable of development. Please review before just responding.
I was only disputing your claim that a fertilised egg is a potential human whereas sperm and unfertilised eggs are not.
How can you say a fertilized egg is not a potential human?
Sperm and unfertilised eggs are also alive
They are living tissue, but separate can't become a human life.
But we don't find it immoral to kill sperm with spermicidal cream, to spray cockroaches, or to remove cancerous cells.
Sperm has no potential on its own. Bugs are not humans the same applies to animals and plants. Your last example is living tissue not life itself. Therefore by your own definition none of these are murder. Why would you use such ridiculous logic?
Abortion is the killing of a foetus. But "killing" is not the same as "murder". Murder is a more restrictive definition, meaning the intentional or reckless killing of a person.
The FETUS is a human. The child is a fetus until week 8 which by week 4 you can already see a heartbeat. This is a human life. Your ignorance is bordering on annoying. Please do some research.
A sperm alone won't develop into a human. You need an egg to complete that task. A sperm alone is not capable of development. Please review before just responding.
I would advise you to review before responding, as I have already provided a response to this claim of yours, a response which you have yet to refute: There is no significant difference between sperm, unfertilised eggs, and fertilised eggs. All of these three are capable of developing into humans, but none of them will develop into humans as they are.
How can you say a fertilized egg is not a potential human?
On the contrary, I was saying that sperm, unfertilised eggs, and fertilised eggs are all classifiable as potential humans. I wrote in my previous post:
"Under the definition you're using, sperm also has the potential to become a human."
I would not have used the word "also" if I didn't mean that sperm, as well as fertilised eggs, have the potential to become a human.
Bugs are not humans the same applies to animals and plants.
Under my argument, a foetus is not a human being either. It is a potential human being. (By the way, it's arguable that a cockroach is also a potential human being in that the atoms making up the cockroach may one day end up being the atoms that make up a human body...)
Your last example is living tissue not life itself.
Living tissue is alive.
Therefore by your own definition none of these are murder.
Of course they are not; that was the very point I was making. I was saying that none of them are murder (note what I had written: "And we would certainly not call it "murder""), and that along the same lines, the killing of a foetus is also not murder.
The FETUS is a human. The child is a fetus until week 8 which by week 4 you can already see a heartbeat.
Many non-human creatures have heartbeats. "Foetuses have heartbeats" is hardly a convincing argument as to why foetuses should be classified as people. The same goes for your earlier argument, "foetuses have developing eyes".
-------------------------------
I must say: I have argued with many people before, and misunderstandings do happen on occasion, but few people have shown such an aptitude for misunderstanding my arguments as you have. If you're "misunderstanding" me on purpose in order to misrepresent my arguments, please realise that this is a straw man fallacy and only serves to make your arguments less convincing. If you're not doing it on purpose, please read my arguments again, more carefully this time.
I would advise you to review before responding, as I have already provided a response to this claim of yours, a response which you have yet to refute
I have refuted it.
There is no significant difference between sperm, unfertilised eggs, and fertilised eggs. All of these three are capable of developing into humans, but none of them will develop into humans as they are.
That is quite possibly the dumbest comment on this entire site. There are huge significances between unfertilized eggs and fertilized eggs. The main difference is conception. An unfertilized egg can't become a human life. A fertilized egg will grow into a full human being unless catastrophe occurs i.e. abortion. Sperm has no ability on its own to become a human.
The fertilized egg is a developing human!! In the womb or not. Obviously outside the womb it doesn't have a chance for survival, but the process and potential are the same.
Conception is the potential. Without the fertilization there is no human. That is scientific fact.
Under my argument, a foetus is not a human being either. It is a potential human being.
My argument is that fetus was a human at conception. At conception life has a chance and a child is developing. It is a human at its simplest form. No other "ingredients" are needed to make a human just environment and time.
(By the way, it's arguable that a cockroach is also a potential human being in that the atoms making up the cockroach may one day end up being the atoms that make up a human body...)
That is not a valid argument. The atoms are inside people and recycled through reproduction. This is highly filled with conjecture and no way observable within science.
Living tissue is alive.
You missed the point entirely. That living tissue is not human life. It is part of the human but is not the original living cells in human development.
Many non-human creatures have heartbeats. "Foetuses have heartbeats" is hardly a convincing argument as to why foetuses should be classified as people. The same goes for your earlier argument, "foetuses have developing eyes".
Pay attention here: I only believe human life being taken is murder. I don't care about non-human life being taken. We are only talking about people here.
I must say: I have argued with many people before, and misunderstandings do happen on occasion, but few people have shown such an aptitude for misunderstanding my arguments as you have. If you're "misunderstanding" me on purpose in order to misrepresent my arguments, please realise that this is a straw man fallacy and only serves to make your arguments less convincing. If you're not doing it on purpose, please read my arguments again, more carefully this time.
There is no misunderstanding here. You compare human development to cancer. You reduce the complexity of a human fetus to a cockroach which is a single cell creature. You obviously have no understanding of human anatomy.
I then add that to your frequent misspellings of fetus and fertilize. To make the case that either you are severely uneducated or English is not your primary language. If that is the case please consult with someone who speaks English properly to proof read your posts. That way you don't look so uneducated and possibly just ignorant.
[...] your frequent misspellings of fetus and fertilize. To make the case that either you are severely uneducated or English is not your primary language. If that is the case please consult with someone who speaks English properly to proof read your posts. That way you don't look so uneducated and possibly just ignorant.
I have not misspelt them. Indeed I am not a native English speaker, but at least I have learned that there are differences between UK and US spelling. Please do a Google before accusing someone of misspelling words. "That way you don't look so uneducated and possibly just ignorant."
There is no misunderstanding here.
I will recount them to you:
(1) You had attributed to me the claim that a fertilised egg is not a potential human, when in fact I had argued the opposite.
(2) You had thought that arguing that the killing of sperm, cockroaches and cancerous cells does not constitute murder is a way of attacking my stance, when in fact you were affirming the very argument I was making.
(3) You had failed to fully grasp the argument I made on the matter of fertilised eggs vs sperm and unfertilised eggs until I restated it for the third time. I'm not saying you have to accept it (clearly you do not), but you need to understand what your opponent's most basic argument is before you can argue meaningfully against it.
(4) You had continuously believed, and still believe, that "x is not a full human person, therefore x doesn't count" is a good counter-argument when our very dispute hinges on whether or not a foetus (and also zygote and embryo) is classifiable as a person that is capable of being murdered, thus making your argument question-begging.
All of this happened within the space of a single post, and not even a long one at that. Hence my remark on your alacrity for misunderstanding, whether it was by intention or by accident. (Granted, point 4 could be a case of poor argument technique rather than misunderstanding. But I'm inclined to think that question-begging arguments arise from either deliberate or unintentional misunderstanding of the opponent's claims.)
I have refuted it.
You had not made an argument against it, which is what refutation consists of. You had simply reiterated, over and over, your initial stance that a fertilised egg is potential human life whereas an unfertilised egg or sperm cell isn't. Constant repetition of a statement does not turn it into an argument, only a mantra.
That is quite possibly the dumbest comment on this entire site. There are huge significances between unfertilized eggs and fertilized eggs. The main difference is conception. An unfertilized egg can't become a human life. A fertilized egg will grow into a full human being unless catastrophe occurs i.e. abortion. Sperm has no ability on its own to become a human.
The fertilized egg is a developing human!! In the womb or not. Obviously outside the womb it doesn't have a chance for survival, but the process and potential are the same.
Conception is the potential. Without the fertilization there is no human. That is scientific fact.
At last you have made an argument against my basic stance. Not that I think it a cogent argument:
(1) You are defining "conception" as "the beginning of a person" (I am assuming that you take "full human being" to be synonymous to "person", as human eggs, fertilised or no, are obviously human). Conception is the moment when sperm meets egg, which means you're defining "the moment when sperm meets egg" as "the beginning of a person". This begs the question as our dispute concerns when personhood begins.
(2) There are differences between unfertilised and fertilised eggs, of course. The question is whether or not these differences make an impact in this debate. My argument was that they do not, and I will elaborate in point 3.
(3) Your argument that a fertilised egg will grow into a full human being under general circumstances, whereas an unfertilised one would not, does have some merit.
--(3.a) However, I would argue that "general circumstances" is too vague. A fertilised egg will also not grow into a full human being unless it was carefully fed and nurtured under very specific conditions for many months, just as an unfertilised one will not grow into a full human being unless specific conditions (e.g. sexual intercourse, conception) are met.
--(3.b) "Sperm meets egg" is a short process, a biological change occurring in very small scale: It is minute compared to "zygote receives nutrients from mother", "zygote grows", etc. It is also not particularly distinguishable from earlier stages, such as the formation of the egg and the sperm cell.
--(3.c) In terms of outward, conscious actions, it also lacks particular significance. "Sperm meets egg" is generally the result of a single session of sexual intercourse, which lasts only a matter of minutes, requires no particular equipment or ceremony, and is a very normal and common human activity. Later activities to ensure its continued survival and development are at least as complex - and indeed, some are more significant, as they are necessary to the survival of the mother as well as that of the foetus: eating, sleeping, etc.
Hence I see little reason for proclaiming the moment of conception to be the decisive event for determining personhood.
You missed the point entirely. That living tissue is not human life. [...] Pay attention here: I only believe human life being taken is murder. I don't care about non-human life being taken. We are only talking about people here. [...] You compare human development to cancer.
I refer you to misunderstanding number 4. I was not selecting examples based on whether or not they are fully fledged human lives that are clearly protected by murder legislation, as that would completely miss the point of the entire argument. I was selecting examples based on whether or not they are life, per your statement:
"If you believe life exists on a single cell level then certainly a fertilized egg meets that requirement."
My argument is that fetus was a human at conception.
I am well aware of your stance. I was clarifying mine to you since you were talking at cross-purposes with me, which suggested to me that you didn't grasp my stance.
You reduce the complexity of a human fetus to a cockroach which is a single cell creature.
I quote your statement again: "If you believe life exists on a single cell level then certainly a fertilized egg meets that requirement."
First you say that being single-celled does not preclude something from being life worthy of protection under murder legislation. Then you deride single cell organisms. Inconsistency is not a virtue.
(Furthermore, everything I know suggests that cockroaches are not single cell creatures.)
That is not a valid argument. The atoms are inside people and recycled through reproduction. This is highly filled with conjecture and no way observable within science.
No, I was using the definition of "potential" that you provided several posts back. A potential x is a possible x: something that is not x but has a possibility of becoming x. A cockroach is a possible person in that there is a possibility that its atoms will one day make up a person. There is, of course, no guarantee that it will become a person.
In fact, I was quite surprised that you chose "existing in possibility" to be your definition of "potential". As I have demonstrated here, it is such a wide definition that it is hardly of any use in this argument. Possibilities are nearly limitless, if not indeed limitless.
I have not misspelt them. Indeed I am not a native English speaker, but at least I have learned that there are differences between UK and US spelling. Please do a Google before accusing someone of misspelling words.
Well then you need to specify which language you want to use. And I know english is your second language because you are not consistent in your spelling.
You had attributed to me the claim that a fertilised egg is not a potential human, when in fact I had argued the opposite.
You said a fetus is not a human and or alive. This is your opinion correct?
You had thought that arguing that the killing of sperm, cockroaches and cancerous cells does not constitute murder is a way of attacking my stance, when in fact you were affirming the very argument I was making.
I did not affirm any part of your inane logic. Your position is to compare the complexity of human development with any type of living tissue. Your argument is based on life forms not human life. There is a big difference.
You had failed to fully grasp the argument I made on the matter of fertilised eggs vs sperm and unfertilised eggs until I restated it for the third time. I'm not saying you have to accept it (clearly you do not), but you need to understand what your opponent's most basic argument is before you can argue meaningfully against it.
I understand your argument and it is ridiculous. Just because you restate over and over again does not make it valid. The living cells in a fertilized egg are far different in their processes then any other form of replicating tissue. For these are the cells that make a human. No one to this day understands what causes the spontaneous beginning of the heartbeat. To reduce this process to other forms of living tissue is absurd. This is a special occurrence.
You had continuously believed, and still believe, that "x is not a full human person, therefore x doesn't count" is a good counter-argument when our very dispute hinges on whether or not a foetus (and also zygote and embryo) is classifiable as a person that is capable of being murdered, thus making your argument question-begging.
We are not debating the legal statutes here. We are debating if it is murder or not. The same way people argue about the death penalty. My argument is from conception life has a chance. The termination of that is murder.
This is not a question begging argument. What occurs after a successful conception (barring no catastrophe occurs)? This is the first step into the process of a child. Once that begins you have to let it run its course.
I know what American law defines as a citizen. This is not my debate. I disagree with such an immoral law. Citizenship does not define a human life. So if your argument goes toward legal matters then you know where I stand.
You had not made an argument against it, which is what refutation consists of. You had simply reiterated, over and over, your initial stance that a fertilised egg is potential human life whereas an unfertilised egg or sperm cell isn't. Constant repetition of a statement does not turn it into an argument, only a mantra.
The repetition of this argument is only to show you that it doesn't change. You don't understand what the beginning of a human life to be. The individual ingredients don't make a child. Unless you believe sperm or an unfertilized egg ALONE can make a human. They don't have the potential ALONE to become a child. This is fact on every level. No matter how you twist it this fact doesn't change.
You are defining "conception" as "the beginning of a person" (I am assuming that you take "full human being" to be synonymous to "person", as human eggs, fertilised or no, are obviously human).
That is a false assumption. The UNfertilized egg is not a human in process nor does it have the capability to do so without sperm. Each month an egg is swept out of a woman through a process God designed. Therefore unfertilized that process has not started. If you want to play the "what if" game this is not a discussion meant for this site.
Conception is the moment when sperm meets egg, which means you're defining "the moment when sperm meets egg" as "the beginning of a person". This begs the question as our dispute concerns when personhood begins.
This is the exact debate here. The beginning of human life.
Your argument that a fertilised egg will grow into a full human being under general circumstances, whereas an unfertilised one would not, does have some merit.
It has total merit. These are scientific facts.
However, I would argue that "general circumstances" is too vague. A fertilised egg will also not grow into a full human being unless it was carefully fed and nurtured under very specific conditions for many months, just as an unfertilised one will not grow into a full human being unless specific conditions (e.g. sexual intercourse, conception) are met.
Which is why I said it had to be in the womb to survive. I am not talking about "test tube" children here. If doctors fertilize an egg in a laboratory they must do everything in their power to make sure the egg is implanted in a womb.
In terms of outward, conscious actions, it also lacks particular significance. "Sperm meets egg" is generally the result of a single session of sexual intercourse, which lasts only a matter of minutes, requires no particular equipment or ceremony, and is a very normal and common human activity.
The amount of sex or how it occurred doesn't matter. This doesn't change the fact that the process of human development has already begun. The mistakes of the sexual partners doesn't warrant murder.
Later activities to ensure its continued survival and development are at least as complex - and indeed, some are more significant, as they are necessary to the survival of the mother as well as that of the foetus: eating, sleeping, etc.
As opposed to a woman who doesn't eat or sleep? This is more of your inane logic. The child will always take the nutrients first. Don't forget sex is designed for reproduction. No matter why you participate this doesn't change its biological purpose or your drive to engage in it.
Hence I see little reason for proclaiming the moment of conception to be the decisive event for determining personhood.
That's because you view human development the same as cancer. Just living cells is what you see. You don't discern between human life compared to other biological processes.
First you say that being single-celled does not preclude something from being life worthy of protection under murder legislation. Then you deride single cell organisms. Inconsistency is not a virtue.
The single cell argument is to show you that you believe the single cell growth is alive then you would have to believe that a fetus is alive. And if that fetus is alive and those cells are developing into a child, then it is murder to cease that process.
In fact, I was quite surprised that you chose "existing in possibility" to be your definition of "potential". As I have demonstrated here, it is such a wide definition that it is hardly of any use in this argument. Possibilities are nearly limitless, if not indeed limitless.
Possibilities are not limitless. You are making conjecture on an atomic level which you can't test or prove. Perhaps what is limitless is your inability to lack a credible argument. Even then it would have to be finite as it is restricted to the physical world.
I was getting ready to write a very long reply, but now I see that this is not necessary.
Perhaps what is limitless is your inability to lack a credible argument.
I have a limitless inability to lack a credible argument?
You just accused me of being absolutely incapable of not having a good argument. In other words, no matter what the situation is, I can come up with a good response.
Well I guess I made the double negative mistake. It's funny that is the only part of my post your replied too. Why don't you give the rest of it a shot?
Indeed you did make a mistake, and a very obvious one at that (I showed the paragraph to my 12-year-old sister when she asked me what I was laughing about, and she spotted the error in about 3 seconds). Before accusing someone of using bad English, please check that your own English is beyond common reproach.
As for answering the rest of your post - I would rather not do it. It would be a waste of time for me to raise more arguments against an opponent who hasn't even understood my earlier arguments.
You said a fetus is not a human and or alive. This is your opinion correct?
^ This question proves that there is no point in continuing argument with you. You have failed to grasp my most basic opinion, even after I had explained it to you, again and again and again.
I will quote some of my earlier posts where I have already stated what I believe:
Me: "I don't doubt that a fertilised egg is alive..."
Me, in the same sentence: "I do think that foetuses are alive."
Me, later on in the same post: "To end the life of something that is alive is to kill it. Abortion is the killing of a foetus."
Me, in another post: "You had attributed to me the claim that a fertilised egg is not a potential human, when in fact I had argued the opposite."
Me, again: "...human eggs, fertilised or no, are obviously human..."
I will restate my position just once more. If you get it, good for you. If you don't, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore:
---------------------
A foetus is obviously alive, in the same way that people are alive, insects are alive, and bacteria are alive.
A foetus is obviously human ("human" the adjective, not "a human" the noun) in the sense that it is the foetus of a human, in the same way that human adults are human, human corpses are human, human kidneys are human, and human fingernails are human.
A foetus is also obviously a potential human being, in the sense that it will grow into a human baby, then a human child, then a human adult, given the right circumstances.
What is under dispute is whether or not the foetus should be classified as already a human being, or in other words a person, which would mean killing it is murder. The dispute runs like this: You argue that a foetus is a person. I argue that it is not.
---------------------
There you have it.
This is not the only place where you have completely misunderstood me, but for me to list every misunderstanding you made in your previous post alone would result in an essay-length post. There is no way for me to argue meaningfully with someone if they cannot understand the arguments I'm making.
.
P.S. Sir English Expert, you managed to make two clear mistakes in a 3-sentence post. "It's funny that is the only part of my post your replied too" should be "It's funny that is the only part of my post you replied to". The first mistake may be excused as a typo, but the second is a textbook case of to/two/too confusion. Considering your language skills (or lack thereof), I doubt that you're capable of spotting so many errors in my language that you see fit to call me "severely undereducated".
It would be a waste of time for me to raise more arguments against an opponent who hasn't even understood my earlier arguments
Disagreeing with your argument doesn't mean that I don't understand it. That only means you don't like my response.
This question proves that there is no point in continuing argument with you. You have failed to grasp my most basic opinion, even after I had explained it to you, again and again and again.
Your basic opinion is self contradiction. You believe a fetus is alive, yet you don't believe that it deserves human status. Even though in its biology and structural features it is clear that it is a HUMAN BEING. There is no imaginary line that a fetus crosses to become a human. It is a human development from the beginning.
Me, in another post: "You had attributed to me the claim that a fertilised egg is not a potential human, when in fact I had argued the opposite."
Me: "I don't doubt that a fertilised egg is alive..."
Me, in the same sentence: "I do think that foetuses are alive."
Me, later on in the same post: "To end the life of something that is alive is to kill it. Abortion is the killing of a foetus."
You are arguing schematics here. You are trying to differentiate between murder and killing. This is not a legal question, rather it is a moral one.
A foetus is obviously human ("human" the adjective, not "a human" the noun) in the sense that it is the foetus of a human, in the same way that human adults are human, human corpses are human, human kidneys are human, and human fingernails are human.
You are trying to change the definition of fetus. It is not a part of the human body. The fetus (embryo or zygote for earlier development) is a human being. It is not 'part' of a person, but it is an entire person. Its dependence on the mother for survival doesn't change the fact the it is an individual entity. The raising of the child doesn't change that it is a person.
If the support from the mother defines for you what makes something a 'person' or not, then you living at home with your parents means you are not a person. I assume that is the case seeing how your 12 year old sister was reading on the computer with you.
In case you need a reminder of what the definition of fetus is here you go:
Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo
Because you view a fetus like a fingernail or kidney, that doesn't change what it actually will be and that is a human. Does a fingernail or kidney have a heartbeat? With your logic it appears they are one in the same.
My question to you is, when does an unborn child become a person? Please cite any and all medical credible evidence supporting your opinion. If this is truly just your opinion (no medical evidence) then you are speaking conjecture and your entire argument is arbitrary.
On a personal note, I would expect someone with your name to be more child friendly, since most babies like to play that game.
Indeed you did make a mistake, and a very obvious one at that (I showed the paragraph to my 12-year-old sister when she asked me what I was laughing about, and she spotted the error in about 3 seconds). Before accusing someone of using bad English, please check that your own English is beyond common reproach.
This is not reproach only grammatical errors. It didn't change the argument as a whole just 'canceled' it out through the double negative.
The first mistake may be excused as a typo, but the second is a textbook case of to/two/too confusion. Considering your language skills (or lack thereof), I doubt that you're capable of spotting so many errors in my language that you see fit to call me "severely undereducated".
Well I am glad you excused my first mistake, because I was sure worried that you wouldn't.
To summarize, once conception occurs it is a child in development. Therefore the fertilized egg must be given a full chance for survival. The fertilized egg is a human being in its simplest form. Its dependence on the mother doesn't change that it is an individual entity. That it will soon develop all necessary organs and functions as a normal person. Dependence doesn't define personal rights of life. Although immoral legislation say different.
Alright, since you insist on continuing to argue, and I hate to drop an argument when my opponent doesn't want to, I will oblige.
I will take it one step at a time. Before I do anything else, I want to clear up two issues that have been muddying the waters for several posts, and also put an end to an issue that I think has been resolved.
--------------------------------
Muddy Issue A: The Use of Non-Human Examples
You keep saying "we're only talking about humans here, so stop raising non-human examples", even though I mentioned earlier that I'm supposed to raise non-human examples. But since you didn't catch my meaning, I will explain in more detail:
(1) There is a category of things called "human beings".
(3) Some clear examples of human beings are human children and human adults.
(4) Some clear examples of non-human beings are giraffes, cats, spiders, bacteria, arms, kidneys, and fingernails.
(5) There is a lot of dispute over whether or not "foetus" fits into the human being category.
(6) Our current debate concerns whether or not "foetus" fits into the human being category. You say that it does. I say that it doesn't.
(7) In order to figure out whether it fits into the human being category, or into some non-human being category, we need to look at the big picture: look at things that are human beings, and look at things that are not human beings, and see where foetuses go. Let's use an analogy: imagine a suspect is on trial for robbery. The trial would consist of looking at evidence that he did commit a robbery, and looking at evidence that he did not commit a robbery, and seeing which side is more convincing.
(8) I think that foetuses are not human beings, and I raise examples of things that are clearly not human beings to support my argument.
(9) You are trying to restrict the examples we examine to things that are clearly human beings. This would make the argument skewed in your favour. Let's use the trial example again. It's like saying that the only evidence anyone is allowed to present is evidence that makes the suspect look guilty.
(10) Think of me as the defence lawyer in that trial. What evidence would I be presenting: evidence that makes my client look innocent, or look guilty? Obviously I'm trying to get him off the hook, so I will make him look innocent. You, as the Crown prosecutor, will be trying to make him look guilty. Both types of evidence have to be allowed at the trial, or else the trial would be biased.
Now do you see why I'm presenting non-human being examples while you're presenting human being examples? And do you see why it is relevant for me to present non-human being examples?
--------------------------------
Muddy Issue B: Murder vs Killing
Another issue that is impeding our debate is the question of whether we're discussing a legal issue, or a moral issue. You claim that I am arguing about the law, when you're arguing about morality.
That is not the case. I'm not arguing about the law. I'm not arguing about whether it's legal in this country or that country to have an abortion. And I'm not arguing about whether abortion should be legalised or banned.
I'm arguing over whether or not abortion is allowable by moral standards, just like you are.
The only reason "law" ever came into this dispute was that you introduced it in. You said, many posts ago: "No matter how you look at it abortion is murder."
Murder is a legal term describing a criminal offence. It means (more or less - the definition varies by country) the intentional or reckless killing of a human being. There are three parts to this: (1) it has to be intentional or reckless, (2) it has to be a killing and not just injuring, (3) the victim has to be a human being.
But I know that you raised "murder" to make a point about morality, not about law. You used the word murder because you think that killing a foetus is a moral violation. The word "murder" intrinsically suggests moral wrongness.
Obviously I disagree - I do not think that killing a foetus is a moral violation. Hence I said that killing a foetus is not murder. I'm not saying this because the laws of some random country says it isn't, but because I think that abortion is not a moral violation.
And my argument was that it's not immoral because the foetus doesn't fit into the category of "human being", which is one of the requirements for the definition of murder, whether you take it to be a moral term or a legal term.
To disallow me from differentiating between murder (which is morally wrong) and killing (which is not always morally wrong), as you attempted to in your last post, would be to say: "I declare that abortion is morally wrong. Now that this is figured out, let's debate about whether or not it's morally wrong."
Compare that to the people at the robbery trial saying: "I declare that the defendant is guilty. Now that this is figured out, let's debate about whether or not he's guilty."
Do you now see how ridiculous it would be to define abortion as murder, and then not allow me to argue that it isn't?
I repeat once more: I'm not talking about laws. I'm not talking about what's a crime and what isn't. I'm not talking about who is a legally recognised person and who isn't. I'm not talking about who's a citizen and who isn't.
I'm talking about whether or not abortion is immoral (morally wrong). And in order to do that, I have to argue that murder and killing are not the same thing.
--------------------------------
Resolved (?) Issue: English Ability
If you still think that my English skill portrays me as "severely undereducated" compared to your skill, please provide further argument to that effect. But it appears in your last post that you no longer believe this, since you replied to my challenges on language without accusing me of having very low language ability.
If you have changed your mind about one of the claims you made earlier, basic debating standards states that you should retract this claim - i.e. say that you've changed your mind.
Retracting a claim doesn't mean you've "lost" the debate. It only means there's one branch of the debate that you don't want to pursue any longer. It also means that you are an honest debater, willing to fully explain what your opinions are at any point of the debate, rather than sweeping inconvenient ones under the carpet.
So will you retract the claim that my English ability suggests a severe lack of education, or will you maintain this claim and provide suitable arguments for it?
--------------------------------
There are many more points I would make (like the issue of imaginary lines, what I think is or isn't personhood, and also the issues that I haven't addressed in your second-to-last post), but I want to leave them for later. I don't want to stuff too many ideas into a single post, or they will get mixed up again. So let's figure out whether or not we agree on these three issues. If we do, then I can proceed with the next part of my argument.
"Murder is a more restrictive definition, meaning the intentional or reckless killing of a person."
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, murder is intentional, manslaughter is reckless. And murder is illegal intentional killing, as opposed to, say, killing in self defense. Therefore, as long as abortion is legal, it it not, legally, murder.
cough cough Yeah, I was using the definition of murder as it runs in my country. Here, murder is when it's either intentional, or when you do something recklessly which may cause death (not the precise words the statute used but it's the general idea). Hence if you beat someone up and leave them lying on the street, and they die, it's murder even if all you had intended was to give them a good beating up. Manslaughter is culpable homicide that is still negligent but not to such an extent that it can be called reckless.
I'm sure the legal requirements for murder do vary somewhat from country to country.
And, actually, that may be how it applies over here too (wherever that may be in relation to wherever you are). Law is definitely not one of my specialties.
A cancer cell has a severely mutated genome that, I would consider is not human due to the fact that it is totally dysfunctional. A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell. That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells.
assuming that all of the base pairs in the locus are changed (which is far more than are actually changed) and that all loci are at maximum size range (which is by definition not true) there would be a change in 400 out of 3000000000 base pairs
which is a change of 0.00018% of the human genome
a cancerous cell is 99.99999% identical to any other cell in the body
as a comparison, siblings are roughly 75% identical
so cancerous cells are in no way 'severely mutated'.
"A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell"
No, they are not totally functional. That is why, when you remove them from a womb, fetuses cease functioning. Were they totally functional, they would be able to continue growing.
"That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells"
neither of these clumps are in any way functional. They are both stuck in the cell cycle known as mitosis.
Stem cells undergo prolonged mitosis because they are growing into a multicellular organism
cancerous cells are essentially any other kind of cell that undergoes prolonged mitosis
A cancer cell has a severely mutated genome that, I would consider is not human due to the fact that it is totally dysfunctional. A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell. That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells.
The criteria for earning status of human and the consequent rights should not be extended to cell cultures, but thinking human beings which are capable of responding to stimuli.
No, it's a thing. Before around the third trimester it has no more self-awareness than my fingernails. I don't see these pro-lifers trying to ban nail clippers.
well, maybe not fingernails: those are just keratin proteins.
but for the most part I agree. Take diabetics, for instance. They need to take blood tests in order to manage their disease. every time they take a blood test, thousands of LIVING HUMAN BLOOD CELLS DIE!
so, we need to establish that either every human cell in the body has its own right to life- thus killing cancer patients, diabetics, and essentially everybody
or we can agree that a human is different than the collection of cells that compose them.
How do you measure self-awareness? Within the first few weeks the brain and nervous system are being developed. What makes you self aware? Couldn't you argue a brain is where your thought function is?
First of all, adoption is awsome. I have two cousins who were adopted, and they are both great people, one's a professor as a matter of fact.
However, I don't think there is anything wrong with abortion up to the third trimester (except in extreme circumstances which is the current law anyway).
By definition self-awareness is when one becomes aware of their own being, that's in the dictionary, and most psychologists don't even believe ID is surpressed until a child is a toddler and later, so not literally "self-aware".
The definition doctors use to come up with the third trimester, is that is the point where the fetus' instinct knows enough to want to live. This is actually a very conservative view of life, since technically there is no proof a fetus in this stage has any more will to life than an insect.
Yet though, it is a human life at that point I think, so I am comfortable with the definition.
The problem with outlawing abortion, is it has been done in the past, and has never been shown to save a life.
It is better to allow a woman to do it in a safe environment (as opposed to a basement, or however it would be done if it were illegal) and before that fetus is aware enough to instinctually want to live.
Now, as macabre as it all sounds, it is important to note that before that point, there is no sadness, feeling, pain, or any other human emotion on the part of the fetus. It's not like a puppy or something. It's like a plant, and an insect at most, there is not emotion there. It is not much different than jerking off into a sock for all the emotion your sperm has, none in the laundry will ever make a baby.
It is not right to outlaw what has been going on since the beginning of man anyway, and force via this moral indignation, women who are often children themselves into dangerous situations where they cannot get this procedure done in a safe manner.
We must consider the fact that even a single celled zygote is a functional, unique human cell. I think that uniqueness (from other members of a species) is what gives cells their person-hood. Also, to discredit your "self awareness = person-hood" argument, newborn infants have less self awareness than chimpanzees, but yet the newborn infant has a right to life and the chimp does not. So if anything with self-awareness has a right to life, then eating anything smarter than oysters would be illegal.
The case you stated was the first of its kind to carry a pregnancy to term. Managing that aspect of TS is by reducing HCG levels in the patient. As to prevent pregnancy from occurring in those females with the illness. And defending an extremely rare disease with an even more rare percentage of those people becoming spontaneously pregnant is deplorable. A rare condition does not justify murder.
"Yes, this was the first documented case of a healthy child being carried to term."
Your point was to show that sexual intercourse is not required to become pregnant. You have done this by quoting an extremely rare disease, and an even more rare occurence within that disease. And how does this make abortion acceptable? A child is a beautiful gift. Don't forget we all were children at one point.
do you realize that in addition to healthy children being born, there are also unhealthy children born?
2%-7% of TS girls and is associated with a high rate of miscarriages, stillbirths, malformations, and chromosomal aberrations. Besides fetal problems, pregnancy in TS girls is of high risk for the mothers as well.
meaning around 1/40000 women have spontaneous pregnancies.
this sounds like a small number
but there are 7 billion people
3.5 billion women
thats around 87,500 people.
which is more than the combined population of Greenland and the Virgin Islands.
That means that, by not allowing abortions on the grounds of irresponsibility, you would be subjecting two entire country's worth people to not only high risk, but also forcing a baby that they did not even get to enjoy making.
"do you realize that in addition to healthy children being born, there are also unhealthy children born? 2%-7% of TS girls and is associated with a high rate of miscarriages, stillbirths, malformations, and chromosomal aberrations. Besides fetal problems, pregnancy in TS girls is of high risk for the mothers as well."
This is eugenics here. Get rid of the undesirables for the strength of the population.
"That means that, by not allowing abortions on the grounds of irresponsibility, you would be subjecting two entire country's worth people to not only high risk, but also forcing a baby that they did not even get to enjoy making."
You could think about that you are exterminating two countries populations too. That is genocide there.
So, if a women doesn't enjoy the sex then it's reasonable to 'abort' (KILL) a child. The hormones of these women can be managed. They must seek out the proper medical treatment. Just because a child might be deformed doesn't mean they should die. How would that be different then eugenics anyway?
"This is eugenics here. Get rid of the undesirables for the strength of the population."
i am not suggesting that these children would be undesirable.
miscarriages, stillbirths, and chromosomal aberrations would probably result in a late-term miscarriage rather than a baby.
so, not only would these fetuses NOT have odds of making it to term, but by being in the uterus they are dangerous to the mother.
"The hormones of these women can be managed. They must seek out the proper medical treatment."
This is of women being treated for turner's syndrome. otherwise they would probably die. But if you have the cure for turner's syndrome with nothing more than a simple application of hormones: please share it with the world.
I would be highly interested in knowing how it would work.
Since turners syndrome is a polyploidal disease, not endocronological.
"So, if a women doesn't enjoy the sex then it's reasonable to 'abort' (KILL) a child."
My point was, as is obvious concerning the original thread, that not all women make a poor decision to have sex.
"The hormones of these women can be managed. They must seek out the proper medical treatment"
I believe I have already adressed this
"Just because a child might be deformed doesn't mean they should die. How would that be different then eugenics anyway?"
I made no mention of saying that these children should die because they would be deformed.
as mentioned earlier, most of these problems would result in late term miscarriage, not deformed birth.
The reason for the abortion would be for the health of the mother
You could think about that you are exterminating two countries populations too. That is genocide there.
No: fetuses are not self sustaining organisms, they are parasites.
and genocide is the systematic eradication of a group of people: not all fetuses are under attack.
"No: abortions are not self sustaining organisms, they are parasites."
Well for one abortion is not an organism it is an occurrence. Now you say they are parasites. Who is using exploitation now?
We are talking about an embryo or a fetus.
"Definition of EMBRYO
1a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
2: the young sporophyte of a seed plant usually comprising a rudimentary plant with plumule, radicle, and cotyledons
3a : something as yet undeveloped b : a beginning or undeveloped state of something "
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"
2: an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures"
With all of these definitions, how do you derive that a child is a parasite? If this is your logic then people are a parasite on this planet. Are we not harming the planet and sustaining from it without adding any benefit to it?
"This is of women being treated for turner's syndrome. otherwise they would probably die. But if you have the cure for turner's syndrome with nothing more than a simple application of hormones: please share it with the world"
"During childhood and adolescence, girls may be under the care of a pediatric endocrinologist, who is a specialist in childhood conditions of the hormones and metabolism.
Growth hormone injections are beneficial in some individuals with Turner syndrome. Injections often begin in early childhood and may increase final adult height by a few inches.
Estrogen replacement therapy is usually started at the time of normal puberty, around 12 years to start breast development. Estrogen and progesterone are given a little later to begin a monthly 'period,' which is necessary to keep the womb healthy. Estrogen is also given to prevent osteoporosis.
Babies born with a heart murmur or narrowing of the aorta may need surgery to correct the problem. A heart expert (cardiologist) will assess and follow up any treatment necessary.
Girls who have Turner syndrome are more likely to get middle ear infections. Repeated infections may lead to hearing loss and should be evaluated by the pediatrician. An ear, nose and throat specialist (ENT) may be involved in caring for this health issue.
High blood pressure is quite common in women who have Turner syndrome. In some cases, the elevated blood pressure is due to narrowing of the aorta or a kidney abnormality. However, most of the time, no specific cause for the elevation is identified. Blood pressure should be checked routinely and, if necessary, treated with medication. Women who have Turner syndrome have a slightly higher risk of having an under active thyroid or developing diabetes. This should also be monitored during routine health maintenance visits and treated if necessary.
Regular health checks are very important. Special clinics for the care of girls and women who have Turner syndrome are available in some areas, with access to a variety of specialists. Early preventive care and treatment is very important.
Almost all women are infertile, but pregnancy with donor embryos may be possible.
Having appropriate medical treatment and support allows a woman with Turner syndrome to lead a normal, healthy and happy life."
So one of the main treatments is hormone therapy. With infertility being one of the biggest effects of this condition, why cite it as a reason for abortion? Despite the 'supposed' complications with pregnancy shouldn't the woman be grateful for a chance at having a child?
With all of these definitions, how do you derive that a child is a parasite?
All of those definitions except one (exploiting the hospitality of the rich) can be applied to the relationship between a fetus and the mother. Its existence is dependent on her, it leeches nutrients from her body, and does not supply anything in return.
"No: abortions are not self sustaining organisms, they are parasites."
I am terribly sorry, I meant to say that
Fetuses are not self sustaining organisms, they are parasites.
and fetuses are
"2: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism"
the fetus lives in the mother's uterus
"3: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return"
The fetus leeches the mother of nutrients, and in return gives the mother nausea, fatigue, absentmindedness, and mood swings.
So one of the main treatments is hormone therapy. With infertility being one of the biggest effects of this condition, why cite it as a reason for abortion? Despite the 'supposed' complications with pregnancy shouldn't the woman be grateful for a chance at having a child?
Yes, there are treatments in hormone therapy- you implied that the women in the study were not being treated.
Even with these treatments, spontaneous pregnancies occur.
and since this is a spontaneous pregnancy, not an embryo donor, these women did not even choose to have a child.
If they are grateful, then they would not have an abortion.
But if they are not grateful, why should they have to undergo an unwanted pregnancy?
"But if they are not grateful, why should they have to undergo an unwanted pregnancy?"
Because it can become a human life. I bet that child who was born in the 'very unusual' case, is happy to be alive.
You don't believe having a child is an adequate return?
"The fetus leeches the mother of nutrients, and in return gives the mother nausea, fatigue, absentmindedness, and mood swings."
And the end result is a beautiful child. If it wasn't worth while for the mother, then why do so many women desire to have children (multiple children as well)?
I contend the return is quite adequate, in fact I believe it supersedes the negative by far. Although, I see that this would not be the case for you. Someone who would even consider a child to be a parasite. This kind of selfish logic is what leads to so much sin. That's why our country has such a "self entitlement" mentality. Perhaps if these murderers (abortionists) would consider someone outside themselves, then we would have a much better society. Isn't it funny, the more liberal (lack of morals) the world gets the more crimes and problems we face.
Because it can become a human life. I bet that child who was born in the 'very unusual' case, is happy to be alive.
This requires that the child actually be born. Fetuses are not happy or sad about anything.
You don't believe having a child is an adequate return?
Not if one does not want pregnancy or a child at that particular time. I would think this would be obvious.
And the end result is a beautiful child.
Unless it is aborted.
If it wasn't worth while for the mother, then why do so many women desire to have children (multiple children as well)?
Um, because she wanted to have a child. Women who seek abortions do not want a child. I would think this, too, would be self-explanatory.
I contend the return is quite adequate, in fact I believe it supersedes the negative by far.
Unless someone doesn't want the child, of course.
Although, I see that this would not be the case for you. Someone who would even consider a child to be a parasite.
The assertion that the fetus is a parasite is both neutral and factual. Fetuses that are carried to term and end up as loved, wanted babies, were also parasites. Parasitism is simply a description of the relationship, not a statement about the value of a fetus.
Perhaps if these murderers (abortionists) would consider someone outside themselves,
They are, by preserving the right to bodily autonomy.
then we would have a much better society.
Or a worse one, in which a citizen's body is subject to the whims of other people, and the interests of a potential person override the interests of an actual person.
Isn't it funny, the more liberal (lack of morals) the world gets the more crimes and problems we face.
There are many complicated variables that influence crime, and you cannot hope to distill them into a single cause-effect scenario in which liberalism = crime.
Additionally, violent crime rates in America are dropping.
"This requires that the child actually be born. Fetuses are not happy or sad about anything."
You know this how exactly? Since a fetus is from 8 weeks until full term. How do you know their mental status?
"Not if one does not want pregnancy or a child at that particular time. I would think this would be obvious."
Murder for the mother's convenience. That's a great reason (sarcastic of course).
"Unless it is aborted."
Why not just say murder? It's a child in development. Children who are feeble bodied can't survive without the support of others. Should we kill them too? What about adolescents, they are still developing as well? Why not kill them, if it's not convenient for the mother to be a parent? How far can we go with the definition of a developing human? How much mental awareness does a child have when it's born? If it can't be happy or sad why then should we care?
"The assertion that the fetus is a parasite is both neutral and factual."
I would like to submit the negative connotation that parasite implies. Although it may be factual by definition, it certainly isn't neutral.
"Unless someone doesn't want the child, of course."
How is this different from 12 weeks gestation to 7 years old? Birth or not you can clearly see it's a human.
"They are, by preserving the right to bodily autonomy."
This is an act of self preservation. And this isn't selfish how? When you murder another person for your own benefit, that is an act of selfishness.
"Or a worse one, in which a citizen's body is subject to the whims of other people, and the interests of a potential person override the interests of an actual person."
That is the society we are in now. Is not the child's fate subject to the 'whims' of the mother? Not a 'potential person' a human in development. While it does have the potential to be a fully developed human being. It is human nonetheless.
"There are many complicated variables that influence crime, and you cannot hope to distill them into a single cause-effect scenario in which liberalism = crime."
I am not saying liberalism is the reason for crime. I am saying the liberalism ideal (which includes a major lack in morals). And the symptom of that is a lawless society.
If our society can accept the genocide of millions of developing humans, what should stop anyone from killing 'developed' humans?
You know this how exactly? Since a fetus is from 8 weeks until full term. How do you know their mental status?
It's difficult to feel emotions when parts of your brain are not there yet.
To clarify, I do not think abortion is necessary after viability. In that case, a voluntary cesarean section can preserve both the life of the fetus and the bodily autonomy of the mother. Cases where the mother's health is endangered are exceptions. Therefor, when I use the word fetus, it is to refer to fetuses prior to 22-24 weeks or so. I apologize for not mentioning this sooner as it is an important component of my arguments.
Murder for the mother's convenience. That's a great reason (sarcastic of course).
An unwanted pregnancy and subsequent birth are far more stressful and life-altering than a mere inconvenience. Do not lie to yourself about its severity and consequences, both psychological and physical, just so it is easier to oppose abortion.
Why not just say murder? It's a child in development. Children who are feeble bodied can't survive without the support of others. Should we kill them too?
No, because if their caretaker no longer wants the job of caring for the dependent, they can resign and someone else can take their place.
What about adolescents, they are still developing as well? Why not kill them, if it's not convenient for the mother to be a parent?
No, because if their caretaker no longer wants the job of caring for the dependent, they can resign and someone else can take their place.
How far can we go with the definition of a developing human? How much mental awareness does a child have when it's born? If it can't be happy or sad why then should we care?
It doesn't matter, because they are not engaged in the same type of parasitic relationship with their mother. If the mother doesn't want it, it's life need not be ended. It can be given up for adoption.
I would like to submit the negative connotation that parasite implies. Although it may be factual by definition, it certainly isn't neutral.
I submit that you are the one projecting negative connotations. I do not bear any ill will towards any fetuses, wanted or not. Its parasitism, or complete dependence upon another organism for survival, is just an important point in my argument.
How is this different from 12 weeks gestation to 7 years old? Birth or not you can clearly see it's a human.
Because making this comparison is to say that abortion is equivalent to someone stabbing a 7 year old to death, and this severely trivialized both the mindset necessary to kill an actual child, and the suffering endured by the actual child.
That is the society we are in now. Is not the child's fate subject to the 'whims' of the mother? Not a 'potential person' a human in development. While it does have the potential to be a fully developed human being. It is human nonetheless.
Potential person, human in development, whatever. Its interests should be second to the actual person/developed human on whom their survival depends.
The law does not really recognize potential. Every child is a potential adult, but if an adult has sex with a minor, they face criminal charges, because the law does not treat minors as adults because they have the potential to become adults. They treat them as minors because they are minors.
I am not saying liberalism is the reason for crime. I am saying the liberalism ideal (which includes a major lack in morals). And the symptom of that is a lawless society.
You mean morals that you consider acceptable.
If our society can accept the genocide of millions of developing humans, what should stop anyone from killing 'developed' humans?
The intelligence to differentiate the abortion of a fetus from the murder of an actual thinking, feeling, physically independent person.
Abortion is a very old practice so unless you are going to blame all instances of genocide on the practice of abortion, then this argument doesn't have much to stand on. It's not as if modern America invented it.
in terms of symbiosis, the mother and the fetus are separate organisms. both of the interactions result in a gain for the fetus.
from a psychological point of view, the mother may be happy
but a symbiotic analysis still suggests that a fetus is parasitic.
"If it wasn't worth while for the mother, then why do so many women desire to have children (multiple children as well)?"
Perhaps for some people it is worthwhile. After all, people are programmed with a maternal clock that encourages them to have children. However, if it was unquestioningly worthwhile, why do so many women even WANT to abort a baby?
"I contend the return is quite adequate, in fact I believe it supersedes the negative by far."
if the mother is happy because the fetus develops, congratulations. I am not suggesting that every baby should be aborted. However, if the mother is not happy and wants an abortion, the baby is obviously not making her happy, and therefore there is no benefit to counteract the many negative effects.
which, even under your hand-picked definition, would result in the embryo as a parasite.
since the only people getting abortions are people who are not feeling maternally happy, it would be safe to say that all fetuses that are being aborted are parasitic.
Someone who would even consider a child to be a parasite
by the technical definition, a fetus IS a parasite- regardless of how I view any given fetus.
"This kind of selfish logic is what leads to so much sin...Perhaps if these murderers (abortionists) would consider someone outside themselves, then we would have a much better society"
what kind of selfish logic?
How am I being selfish? I am arguing the right for people to be entitled to their own body. As a male, I do not have a uterus from which to grow a fetus, nor a fetus to expel from my body.
Obviously, I am thinking of other people: people with both uteruses and fetuses. And I am defending them from people like you who want to control them and force them to act against their own will.
Isn't it funny, the more liberal (lack of morals)
At first I wondered why you did not leap to merriam webster dictionary to prove a point. allow me to do this for you.
Definition of LIBERAL
1
a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2
a : marked by generosity : openhanded
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way
c : ample, full
3
obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4
: not literal or strict : loose
5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6
a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
Hey, i guess that according to definition 3, liberal does mean lacking morals. Except for the fact that this definition is marked as obsolete.
which means that it is no longer in use.
so, the other definitions of liberal mean
the terms that are not obsolete, and referencing the liberal ideologies, include
securing individual freedoms in a non-authoritarian government.
Since you seem to be anti-liberal, I suppose that would make you want
individual restraint
authoritarian government
rather than "moral"
"the world gets the more crimes and problems we face."
where are you getting this data?
Armenia, one of the most liberal societies in the world, has a crime rate of 4.03889 per 1,000 people
and Canada, also far more liberal than the United states, has a crime rate of 75.4921 per 1,000 people
whereas the US has a crime rate of 80.0645 per 1,000 people
Wait, are you arguing that humans are advanced enough to have abortions?
or that it is unnatural for humans to have abortions
-but they just happen to be the most advanced?
It is true that people are the only animals to have abortions. It is used to allow society to advance, allowing children to be born only when the parent feels they are ready.
Saying that an ape does not have an abortion is one thing. Saying that it is bad for it to have an abortion is another thing entirely.
The fact of the matter is that people abort fetuses inside the womb. Many animals will instead force themselves to have a miscarriage through other means- or even eat their own children.
And the difference between abortion and eugenics is about who gets killed.
If every type of person is allowed to have an abortion, then it is only preventing young parents-to-be from having children. Since children are a large responsibility, these parents-to-be would most likely end up dedicating their time to a low-paying job and taking care of children- rather than pursuing higher education, or acquire as well of paying jobs as they would otherwise.
This concept only becomes eugenics when abortion is forced/encouraged among a certain group of people- the unwanted members of society.
The goal of eugenics is to remove these so-called unwanted from society.
whereas the goal of abortion is to allow young people to live their own lives before they have children of their own. In effect, it is postponing childbirth- not terminating a group of people
"The goal of eugenics is to remove these so-called unwanted from society."
Don't you then consider it an 'unwanted pregnancy'. You can call it post-poning, but it is murder and population control.
So then life only happens on the parents terms? Even if they are already pregnant? I find it funny you say it's not murder. Maybe you should tell that to the people who write our most prevalent dictionary.
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion
2: monstrosity
3: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest
Choosing what child lives and dies is a form of eugenics. Especially when it is for the benefit of the people directly affected. It might not be for the progression of the race, but it is for the progression of the mother. If it's not a 'convenient' time for a child, if she has too much life going on to allow the child to live.
even if the person did not wish to have the baby, is it right to get rid of a potential living being. Do you KNOW if you are going to adore the baby or not? The current population is dropping all over the world and to help revive the economy we need more people. And Abortions are doing.... NO GOOD!
you are exactly right and if she has an abortion she is only hurting herself it is a painful experience and she could become sterile now go look at your ultrasound pictures and tell me that is just a cell
hm...good way of thinking, not really. If they are going to have sex they need to be ready to deal with anything that comes from it. Babies are created by having sex, the sooner people figure that out the better.
Everybody knows how babies come about. I'm just saying that if the would-be mother doesn't want it nor does she want to go through child-birth, she doesn't have to. Besides, the fetuses and embryos are useful for their stem-cells.
no because it is immoral its murder its messed up and most of people must face consequences for their actions therefore if you have sex and dont goprotected you must at least have the baby and you can give it up for adoption afterwards
I believe that no one's right should be taken away to have an abortion but I do believe it is wrong. They should be responsible and go through with it. You never know, that baby might be the next president.
Out of 6 bazillion people, only around 42 have had that luxury in the U.S. So if having 6 bazillion more babies is the solution to our lack of presidents, then the responsible thing to do would be to have as many babies as possible without regard to population, because it's the responsible thing to do.
"I believe that no one's right should be taken away to have an abortion but I do believe it is wrong. They should be responsible and go through with it. You never know, that baby might be the next president."
You are saying they "should" be responsible and have the babies. The responsible thing to do may also be to not have the child.
"Should" does not leave room for debate. There isn't a "maybe" or a "possibly". It's Should or shouldn't. So apparently "you" should word your opinion better.
A simple minded answer is one that insults the intellect directly without much construction, like your reply. Basically you called me a retard, and them's fighting werds. I propose fisticuffs on the roof of the Empire State Building on the 23rd leap year!
I said I believe, which means I was stating my opinion. I don't have to have your approval to word my opinion better. It is my opinion I can do with it as I want.
"A simple minded answer is one that insults the intellect directly without much construction" Which you insulted mine by making a joke of it and blowing my idea that the child might be a president way out of proportion. So again read before you write.
As for saying " The responsible thing to do may also be to not have the child."
That is your opinion and i am not trying depriving you of that.
A belief that has a tinge of off-handed yet resounding certainty has the irritating knack of becoming truth and then turned into a choice-less law. Not every single person is responsible, those that have been raped, or are mentally handicapped do sometimes become pregnant. In some cases there are those young girls that have become pregnant at 6 years of age. There are those that would die from giving birth. There are those that have no means to stop giving birth because of culture or poverty.
Without hearing the background information to every single story, you would say that abortion is "wrong".
And if you did know the reasons does it then become "right".
Knowing this, maybe you would have to change your "should" to "maybe" and "wrong" to "when appropriate".
Blanketing all abortions under "wrong" sends the wrong message.
Of course most responses on this website are considered opinions. I simply worded my response in a way anyone can understand.
Basing your belief on "hope", that each child presents an opportunity on greatness, does nothing to support the fact that most may not amount to anything, but merely become the grease on the wheels that support the richest 1% . Either that or they become the helpers of the world and help those that have too many "mouths to feed" charity work. Which is worth more? I would rather have a more substantial reason that "hope".
I hope all will be good in contrast to my decision.
Sex inside a marital relationships begats children. Those who do it outside marriage still have a responsiblity. How should we decide which children to murder? What age do we become a citizen. Babies are born premature all the time some only half way through the gestational period. What children do you think are good enough to have life?
I think that abortions should be allowed in certain cases as most of the women having abortions are under the age of 25 and are unmarried and they should be allowed to make the decision themselves as they are the ones going to be taking care of the baby and if they don't think that they are responsible enough to raise a baby, who are we to decide.
Family planning is a very personal decision that should be left to women. I laugh at the so-called "small government" conservatives who think the government interfering in family planning decisions is small government. As Dee Snider said when the issue of censorship came up, "If you don't like the music, don't buy the record." the same should go for abortion. If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one.
I think that it should be the womans choice to have an abortion the problem is that lots of woman use this as their personal contraception instead of learning how to use condomns or birth control or just plain closing their legs. If you don't want to get pregnant learn how to be safe.
Yes, it's there life and there choice. All arguments against it are based on religious views and no one has a right to force their religion on another.
Sexually responsible is also abortion. There is no fail-safe method to prevent pregnancy unless you are sterilized. The last "sexually responsible" choice would be to have an abortion. Unless you plan on eliminating the ability to reproduce at a 100% rate of effectiveness, abortion, is the last responsible thing you can do. Although adoption has responsible connotations attached, it leads to years of drama, emotions, and psychological issues.
In General I consider doing something responsibly as including being willing to accept the consequences, even if some of them are unlikely or if another process might undo the undesirable consequences which might result. Usually the undoing process carries with it costs which are themselves undesirable.
For example, it is not responsible for some one to make a contract they can not keep. Even if there are ways to get around the consequences of breaking the contract.
Sex is not necessary, It can lead to things which negatively impacts what you do need, some money, decent reputation among some people, soundness of mind to maintain lifes pleasures, etc all can be negatively effected by either keeping the child, or by aborting the child . It is not responsible to make such a contract with nature, so to speak, if you can not afford it; even if you can invoke some technological magic and escape the natural consequences.
In General I consider doing something responsibly as including being willing to accept the consequences...
Abortion is a consequence.
For example, it is not responsible for some one to make a contract they can not keep. Even if there are ways to get around the consequences of breaking the contract.
Can you define the contract one automatically enters when they engage in sexual activity? I am assuming this is what you are alluding to.
Sex is not necessary.
There are many things that are not 'necessary', but enrich life with their existence. Sex for fun over procreation is one of those things.
People are not going to stop doing it, and it is kind of sanctimonious to support the message that people had better be celibate if they're not ready to get pregnant. I am not saying this is your explicit message, but it seems implied that sex is only to make babies, so if you have sex, you better be ready to have a baby, and don't have sex if you're not ready to have a baby.
it is kind of sanctimonious to support the message that people had better be celibate if they're not ready to get pregnant.
You ever been closely involved with a mother who really wasn't ready? There is usually a huge difference in the life of a child that results from fooling around as opposed to one that was planned.
The truth is that (despite whether or not the attitude of the advice giver is sanctimonious or not) the advice that "people had better be celibate if they're not ready to get pregnant" is sound advice. Face it
Can you define the contract one automatically enters when they engage in sexual activity?
I'll give a poke of logic and continue butting in..
People surely shouldn't be having sex before maturity
A mature person understands that pregnancy is extremely likely to result from sexual intercourse
As a man if I have casual sex with someone, I might not care how smart, stable, good willed etc.. she is and guess what? She really might get pregnant! Now it's All fine and dandy that the woman can if she so wishes opt out of the tremendous responsibility. The man has no such right, so if you are a man you had better realize that recreational sex can actually end up being -akin to at least- an irrevocable involuntarily entered contract.
So Guys,DON'T TAKE THE SUBJECT LIGHTLY, girls don't worry you can have it cut out. See now there's some less sanctimonious advice.
You ever been closely involved with a mother who really wasn't ready? There is usually a huge difference in the life of a child that results from fooling around as opposed to one that was planned.
I am not sure what you are getting at with this. The answer to the question is yes but I don't see how that invalidates anything I have said.
The truth is that (despite whether or not the attitude of the advice giver is sanctimonious or not) the advice that "people had better be celibate if they're not ready to get pregnant" is sound advice. Face it
Sex has other purposes besides procreation for humans. This is why women exhibit concealed ovulation, libido persists despite infertility, and sex is physically pleasurable; it is an important bonding experience for couples. It also has health benefits such as stress relief and immunity boosts.
Additionally, consider the unlikelihood of what you are saying. The average age of parenthood is 26 in the US. This is asking people to abstain from sex their entire lives up to this point, including the time period in which they meet their spouse and decide to marry them. This is also asking couples to abstain from sex between children. Especially for people living together, this is stressful, frustrating, and contrary to human nature.
I'll give a poke of logic and continue butting in..
People surely shouldn't be having sex before maturity
A mature person understands that pregnancy is extremely likely to result from sexual intercourse
This is not true. Even without any form of protection at all, there is a 20-25% chance per cycle of conception. This rate nosedives once protection is used.
As a man if I have casual sex with someone, I might not care how smart, stable, good willed etc.. she is and guess what? She really might get pregnant! Now it's All fine and dandy that the woman can if she so wishes opt out of the tremendous responsibility. The man has no such right, so if you are a man you had better realize that recreational sex can actually end up being -akin to at least- an irrevocable involuntarily entered contract.
You have a point about the contract men enter, and it's not the particular point of the debate so I don't want to get hung up on it but I wish there were a solution that also preserved their interests as well. However, if the man's wishes had any real weight in this decision, it could result in some women either being forced to continue a pregnancy, or forced to get an abortion. Both of those situations should be stringently avoided.
I am not sure what you are getting at with this. The answer to the question is yes but I don't see how that invalidates anything I have said.
My aim isn't to invalidate what you said but rather to provide a contrasting perspective.
This is asking people to abstain from sex their entire lives up to this point, including the time period in which they meet their spouse and decide to marry them. This is also asking couples to abstain from sex between children. Especially for people living together, this is stressful, frustrating, and contrary to human nature.
As I see it, due to the likely consequences, people shouldn't think choosing sexual partners flippantly is an unavoidable human thing to do.
This is not true. Even without any form of protection at all, there is a 20-25% chance per cycle of conception. This rate nosedives once protection is used.
Just maybe... this 20-25% is deceptive and refers to the chances per encounter.
My aim isn't to invalidate what you said but rather to provide a contrasting perspective.
How is the perspective of a woman who is not ready for a child a contrasting perspective? These are the people who would be more likely to opt for an abortion, which is the choice I am advocating.
As I see it, due to the likely consequences, people shouldn't think choosing sexual partners flippantly is an unavoidable human thing to do.
Do you define a flippant choice of partner as a partner with whom one is unwilling to raise a child? If so, this would limit humans to a single sexual partner per lifetime. Most people have a number of sexual partners, all or most of whom they care deeply about and do not choose 'flippantly'.
Just maybe... this 20-25% is deceptive and refers to the chances per encounter.
A woman who is not on birth control is only fertile for 24-48 hours per monthly cycle. When she is not fertile, there is 0% chance of conception, for obvious reasons. Around the time that she is fertile is when the 20-25% chance is applicable.
A woman who is on birth control is not supposed to be fertile for any length of time but breakthrough ovulation does occur, and it often goes undetected.
Perhaps I can more clearly contrast our perspectives: (or, me putting words into your mouth:))
You: It's normal and healthy to have sex without very seriously considering the possible consequences. (which are totally unlikely according to this study and that) After all abortion is a neat and tidy solution, should the minor irritation of an unwanted pregnancy occur.
Me: Anytime you are having sex, it ought to be with someone who you have already a rich non-sexual relationship with. Now when I was a teen, I didn't follow that rule. (so don't think the sanctimonious jab missed me) I am aware that the advice will most often go in one ear and out the other, but I think it's good advice, that CAN be heeded. It's not unrealistic to think that some people will set higher standards for themselves.
Abortion is a indirect consequence, and it isn't one that you can rely on. You should be prepared for the possibility of it but I wouldn't call it anything to bet on. Its not solely dependent upon your sexual habits and properties. Its kinda like saying " if I can't make my rent this month my parents will bail me out if my land lady wants it right away". There is more certainty that you will keep your apartment if you ensure you pay your rent on time, your parents may get tired of it though and weather or not they will is dependent on them. If your going to take the risk, you shouldn't rely on your parents to bail you out and here is the important part: you should have a workable back up plan encase they don't. Being completely unprepared for possible consequences of something that your likely to do often isn't being responsible. I know that you can have sex many many times before you have a kid, but all it takes is once for you to be stuck with something your not ready for, and thats not fair to anybody. I have seen it happen too many times. Maybe my view is more applicable to men, since they have less control over weather or not a child is born.
The contract: If a child results, you are by default legally responsible for it. That responsibility ties the three(or more) of you together.
Abortion is a direct consequence of some pregnancies.
You should be prepared for the possibility of it but I wouldn't call it anything to bet on.
I agree that it is irresponsible to rely on abortion as the only method of birth control. Irresponsible people are the last ones that I think should forced into staying pregnant and/or bringing a baby into the world. I would also not presume to select who is eligible for abortion based on how responsible or irresponsible they have been.
Additionally, I cannot imagine that these people are in the majority. Most women who get pregnant by accident do so because of birth control failure (see source). This is how they prepare for the possibility that sex can result in pregnancy, and for the most part, it is fairly effective. But not always.
I am slightly confused by your analogy. Do the parents represent abortion? If so, how might abortion 'get tired' of carrying out its intended purpose, and thus fail to complete it? Also, if we carry on with this analogy, it is more applicable to say that perhaps once in their life, someone will ask their parents to help them with rent. This is not unreasonable and, I would guess, fairly common. As I said, few women who get abortions do so because it is their only form of birth control. Those who do are typically lacking the education they need on the subject.
The contract: If a child results, you are by default legally responsible for it. That responsibility ties the three(or more) of you together.
Especially if we are debating purely on legal grounds, the 'if' is instrumental in this sentence. When someone obtains an abortion, a child does not result. Abortion is currently legal, even if it is unobtainable in some places, so this is a legally valid course of action.
What I meant by saying that abortion is a indirect consequence was that the decision if you would have one or not is not primarily based on your sexual habits, so its not a "direct" result of sexual activity.
The birth control, or Maybe an abortion if your a man, would be like the parents , The workable back up plan would be: to be able to raise a kid, give the kid to another, or kill it. Many people are not prepared to do any of those three options, and all three can by life changing and impacts most people materially and emotionally. Some of those three options might not be possible for example The man does not decide to abort, or to put the kid out for adoption, what is possible for him is whatever the women he impregnated decides to do, which means he should be ready to handle all three of them, especially since one(or more) of them is likely to eventually result from his habits. A women has more options, A women may not be able to have an abortion if she waits too long to decide, due to it either becoming illegal(limits on when during pregnancy) or too expensive (max is apparently around $10,000,http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/flyer.htm) other then that I can't think of too much other then her own beliefs and emotions which might restrict her options.
I would say that adoption IS better, however you really cannot say untill you are in that position. A friend of mine had allways maintained she would never get one, under any circumstances, whilst maintaining the rights of other women to have one if they wished. Last month she found she was pregnant. She's in the middle of her a-levels, still lives at home, and her relationship with her partner is on the rocks. This baby had the potential to destroy her life, even if she did give it up for adoption after tha birth.
She chose to have an abortion. I think no less of her for this descision, and it was hers to make.
You cannot be sure what you would do until you are in this situation.
There is no scientific evidence, or the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States, to support the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman’s long-term mental health than delivering and parenting a child she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.
Yes you are right about that. So as I stated before I am not saying we should ban it because we all should have the freedom to do what we want with are bodies. I myself just would not do it because i believe it is wrong.
Well, that's a cute belief, cute, but seeing as there is no universal morality, and right and wrong are mere perspective, I'd say whether you believe it's wrong or not is irrelevant.
"Well, that's a cute belief, cute, but seeing as there is no universal morality, and right and wrong are mere perspective, I'd say whether you believe it's wrong or not is irrelevant."
That is a whole different topic "cutie" so saying that is irrelevant to the conversation
You believe things, I believe things. Thats life. Get over it.
"There is no scientific evidence, or the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States, to support the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman’s long-term mental health than delivering and parenting a child she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption..."
This invalidates your argument that you believe abortion to be wrong. Because either choice, in your words leads to the same effect on the psyche etc.., it leads one to believe both are viable options where neither is the wrong choice. Sexual responsibility is invalid under this statement since neither choice seems to make a difference, now apparently.
It must boil down to the degree to which one is affected by such a procedure. Still, having a choice is significantly better than none at all. Those that can cope better should be given the chance to do so. Those that cannot will make their decision as you have made yours. A choice-less society is not what America is based on. Drastic procedures will be undertaken by the poorest of peoples. The alternative is more horrifying as it has been in the past.
What if your mom had an abortion when she was pregnant with you? I would be happy if she did, then you wouldnt be posting stupid arguments like "There is no fail-safe method to prevent pregnancy unless you are sterilized". Sometimes sterilization doesn't work. And the only fail proof is abstinence.
First, sterilized means that you cannot have children. If you do have a child, even after a sterilizing procedure, it means you were not sterile in the first place and that the procedure failed.
In addition to humor, the truth of the matter, however, is that abstinence does not work all of the time. People who choose abstinence cannot necessarily stop themselves from being raped. Are they doomed to a child they do not want, with their only fault being that they could not stop their attacker?
even in a world without rape, there is still a rare event in women with Turner's Syndrome known as "spontaneous pregnancy"
So what you're saying is you are FOR abortions. Since you would have liked for me to be aborted. Looks like you are pro-choice.
And yes, if you think you are pro-life, there will be many more people like me, shaking up your world and making you wish you WERE for abortions. It seems you can't handle either decision and you invalidated your own argument.
It's ok for me to be aborted. Hmmmm.....smart.
Also, you can be raped while abstinent..., also, when can you rely on a teenager to follow through 100% of the time. That requires extreme religious or government oppression.
Again, you invalidate your own stance on this subject. You cannot stand the faux moral ground and then turn around and sort of wish some people were not in existence.
Did you ever consider the fact that humanity is the solution and the cause of their own problems,....."God" is a scapegoat for you to hide the fact you wish some people were still aborted as "babies".
You are PRO LIFE, but only ....in some cases, and only for those people that you like. Sounds more like a twisted version of Pro choice.
And not agreeing with you is not a reason for me to have been aborted many years ago. Now , I, for example am already here...that is intent to see me dead. It seems that you are more violent and immoral than you realize.
If abortion is murder to you then you wish for me or some others to be murdered.
Again...theres no refuting this. You are in denial of your own beliefs and wishing casual harm on others is ok with you.
If in some universe I happened to be aborted, I would have no problem with it as I would not be here to bother you with ideas that might challenge your thinking. :P
Challenging people is an immoral action that deserves death? Ok..
What if your mom had an abortion when she was pregnant with you?
I'm always curious what pro-lifers hope to prove with this seemingly inane hypothetical. You are asking what would have happened if someone had never been born? Well, nothing, really. The person in question would cease to exist before they even developed a consciousness. Life would go on and years later, we'd still be sitting here debating abortion.
The fact is, she didn't get aborted, and that's fine. I've never met a pro-choice person who doesn't recognize that keeping a baby if you want to is also a valid choice. We're not out to make sure everyone gets an abortion whether they want it or not, you know.
Edit: I have also never encountered a pro-choice person who, in seriousness, professed to be 'happy' at the prospect of someone else getting an abortion.
Why were you born? Everyone has a reason to why you were born, you just have to find it. If your baby could have made a difference to this world, you are taking that away. You are taking away the chance for your baby to have a life. No matter good or bad, he/she should have a life, have a chance. And even if you think you are doing something good for the baby, you're not. You just killed a living breathing thing.
exactly that is one hundred percent correct. tell me you have had 6 children each one is deaf or blind or dumb. now you are pregnant would you have an abortion?
"One life is worth more than another? Seems like it."
All unborn childrens lives are worth the same. They have not done anything wrong. Because all of there lives are worth the same, we need to save as many of them as we can.
"We kill billions of other living things all the time for lesser reasons."
Ok, so what are you saying? " Its ok if we kill them, we kill other people all the time and its not big deal!"
So if someone comes to your house in the middle of the night and kills your child (assuming you have one), it will be ok because we kill other living things all the time for lesser reasons.
I believe his argument was that unspecialized stem cells of any species are indistinguishable from one another until they start to specialize.
Therefore, there is no distinction between killing a cow embryo or a human embryo. The only difference is that a cow embryo will give you cow organs, which are not useful in the physiological field (although the future veterinarians may support that as well)
"According to Times magazine, a human life is worth around $129,000 (in terms of health care coverage- they do not condone human trafficking)"
It's amazing that we actually put a 'price' on people. Yet another instance that proves man has fallen so far.
"However, white lion cubs are worth $138,000."
But like you said before humans can't be bought or sold (legally). So therefore the cost of insurance of a human compared to a white lion cub doesn't really correlate.
"It's amazing that we actually put a 'price' on people. Yet another instance that proves man has fallen so far."
Would you find it reasonable to spend billions of dollars to save a single person, when that same money could be spent on saving hundreds of other people?
anyways
they are comparable in the sense that society would spend up to $129,000 to save a human, and the same society would spend up to $138,000 to save a white lion cub.
therefore, in the literal sense of the word, a white lion cub is worth more.
Also, i do not think that lions can be bought or sold legally either- they are endangered
"Would you find it reasonable to spend billions of dollars to save a single person, when that same money could be spent on saving hundreds of other people?"
Do you want a price tag on your life?
"they are comparable in the sense that society would spend up to $129,000 to save a human, and the same society would spend up to $138,000 to save a white lion cub."
This is not to save the cubs, but to purchase them. How much does it cost to buy a person?
"Might I suggest using arguments and evidence, rather than statements."
You do realize both are comprised of statements right? You either question or state something. Might I suggest to you the study of the English language, or else pick another language to use.
Ithink abortion should be allowed but how much is george washigton worth or any other GREAT person? so how can we know how much each person will be worth?
22 days after a women conceives the baby's heart alredy begins to beat therefore the fetus is alive although you arent able to hear it until later in the pregnancy it is still a baby and yes it is ALIVE .
my mother was raped at gun point and had my sister ... and pepole think she should have been aborted , im glad some people have the intellagence not to MURDER !!!
do you think your sister would have minded if she were not born? No. She would not. She was not a conscious organism.
Am I saying that your sister should have been aborted? Of course not. But had your mother wanted an abortion, the potential human that is being terminated will be apathetic, as they are yet to develop any sort of cognitive capacity.
When does a child become conscious? Which week is it? Why should a woman decide another person's fate. And you are saying her sister should have been aborted, but the mother chose not too. You talk of cancer cells as living tissue then you define life as a cognitive mind. Which is it?
Come on, you can't reduce it to that simple of terms. Right there you admit it's a child. So if you "evict" (murder) the child how is this justifiable? The child can't survive outside the uterus, this doesn't mean that child's life is any less important.
"I am advocating every womans right to make decisions of her own body"
Do not those replicating cells (child in development) have a right to their body as well? Would you have wanted to advocate for you while you were in development (even though you weren't self aware)?
I just don't understand how murder of an innocent child can compare to a mother's convience or health. The child is the priority, not the parent.
Do not those replicating cells (child in development) have a right to their body as well? Would you have wanted to advocate for you while you were in development (even though you weren't self aware)?
If Human A relies upon the body of Human B as a life support system, then it sure as hell better be with Human B's consent. This goes for both full grown humans and fetuses.
I just don't understand how murder of an innocent child can compare to a mother's convience or health. The child is the priority, not the parent.
When you get pregnant, then you are allowed to decide who is the priority between you and your fetus. Don't presume to tell anyone else what their priorities are.
"When you get pregnant, then you are allowed to decide who is the priority between you and your fetus. Don't presume to tell anyone else what their priorities are."
I have a child and they are the number one priority. And I can tell someone that human life is more important then convience.
"If Human A relies upon the body of Human B as a life support system, then it sure as hell better be with Human B's consent."
The opening of your legs gave consent to all the implications that follow. If you get pregnant give the baby up for adoption, don't kill a human being for your mistake!
And I can tell someone that human life is more important then convience.
Doesn't mean your opinion is worth anything or that it should be legislated.
You are vastly simplifying the issue of abortion into one of convenience, in order to minimize the reasons a person might choose to have one. This probably makes it a lot easier to argue against, along with pretending that only irresponsible sluts get abortions but it's not exactly accurate.
The opening of your legs gave consent to all the implications that follow.
This shit again. Considering you abandoned the thread where we were first debating how this isn't true just because you think it's true, I don't think you can just repeat this and expect it to carry any weight.
Here is a hypothetical. A couple has a child and, at five years old, the child is diagnosed with a terminal disease that can only be cured by an organ transplant. One of the parents is a match, but for whatever reason, they do not want to undergo the transplant. Should the government force them to undergo the transplant anyway, under threat of punishment? What punishment should they receive if they refuse? And any doctor who might refuse to perform a nonconsensual transplant, how about them? Why limit mandatory transplants to ones own children, if human life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy? Why not mandate organ donations from everyone? Keep in mind the government currently has no part in mandating organ transplants, even though the lives lost are not unconscious, dependent fetuses, but fully conscious and independent people. This is probably because most sane people would recognize this as a gross violation of a citizen's right to bodily autonomy.
As far as adoption goes, there is more than 100,000 children in the system who already need homes. How many more do you think there would be, if abortion were somehow completely eliminated? How much more strained and inefficient do you think the system would be with these increased numbers? The foster care system is underregulated and overflowing. These children are far more likely to suffer abuse, be unstable or developmentally challenged, and later end up homeless or incarcerated. If the adoption system was flawless, with enough funding and manpower, and no children who fall through the cracks, then this argument might mean more. I am not implying that adoption as a concept is a negative thing, or that it should not be an option, just that it is far from a perfect alternative, especially when abortion is neutral for the fetus.
If you ever get tired of educating these dummies, come meet me down on the corner, I'll be wearing a wife-beater T-shirt and swigging a can of Pabst. Pardon moi for being sexAAAAy, it's just my white trash DNA coming through...or is it my white trash environment? Hmmm.
If you do not want a parasitic organism living inside of your uterus, should you be forced to host said uninvited guest simply because it cannot survive elsewhere?
Fetuses are parasitic. They feed off of the mother's nutrients.
infants are parasitic. They feed off of the mother's milk.
and children of all ages are parasitic. They feed off of the parents' time, money, and patience.
If you left your back door open and a starving burglar got in, should you be able to kick him out to the streets, where he will die of starvation, or do you have to provide food and shelter for him simply because he is there?
Where would we draw the line on when it is and isn't OK to take an innocent life? I don't think anyone in their right mind would be OK with slaughtering a newborn, yet it seems OK if it's just a few months younger inside a womb. What about women who get elective abortions only a week before they are due? The infant is almost identical to a day old baby we would be horrified of slaughtering, the only difference is it's location. So then that brings us to the fetus. It's very similar to the baby, but far less developed. Have we decided that it's not a human life because it's not developed to the birthing stage? I don't think it makes any moral sense to abort a child.
Women do not get 'abortions' a week before they are due: that would be a premature birth.
Yes, fetuses turn into babies.
but sperm cells turn are used to form said fetuses.
should it be illegal to enter a hot tub/kick someone in the balls/masturbate, because these actions kill sperm which have the potential to give rise to an embryo which can give rise to life?
I think there's a difference between sperms cells and an embryo/zygote/fetus. The reason is because a sperm cell in itself has no further potential than to be a sperm cell. A fertilized egg however, will become a human being.
The process of an embryo developing into a baby is a natural one which will happen without any intervention. For a sperm cell or an egg cell to become an embryo, they must be united, which is the result of a decision.
There's a difference between being self sufficient and the point I am making. For example, an infant is not self sufficient. If it's mother doesn't feed it, it will die. Does that mean it isn't alive? Technical, humans don't become intrinsically sentient until they are 18 months old. There is little difference between the intelligence of a newborn and an embryo. Does that mean that the newborn has no value (as you argue the embryo does not)?
There's a difference between being self sufficient and the point I am making. For example, an infant is not self sufficient. If it's mother doesn't feed it, it will die.
If the mother doesn't want to take care of it, someone else can, either temporarily or permanent. This cannot be said for an embryo.
Self sufficient does not mean you can survive without food. Dumbass. You could not survive if you were not fed either.
However, an infant can survive without being attached to the mother. It requires sustenance, as does any other living thing, but does it is not attached to the mother, nor dependent on the mother for medically vital functions such as digesting food, breathing, etc.
also, there is a world of difference between an embryo and an infant.
Self sufficient does not mean you can survive without food. Dumbass. You could not survive if you were not fed either.
My point is that it does not have the ability to provide for it's own basic needs. And the usage of the word "Dumbass" does not strengthen your argument.
Furthermore, plagiarism is when when a person implies or states that they have produced their own information or research when it was actually done by someone else. I simply reiterated, I did not plagiarize by simply failing to cite a source.
actually, by 18 months a human baby is already capable of recognizing itself in a mirror, which measures self-awareness (not sentience).
A dog can recognize itself in a mirror too. But a dog will never reach what an infant (or embryo) can in terms of brain function.
'And the usage of the word "Dumbass" does not strengthen your argument.'
You actually thought I meant self-sufficient as the ability to provide for ones own basic needs? I thought you were being facetious. my apologies.
"My point is that it does not have the ability to provide for it's own basic needs"
This is incorrect. A baby's most basic needs is the ability to pump its own heart, digest its own food, inflate its own lungs. The mother provides sustenance. Many teenagers, too, require mothers to do this as well, albeit in other forms.
"A dog can recognize itself in a mirror too. But a dog will never reach what an infant (or embryo) can in terms of brain function."
You claimed that an infant is a conscious being at 18 months, with no evidence whatsoever. Upon investigation, I found that an infant is capable of self-conscious at 18 months (as in, it is aware of itself, not that is is concerned by its weight).
"A dog can recognize itself in a mirror too."
no. they cannot. Dogs, cats, and young children all fail the mirror test.
"But a dog will never reach what an infant (or embryo) can in terms of brain function."
an embryo has no brain function until past the second trimester. It is illegal to abort an infant with any semblance of a brain.
and a mature dog, in terms of intelligence, is roughly the equivalent of a two year old child. So, it would appear that a dog can reach past what an infant is capable of, and achieve the brain function of a toddler.
did you even bother to look any of your information up?
please, try and do research. I understand that you are not a scientist. I am not either. But rather than make up erroneous facts, it helps to research and give correct information.
A fetus is clearly human IMO. It has human genes. Also I think fetuses deserve person-hood. I see no difference in the survivability of a 9 mo fetus versus a 1 second old baby. Also, killing a fetus by, lets say, punching the mother, is considered murder. But yet if it's ripped out by a, "medical professional" it's totally legal and even supported with taxpayer dollars.
likewise, it is illegal to kidnap someone's child from their house, but it is not illegal to put your child up for adoption. The difference between the first and second situation in both adoption and abortion is the motive.
the fetus does not die in the process of being removed. It dies because it is not a self sustaining organism.
and, despite any right to life you claim it has, why is the mother responsible for taking care of this burden?
If the fetus were not a parasite incapable of living without leeching off of the mother, then it would not 'die' when it was removed.
People SHOULD NOT have abortions. It doesn't matter if the baby is technically a child yet or not. It's the idea that there is the oppurtunity for life to happen and you are taking that away with abortion. There are always other options.
Does this also take into account the millions of aborted cow, and pig fetus'? The question is should people have abortions...
People can have their own or have some on other species. What makes one more valuable than another? Genetically all are dramatically similar. Except that one is farmed and collected as a resource and a large scale.
The opportunity for life only applies to human fetus' . If you believe that you take away the opportunity of life to happen............
We do this every day to other species of life. So you must agree that you are biased on "some life" should be allowed to live..which is also pro-choice thinking.
We must have our babies but other species can be destroyed at will.
Or....you are a vegan and your argument may be possibly valid.
Unless you are vegan, those of you against abortion are all pro-choicers and kill other species at will, fetus or not.
you realize that if a fetus were in your stomach, you would be digesting it, right?
And, by the same coin, cancer (which, ironically, actually can be in your stomach) does not seem alive but it is completely alive- in the same sense as a fetus. Should one 'have [cancer] and then give [it] away'?
We shall take the time to thank you for your use of capital letters. If your philosophy were not so unique and aspirant as to transcend grammar, we might think you a fool.
WHEN IT GETS IN YOUR STOMACH
Forgive our ignorance, we have not the pleasure of understanding you. Of what do you speak? It seems to be some form of chest-bursting alien.
BUT IT IS COMPLETELY ALIVE
That is not our understanding of the contested issue. It is rather debated whether it can be considered a person or not.
It is a human tell me you were in the womb yet your mother had an abortion you wouldnt be here right now. now doesnt that mean a human is missing in the human population.
on the other hand, if your mother never got pregnant, you would not be here right now either. So, even using abstinence as birth control, there would STILL be a 'missing' human.
by that logic, the only way to not murder anyone is to constantly pop out children, because if we let even a single egg go to waste we are MURDERING that child by never conceiving it in the first place.
Unfortunately, since the human population is suffering from over-population, that does not seem like a viable idea.
on the other hand, if your mother never got pregnant, you would not be here right now either. So, even using abstinence as birth control, there would STILL be a 'missing' human.
by that logic, the only way to not murder anyone is to constantly pop out children, because if we let even a single egg go to waste we are MURDERING that child by never conceiving it in the first place.
Unfortunately, since the human population is suffering from over-population, that does not seem like a viable idea.
First of all, scientifically an embryo is alive and our bill of rights say that we all have THE RIGHT TO LIFE. Therefore that right should speak for the embryo which cannot speak for itself.
I am saying they are not citizens. This is a fact; legally, fetuses are not recognized as citizens of the United States. This does not happen until they are born. The US grant rights to US citizens, and fetuses are not citizens, so they do not have legal rights to anything.
So could you abort a child that is about to be delivered? By your logic you can. Sounds like you could abort a child that is 17 who was born in international waters.
No- that 17 year old had parents who were citizens, their citizenship is inherited. Do you have the slightest idea how citizenship works? it is different for every nationality. I am Brazilian because my mother is Brazilian. I would be Brazilian no matter where I was born-even in international waters-simply because of the nationality of my parents.
besides, I was simply backing up zombee on her citizenship argument. I hold to my other arguments for why fetuses are not alive, in addition to not being citizens.
Although, not being citizens is kinda of totaly unrelated to whether they deserve life or not.
A human being, citizen or not, grown up or not, fetus or not, deserves as much life as a chicken or cow or a seal or a bear. I mean by this that any living being deserves life.
The only thing that makes me sustain the opinion of somewhat pro-abortion is when the baby will not be born with enough resources for a decent life. After all, we are just another animal in this ball of mud and kill living beings without mercy all the time, for meet and clothing, its not a human fetus that's gonna break the balance that already doesn't exist.
I only sustain this opinion up to the 3rd or 4th month of pregnancy. The 17 year old person (not child anymore), has already had a living time that I personaly value, and will have even more. Furthermore she has perception of all she is going through, in contrast to a fetus. Again that citizen crap is complete nonsense.
Tell me, if you have a pet, is it ok that someone kills it just because it isn't a citizen?
you realize that, just because you say something is 'scientific' does not make the argument valid- especially when the term life is so widely debated even in the scientific community.
Consider Iron Sulfide. Under extreme temperature and pressure, such as a volcanic vent, it has the ability to form a membrane around itself, crystallize (if it is at critical mass), and then split. It is hypothesized that Iron sulfide particles are the abiotic precursor to life. Is it immoral to use iron in structures since it has the potential for life?
Also, body tissue is considered to be 'alive'. Should I not have my tonsils removed, since I would be killing the tissue after I remove it? It is, after all, a mass of living cells- just like a fetus. If that makes it alive, well, that is what is being debated at the moment.
You can't seriously compare human life to minerals. Living tissue is just that tissue. Cutting off your finger, that tissue can't grow into a child. The embryo is human life in the making. Nothing compares to it.
"You can't seriously compare human life to minerals"
First of all, yes, i did just compare human life to minerals.
Iron sulfide particles are thought to be the abiogenesis of life on earth.
its heralded by the scientific community as Iron Sulfide World Theory
And I could not find any points of yours to retort, as the only thing you did was to say I cannot make that comparison: i suppose the proper response would be to say that I, and other intellectuals, have, did, and will continue to do so.
Besides, what is an organism other than an intricate sac of hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, and various trace materials? Those elements are found as solid chemical substances (aka minerals).
"Cutting off your finger, that tissue can't grow into a child."
in more coherent terms:
if I remove a finger from the hand, it dies-rather than turn into a child-therefore it is not 'living' by your definition
If I remove an embryo from a uterus, it dies-rather than turn into a child-there it is not 'living' by your definition
A finger is just as alive as an embryo: they are living tissues whom depend on a another/the rest of the body to survive.
abortions should not take place - a child can be aborted for up to 24 weeks old - a baby can be born then - so that is killing a living baby and is very wrong.
If you have do something you need to deal with the consequences. You shouldn’t be allowed to take the easy way out. Thing about is before you go off and do something with someone.
Not at any giving time is an abortion acceptable. Before anyone pops off at the mouth about something they know nothing about, maybe you should do your research. Abortion clinics, for one, don't give a rats @ss about you or that baby. They are in it for the money. They won't even let the mother's look at the ultrasound screen to see how big the baby is when doing the initial check to make sure they are pregnant. They know they will change their minds if they see it. There is an abortion clinic, which also does late term abortions, in Kansas. Right across the street is a Prolife group that offers the mothers a 4d ultrasounds. Out of all the mother's that have agreed to talk to them before having the abortion only 1 has actually went through with it. Fetus' do have feelings. Mothers that get saline injections to kill the babies feel their dying baby kicking as the saline eats away at their unborn flesh. A 12 WEEK fetus has been noted on an ultrasound to pull away and try to escape the suctioning machine as it's being ripped from the womb at one mother's abortion. Life beings at conception, we are just in different stages of growth, such as a newborn from an adult. Nonetheless, we still harbor the same DNA and potential no matter what stage. Whether you are raped or irresponsible, we are all here for a reason. Both of my daughters were unplanned. I even had one at 17, but I couldn't imagine her not being here. The psychological effect on a woman who has had an abortion is tremendous. Trust me, b/c I know... nothing good comes out of an abortion. You are ripped of everything that God has given you the right to have. Put yourself aside for 9 months, which is clearly not forever, and give your baby a fighting chance. This should not even be a debate. Adoption is far better then living with the fact you selfishly killed your child.
Not at any giving time is an abortion acceptable. Before anyone pops off at the mouth about something they know nothing about, maybe you should do your research.
People are perfectly capable of doing their research and still disagreeing with you.
Abortion clinics, for one, don't give a rats @ss about you or that baby. They are in it for the money.
As an absolute statement, this is false. There may be clinics that immorally encourage or coerce women into getting abortions but they are just as monstrous and people who would encourage or coerce a woman to continue a pregnancy she truly didn't want. Do you really doubt the ability and in fact the overwhelming tendency of doctors to be truly concerned with the mental and physical health of their patients, and to desire to do what's best for them, whether or not that entails the termination of a pregnancy?
Additionally, it is far more lucrative to charge someone for 9 months of prenatal care and subsequent delivery than is it to charge someone for a single abortion procedure. The idea that this is a get-rich-quick scheme for doctors is completely baseless.
They won't even let the mother's look at the ultrasound screen to see how big the baby is when doing the initial check to make sure they are pregnant.
Even if this is true (could not find a single source on such a thing), ultrasounds are always available at other places. The decision to get an abortion is not an instant one.
They know they will change their minds if they see it. There is an abortion clinic, which also does late term abortions, in Kansas. Right across the street is a Prolife group that offers the mothers a 4d ultrasounds. Out of all the mother's that have agreed to talk to them before having the abortion only 1 has actually went through with it.
So? Did you expect a pro-choice person to have a problem with this? No pro-choice person wants to see more abortions, or see women pushed into getting one they don't really want. If a woman is feeling uncertain, and decides not to a get an abortion after seeing an ultrasound, great. Far better than her not seeing an ultrasound, getting an abortion, and wishing she hadn't.
However, not all pregnant women have or would change their minds upon seeing an ultrasound. A huge percentage of pregnancies are terminated before the fetus even looks remotely humanoid.
Fetus' do have feelings. Mothers that get saline injections to kill the babies feel their dying baby kicking as the saline eats away at their unborn flesh. A 12 WEEK fetus has been noted on an ultrasound to pull away and try to escape the suctioning machine as it's being ripped from the womb at one mother's abortion.
Nice use of blatantly slanted language.
Bacteria reacts to its environment but it does not mean you are causing millions of agonizing deaths every time you spray bleach on something. Even the most conservative estimates place the fetus's ability to feel pain at 20 weeks. Recent studies place the threshold closer to 24 weeks.
Life beings at conception, we are just in different stages of growth, such as a newborn from an adult. Nonetheless, we still harbor the same DNA and potential no matter what stage.
No one thinks a fetus is dead tissue. The contention is over whether or not the interests of the fetus override the interests of the mother. I think the answer is a resounding no.
We all have potential but the law does not and should not operate on potential, it operates on the present. A 17-year-old can't get into a bar by saying they are a 'potential adult'.
Whether you are raped or irresponsible, we are all here for a reason.
This is your opinion and not something on which to base decisions about someone else's life. Plenty of people do not believe anyone's birth is predestined and it's not your place to decide something about their lives based on your beliefs.
Hint: Not everyone who gets an abortion has been irresponsible. There is such a thing as contraceptive failure.
Both of my daughters were unplanned. I even had one at 17, but I couldn't imagine her not being here.
Great for you. You're not everyone. People are different.
The psychological effect on a woman who has had an abortion is tremendous.
And the psychological effect on a woman who has been forced to incubate a fetus she doesn't want is....? What? Trivial? Please.
Trust me, b/c I know...
Because you had an abortion? If so, your experience and your reactions, are not representative of everyone's. Try to differentiate your own feelings and experiences from other people's. You are not them and you have no place forcing your conclusions into their decisions.
If not, then you are not really in a position to speak from experience. Yes, abortion is not easy or fun, and yes, some women may feel guilty. This is regrettable and should be avoided through better sex education and better support for unintentionally pregnant women. But just because some women are harmed or regretful as a result of getting an abortion does not mean they should not be legal, safe, and available.
nothing good comes out of an abortion.
Maybe it wouldn't for you. So don't get one. Plenty of women would disagree and overall are quite happy with their decision to terminate their pregnancies.
You are ripped of everything that God has given you the right to have.
Unless someone doesn't believe in God or puts their reproductive autonomy above what you think he wants.
This should not even be a debate.
This is the only point in which we are in agreement. A citizen's right to bodily autonomy should not even be an issue.
Adoption is far better then living with the fact you selfishly killed your child.
The government has no business trying to make selfishness illegal.
i don't think it's right to kill an unborn child. they did't even get the chance to experience life. they have fingernails within the first month. it's murder. they have a heartbeat within as little as 18 days.
I think that if you have sex to get pregnant then you should have to deal with the consequences. i don't think it's right to be able to throw a life away before it even has the chance to be someone. I am 100% against abortion and nobody could change my mind. Some people say they are against it unless it was rape, but i say that even if it was rape then you should still have it and give it up for adoption. I for one was actually in a situation like that. I didn't have the choice to get pregnant, but i wouldn't have gotten an abortion. I didn't get an abortion.
I don't believe that we should get the choice weather or not to end a life. Who cares if it isn't a full baby yet? It's still one less chance we have at finding the cure for cancer. Or maybe it's the next Martin Luther King? Who knows if you have it aborted right? And if you didn't want to have the child, then maybe you shouldn't of had sex in the first place. If you're a rape victim, i apologize for what i just said. The only time i ever see it fit to get an abortion is if the child is killing the mother.
Selective abortions have always been permissible, mothers life being in danger and the baby being stillborn being the two extremes. The issue is more should casual abortion be allowed in place of shouldering the responsibility for your own irresponsible behavior? The answer there is a definitive no.
If you don’t want to have kids then use contraceptives or be responsible. People hide behind excuses like “Oh, what about a rapists child” or “it’s my body.” A rapists child is still a child and you’re the states “human farm” not your own individual. There are always places things can be done at your own expense –this should be one of them if your country doesn’t allow it. Having taxpayers back and fund such matters when there are more sensible things to be spending money on is not helping anyone in the long run.
It is commonly assumed by pro-life people that the only women who ever opt for an abortion were being promiscuous or irresponsible. This is false, and in fact, the majority of aborted pregnancies occurred with at least one form of birth control in place, and nearly half of all pregnancies in America are unintended.
you’re the states “human farm” not your own individual.
Not only is also not true (as abortion is legal), it is a terrifying prospect and avoiding it is exactly why abortion should continue to be legal for whatever reason.
Nearly half are unexpected? Where is this statistic? The human farm then what is the baby who is going to worry about them. You have sex for procreation that is its intended purpose. A child is not a byproduct it is the goal of the act.
The human farm then what is the baby who is going to worry about them.
Please restate this, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You have sex for procreation that is its intended purpose. A child is not a byproduct it is the goal of the act.
If this was true, there would be no such thing as orgasms, and women would not exhibit such low fertility rates (25% chance of conception per cycle) or concealed ovulation. Sex is a stress-reliever and a valuable bonding tool for couples.
Only a tiny fraction of the time is pregnancy actually the goal of sex. The rest of the time, it's because it's fun.
• About one in two pregnancies in America are unplanned.(i) 1
• That is, over three million of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States annually are unplanned.1 Moreover, about two-thirds of
unplanned pregnancies—two million—are unwanted.(ii) 2 In other words, about one in three pregnancies are unwanted.
• The rate of unplanned pregnancy remained constant between 1994 and 2001 at 51 unplanned pregnancies per 1,000 women age
15-44.1 During the same time period, the rate of unwanted pregnancy increased slightly (4%)—from 31.9 to 33.2 unwanted pregnancies
per 1,000 women age 15-44.3
How do we arrive at one in every two pregnancies is unplanned? When the statistic is 51 to 1,000 women. What was the demographics of their sample?
You had talked about women being a human farm and I simply wanted to advocate for the child.
Let's look at the orgasm shall we. When a man orgasms he releases his sperm into the woman. When a woman orgasms her cervix contracts to absorb the sperm that is expected to be there. The desire to procreate is in humans and animals alike. It may be fun, but its intended purpose is clear.
• About one in two pregnancies in America are unplanned.(i) 1
• That is, over three million of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States annually are unplanned.1 Moreover, about two-thirds of
unplanned pregnancies—two million—are unwanted.(ii) 2 In other words, about one in three pregnancies are unwanted.
• The rate of unplanned pregnancy remained constant between 1994 and 2001 at 51 unplanned pregnancies per 1,000 women age
15-44.1 During the same time period, the rate of unwanted pregnancy increased slightly (4%)—from 31.9 to 33.2 unwanted pregnancies
per 1,000 women age 15-44.3
How do we arrive at one in every two pregnancies is unplanned? When the statistic is 51 to 1,000 women. What was the demographics of their sample?
The origin of this statistic is clearly cited. If you doubt it, feel free to look it up and some of your own research, because I am not going to offer you sources on sources on sources. I am sorry the statistics say something different than what you would like to see.
Let's look at the orgasm shall we. When a man orgasms he releases his sperm into the woman. When a woman orgasms her cervix contracts to absorb the sperm that is expected to be there.
When I said orgasm, I should have been more clear in that I meant the pleasurable aspects of orgasm. It is what leads humans to seek sex when one or more of the partners is infertile. Pleasure is completely erroneous to conception and the evidence suggests it is a feature of sex that is unique to very intelligent animals like humans, some great apes, and some cetaceans.
The desire to procreate is in humans and animals alike. It may be fun, but its intended purpose is clear.
The desire to have sex is not synonymous with the desire to procreate; this should be self-evident because people have sex when they have no intention of creating a baby.
What I am saying to you is the pleasureable effect of sex is to create a desire to procreate. Of course humans want to have sex and not have babies, but that doesn't change the biological desire that is there. Your body enjoys sex because it wants to pass on genetic material. You may want to have sex because you think that guy at the bar is cute. You only "biologically" desire him to procreate. Is that simple enough for you.
What I am saying to you is the pleasureable effect of sex is to create a desire to procreate.
Not necessarily. As I said before, sex for pleasure is unique to only a few creatures on earth. The vast majority of living things engage in sex in the absence of pleasure and, in some cases, even when it is painful.
I understand what you are trying to say and I am not denying that sex evolved as a mechanism for passing on genetic material. However, for humans, the purpose has clearly evolved. It is no longer used purely for creating babies, and in fact that is a relatively uncommon outcome of the act.
Just because we humans may use sex for pleasure, doesn't change the biology that makes us desire to do it. Sex is not in the mind. It is in the body and chemical/hormonal effects that give us the desire to seek it out. You as an aware person may not want a child, but your body does this fact is not disputed. You can't wish on yourself to not have a child when you have sex. Your body knows the purpose of the act. If sex has evolved to simply pleasure then why do women still get pregnant. An unplanned pregnancy is an oxymoron when you have to participate in intercourse for it to happen.
You are simply restating yourself. The fact of the matter is humans rarely use sex for reproduction, and pregnancy is a rare outcome of sex.
An unplanned pregnancy is an oxymoron when you have to participate in intercourse for it to happen.
An unplanned car accident is an oxymoron when you have to participate in driving for it to happen.
An unplanned food poisoning is an oxymoron when you have to participate in eating for it to happen.
An unplanned sunburn is an oxymoron when you have to participate in sunbathing for it to happen.
Just because you engage in an action does not mean you are consenting to let the occasional unwanted side effects of that action run their course without you trying to prevent them, or mitigating their effects as best as you can. Sex and pregnancy are no exceptions.
Do you understand what an oxymoron is? You have sex for procreation that is an undisputed fact. When you drive a car you are not trying to get into an accident. The chemical/biological functions of sexual functions, hormones, drive are all designed to make children. Just because humans have perverted it into something else does not change the physical implications of the act.
You are viewing this subject from a secular worldview where you believe your wants, and desires are more important then another human's life.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”
Considering there is nothing inherently contradictory about the words 'pregnancy' and 'unexpected', I would say you are the one who appears confused about the meaning. Pregnancy can very much be both surprising and unwanted.
You have sex for procreation that is an undisputed fact.
You continue to say this and it continues to be untrue, strictly speaking.
Is this truly such a tough point to comprehend? Sex boosts immunity, relieves stress, and helps couples bond. We have found more uses for it that creating babies, and considering how rarely it actually creates a baby, I am unsure why you are still clinging to this statement. You appear to be presuming to tell me (and people in general?) why they have sex, when you are absolutely incorrect about it. Mostly, people have sex for fun, and this is a painfully obvious fact when you compare the average number of children per person to the average number of sexual partners over a lifetime, let alone the estimated number of actual sexual encounters.
Infertile people have sex and homosexuals have sex. Neither of these situations has any capability of producing a baby and yet they continue to do it and enjoy it, for the same reasons that fertile heterosexuals do; it's fun and if you're careful, it is incredibly unlikely that it will end in pregnancy.
When you drive a car you are not trying to get into an accident.
Generally, when people have sex, they are not trying to get pregnant. I should think this, too should be fairly obvious, especially considering the lengths people go to in order to prevent this.
Nevertheless, it happens, in spite of all the efforts put in place to stop it. Just like a car accident.
You are viewing this subject from a secular worldview where you believe your wants, and desires are more important then another human's life.
If that human is a) dependent on a woman's body as life support system and b) lacking anything that might be called a consciousness, then of course her interests should take precedence.
At conception life has a chance whether self aware or not. The sex acts you cite are examples of the perverted nature that we as people have transformed the purpose of the act. This does NOT change the METAPHYSICAL purpose of sexual desire. The reason it is enjoyable at all is because PHYSICALLY our body wants to procreate. No matter what your perceived mental reasoning is for sex it is designed to make children.
Like I have said since the beginning of this argument, our sex drive is DESIGNED for us to procreate. Even if you don't want to have a child you can get pregnant. This is the BIOLOGICAL design of the act itself. Women and men can't simply wish to not have a kid during sex, and then expect that to prevent pregnancy. An individual's reason doesn't change the purpose of the act.
At conception life has a chance whether self aware or not.
Why do you think this life, no more aware than the egg that made it, deserves a chance at the expense of the mother who doesn't want it?
The sex acts you cite are examples of the perverted nature that we as people have transformed the purpose of the act.
Are you saying that, every time someone has sex for fun over procreation, it is perverted?
The reason it is enjoyable at all is because PHYSICALLY our body wants to procreate.
If this is so, why is this a feature of sex unique to so few species? And why do humans exhibit concealed ovulation, facilitating sex when there is a 0% chance of it resulting in conception? Why do humans continue to be sexually receptive long past their childbearing years? The answer is that sex has come to serve another purpose, and this has been reflected biologically as well, not just with 'perceived mental reasoning'.
Like I have said since the beginning of this argument, our sex drive is DESIGNED for us to procreate. Even if you don't want to have a child you can get pregnant. This is the BIOLOGICAL design of the act itself. Women and men can't simply wish to not have a kid during sex, and then expect that to prevent pregnancy. An individual's reason doesn't change the purpose of the act.
All you are asserting in this statement is that, if a sperm reaches an egg, pregnancy will probably occur. Yes, thank you, people know that. That is why most of their do their best to make sure this doesn't happen, and most of the time, it works out pretty well., which makes pregnancy a very unlikely outcome when safe sex is practiced.
The author Desmond Morris makes a lot of points about the practical value of sex beyond reproduction in quite a few of his books. Human infants are high-maintenance, and have historically had a much higher chance of surviving with both parents around to care for it. He theorizes that concealed ovulation, continuous receptivity, relatively low fertility, orgasms, and the release of chemicals that you mentioned, all developed as mechanisms to help a couple bond and stay monogamous through the stress of childcare by having sex for fun.
Even if Morris is incorrect about his assertions, in humans, sex is inefficient, wasteful of time and energy, and actually unlikely to result in pregnancy. These 'extra' features of it would not be so if it was purely meant for reproduction.
I kind of wonder if Genesis is just busy or if he's given up. There are a lot of questions he does not seem to be able to answer on a variety of topics.
this is probably the largest argument for procreational intercourse.
After all, if a woman can only be impregnated for a very short amount of time each month, why is the urge to procreate present for more than just this time?
and during pregnancy, hormone surges make a woman's sex drive even more powerful
perhaps to strengthen the bond between her and her mate during the difficult process of having a child?
because, with one bun in the oven, they surely are not trying to get pregnant again.
"I kind of wonder if Genesis is just busy or if he's given up"
hopefully the latter. It is an important quality to know when your arguments are lost
"There are a lot of questions he does not seem to be able to answer on a variety of topics."
I am not surprised: considering some of his statements (i.e. apples are not organisms) I did not think he would continue for as long as he has.
you realize that, in a stillbirth, the baby is both
1) already dead
and 2) carried out to term
making that argument inapplicable on two platforms.
also
" Having taxpayers back and fund such matters when there are more sensible things to be spending money on is not helping anyone in the long run"
This thread is not about public funding of abortions. It is about abortions. I actually agree that abortions should be privately funded- but that they should be allowed.
after all, "its [her] body"
which, upon thorough examination of your argument, I could not find a definitive argument against it.
so the fetus has the potential to become a living child. That is not the same as the fetus being alive.
I feel like I am repeating myself, but i will use these examples yet again.
1) I have the potential to commit a crime. I am not criminal for having the potential to become a criminal
2) Babies come from fetuses which come from blastocysts which come from sperm and eggs. Should it be illegal for a man to sit in a hot tub, simply because this kills sperm- which have the potential to become fetuses- which have the potential to become babies?
3) If a fetus is unwanted, it is essentially an uninvited guest. Are you burdened with taking care of a starving homeless man who wanders into your house when you left the front door unlocked, or can you kick him back out to the curb- even if he will die of hunger?
An embryo has a heart beat after eighteen days after conception. EIGHTEEN DAYS!! You don't even know you're pregnant at that time. If you abort, you stop a heartbeat. That is killing, murdering.
Rape cases are no exception, you have the kid, it goes to adoption, victim is compensated by the state and the rapist is condemned to a hard labor camp.
There is substantial evidence that explicitly supports the claim that the unborn are indeed life forms, and they should be treated as such. For instance, consider the limited differences between humans and the unborn. The primary one is lack of development. As humans are considered to have moral equality despite their age (and hence development), there is no reason why fetuses should be treated any differently.
if you aint ready to be a mom adoption should be your only choice but to start it of if you aint ready to be a mom in the first place why you having sex ?
