- This topic has 94 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Pirkid said: Never take Law: Rights of the Unborn Fetus, it is the WORST course to ever desecrate my eyes.
That’s because you believe a fetus isn’t a living human. Other people do. There’s really nothing concrete about it, either. There’s no scientific way to define when life starts. It’s only the worst course to ever desecrate your eyes if you’re egotistical and refuse to accept that any viewpoint besides your own as reasonable.
I’m not taking sides in this; I’m just trying to point out the real discussion people should be having. Of course, because there is no objective answer, there won’t ever be any definite conclusion.
@DarkDragoon: Yes, that’s why you see all those mothers getting away with murdering their 3 year old kid. *rolls eyes* (I know you’re kidding; I just think it’s too obvious of a joke for me to play along with.)
irawk said: My two cents: The major argument pro-Abortionists use is that women who got pregnant from rape shouldn’t be forced to carry their child. Serious cases such as rape or serious threat to the mother’s health make up LESS THAN TWO PERCENT of all abortions. Therefore you CANNOT base an argument FOR abortion SOLELY on *serious* cases.Please don’t confuse pro-abortion with pro-choice ._. there is a huge difference between the two, and it’s kind of insulting when you mesh them together like that.
Also, yes, you have a point. But since my argument isn’t based solely on those serious cases, your point is moot. You are also excluding the percentage of women who get abortions because dispite using contraception, pregnancy happened. They tried their best to have protective sex, but accidents happen because contraceptives aren’t full-proof. Do you think they shouldn’t count because they still don’t have a medical condition or weren’t raped?
Chameleon said: I think one of the main sticking points is where to define “life”… some people say that it’s as soon as the fetus “exists”, and other people don’t define life as starting until the third trimester… :/I think that it is a “life” as soon as it reaches the embryonic stage, but then even bacteria and cancer have “life”. “Life” doesn’t concern me as much as “conciousness”. Abortions that happen after the fetal stage tend to irk me. Abortions beyond the second and third trimester upset me unless the mother developed a serious medical condition or some other life-changing factor has appeared.
tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).Seriously people, discuss whether or not a fetus is living. That’s the assumption everything hinges on. Everything else is irrelevant.
First, yea, I totally misread the last post, sorry about that xD…
Anyway, down to buisness. I completely disagree that the fetus “right to life” trumps the womans “right to choose”. I find this logic completely irrational. The fetus has no conciousness, comprehensible thought or any idea at all of what is going on. It doesn’t think, it doesn’t feel, and is 100% dependent on the mother carrying it. It is literally attached to her, sharing her body, her food, nutrients, pretty much everything but her pain. Whereas the mother is a concious human being with thoughts, feelings (both physical and mental), a very good idea of what is going on, and get this: her right to life, which includes her right to terminate pregnancy in favor of maintaining the life she currently has. It’s her life, her choice. And until that fetus is no longer 100% dependent on her body and hers alone, that life is connected to her and thus belongs to her.
As for the second part, of course a fetus is alive. Anyone who claims otherwise is in serious denial or is just plain stupid. But like I said to Chameleon, even bacteria and cancer are alive. It sounds like the main argument seems to be concerning the idea of “potential” life, which I think is complete bull. Every living being has “potential” life. Hell, I have “potential” life tomorrow. And the next day, and the next day. Because what am I doing? Living. And what does each day have? Potential, because I could die at any given minute. Most likely at the hands of, guess what? Another human being.
Vicelin said:irawk said: My two cents: The major argument pro-Abortionists use is that women who got pregnant from rape shouldn’t be forced to carry their child. Serious cases such as rape or serious threat to the mother’s health make up LESS THAN TWO PERCENT of all abortions. Therefore you CANNOT base an argument FOR abortion SOLELY on *serious* cases.Please don’t confuse pro-abortion with pro-choice ._. there is a huge difference between the two, and it’s kind of insulting when you mesh them together like that.
Also, yes, you have a point. But since my argument isn’t based solely on those serious cases, your point is moot. You are also excluding the percentage of women who get abortions because dispite using contraception, pregnancy happened. They tried their best to have protective sex, but accidents happen because contraceptives aren’t full-proof. Do you think they shouldn’t count because they still don’t have a medical condition or weren’t raped?
Chameleon said: I think one of the main sticking points is where to define “life”… some people say that it’s as soon as the fetus “exists”, and other people don’t define life as starting until the third trimester… :/I think that it is a “life” as soon as it reaches the embryonic stage, but then even bacteria and cancer have “life”. “Life” doesn’t concern me as much as “conciousness”. Abortions that happen after the fetal stage tend to irk me. Abortions beyond the second and third trimester upset me unless the mother developed a serious medical condition or some other life-changing factor has appeared.
tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).Seriously people, discuss whether or not a fetus is living. That’s the assumption everything hinges on. Everything else is irrelevant.
First, yea, I totally misread the last post, sorry about that xD…
Anyway, down to buisness. I completely disagree that the fetus “right to life” trumps the womans “right to choose”. I find this logic completely irrational. The fetus has no conciousness, comprehensible thought or any idea at all of what is going on. It doesn’t think, it doesn’t feel, and is 100% dependent on the mother carrying it. It is literally attached to her, sharing her body, her food, nutrients, pretty much everything but her pain. Whereas the mother is a concious human being with thoughts, feelings (both physical and mental), a very good idea of what is going on, and get this: her right to life, which includes her right to terminate pregnancy in favor of maintaining the life she currently has. It’s her life, her choice. And until that fetus is no longer 100% dependent on her body and hers alone, that life is connected to her and thus belongs to her.
As for the second part, of course a fetus is alive. Anyone who claims otherwise is in serious denial or is just plain stupid. But like I said to Chameleon, even bacteria and cancer are alive. It sounds like the main argument seems to be concerning the idea of “potential” life, which I think is complete bull. Every living being has “potential” life. Hell, I have “potential” life tomorrow. And the next day, and the next day. Because what am I doing? Living. And what does each day have? Potential, because I could die at any given minute. Most likely at the hands of, guess what? Another human being.
I guess a better way to put it is when does a fetus become a human? Sure it’s living, but as you said, when does it gain the rights that we as humans have? You can argue that they’re completely dependent on their mother, but someone else can point out that so is an infant in many respects. A child’s independence and humanity over time is a spectrum, and as such it’s really hard to define what qualifies as human and what qualifies as organic mass. For everyone it’s going to be different, and it’s hard to say one’s clearly right over another. You clearly feel a fetus isn’t a human until fairly late in a pregnancy, and that’s fine, but others don’t, and every argument you make is going to be subjective. Sure, it’s based on facts, but your (and all arguments in this debate) draw conclusions of their own that are impossible to prove, and are really nothing more than opinion.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying about potential. I was simply trying to stay neutral in the abortion debate itself. I think you can agree that even though you don’t think a fetus is an independent human worthy of its own rights, it’s something entirely closer to a human than an egg sitting in the same woman’s ovaries. It represents an entirely different potential in that, as long as it’s nurtured, it will progress into a human child without any other assistance. It has everything it needs besides the sustenance we rely on ourselves, and that is significant. It doesn’t necessarily make it human, but it makes it markedly different than an egg. That, I feel, is much less debatable. Any woman who’s been pregnant can tell you about the maternal instinct inherent in every woman that comes out. Our unconscious pysche recognizes the importance of it.
I then put “a life” on the other end of the slash for people who believe a fetus is a human the moment it exists.
I think we’ll all agree that at the point it is now a human, the mother has no right to terminate its life (we can all agree that a newborn child is a human with rights, and no mother has the right to kill it). At the same time, before anything that is a human, we all agree the mother has the right to prevent things from progressing (we can all agree the woman has a right to use a condom to prevent sperm from reaching her eggs). Defining where the two meet is the real argument, and it’s difficult because there’s no objective way to approach it.
I believe that abortion is good or bad depending on the situation.
I agree with Vice on the fetus thing. It’s alive, but it’s not conscious. It’s just an empty shell, like someone on life support. No brainwaves or anything. I mean, we kill plants all the time and they are “living” too in a sense, right? But we kill them anyway. Unless a piece of grass begs me not to kill it by stepping on it, I’ll still step on it anyway.The bad: Women who have sex irresponsibly and who get pregnant accidently almost most of the time don’t want the child because they still want to live up their life more before settling down. In those cases, I’d say the abortion be made illegal. Because you can’t just go out partying, open your legs to some random guy you’ll probably never see again in a crazy drunken stupor, and expect to solve the problem the next day by having a nice visit with the doctor for an abortion. That’s just asinine. It’s not a casual thing.
The good: Some women get pregnant but by means they didn’t willfully agree to. It’s common that women get raped and often, they get preggarz due to that unfortunate encounter. This is the case were abortion can be made legal. Because mostly it’s young girls who aren’t ready to be parents yet and they wouldn’t do well with the fact that they have an illegitimate child somewhere in the world. They were dealt the bad card and I think it’s wrong and inhumane to force them to go through something so stressful as childbirth. I mean, childbirth is fucking intense. It can rarely kill a woman if the birthing process is too stressful on her body. Especially if the woman is small in which case most of the time they need C-Sections. They really didn’t want a kid and it’s not fair to them to be stuck with something they never wanted to begin with. And sometimes accidents happen. People try their best to reduce their chances of getting pregnant and it happens anyway. Condoms and birth control aren’t 100% like some people think. Even if you use them both at the same time.
I think my ideas are stupid though. I mean, they would never do something like that for abortion unless they think up of some fail safe device that can prove whether or not someone lies about their pregnancy. xD
True13lue said: I believe that abortion is good or bad depending on the situation.
I agree with Vice on the fetus thing. It’s alive, but it’s not conscious. It’s just an empty shell, like someone on life support. No brainwaves or anything. I mean, we kill plants all the time and they are “living” too in a sense, right? But we kill them anyway. Unless a piece of grass begs me not to kill it by stepping on it, I’ll still step on it anyway.You can’t honestly be arguing a fetus is comparable to someone on life support. I hope you see there’s a major difference between the two…
What you have to prove is that fetuses aren’t humans that deserve rights yet, and instead of doing that, you simply assumed that to be true and ranted on with that as a given. That doesn’t work in logic, sorry. You’re basically saying fetuses aren’t humans because fetuses aren’t humans.
Your implicit argument is that because fetuses aren’t conscious, they aren’t humans. However, that’s only your definition of human, and it’s not fact. See where the issue arises? Plus, it’s flawed. You tried to compare a fetus to someone on life support. The reason their (someone on life support) right to life is given up in some cases (some states still don’t allow the plug to be pulled) is not because they’re unconscious and incapable of making a decision then, but because they are going to remain unconscious and will never be able to make that choice. A fetus is entirely different in that, given enough time, they eventually will be conscious and will be able to choose for themselves.
Hmm I’ve looked at both what You and Vicey said and I have to go with Vicey saying what I mean better. I read somewhere up there that you think the point where a fetus becomes human is all that matters and everything else is irrelevant. Well I don’t think that’s right. If you’re right and as soon as it is concepted it has the right to live (NO abortions), Unless the government has some facility somewhere that takes care of a fetus without mommy dearest, it is still up to the woman what SHE wants because it is HER body.
If the woman does not want/can’t take care of/etc it, the baby, the fetus, or whichever you prefer, it is a hindrance upon her entire life, or at least if her baby is given up for adoption. And let’s say abortion becomes illegal. Now, all those woman who had one accidentally/cause of rape/etc give up their baby for adoption. Do you know how many babies this would become? The strain it would put on the government and, by default the taxpayers, to take care of these children til each one turns 18?
I don’t know much about fetuses or whether or not they become humans or when they “become” humans. Don’t assume that I’m saying that they aren’t human either. I compared the fact of living not whether they were both human. Of course I know a damn plant isn’t a human.
I’m soooooo sorry that my knowledge is limited and not as great as yours or anyone elses. I’m glad that you pointed it out stupid I am. Thank you.
Please just tell me that I made a mistake, not point out every flaw like my mother has a habit of doing or else I’ll become hostile and this is a debate that I don’t want to turn personal. I know you never intended to start a fight though. I’m just a sore loser LOL.I agree with Dee about there being too many children, but I’m still trapped in the middle. I don’t want to kill anyone/thing, but I also don’t want to economy to become burdened with having to take care of so many children. Abortion is legal now. Imagine id it had been illegal. We’d all be knee deep in a sea of babies and the economy is already badly damaged as it is.
Dee, I haven’t given my own viewpoint anywhere in this. I think you assume just because I’m talking to Vicelin I’m against abortion. I’m just pointing out she’s not absolutely right. There’s no definite way to prove anything, because you can’t prove a fetus is or isn’t a living human worthy of the same rights as all of us. If it is a human with rights like us, abortion is murder; if it isn’t, then it’s just the mother making a decision to better herself, and that’s completely fine.
True13lue said: I don’t know much about fetuses or whether or not they become humans or when they “become” humans. Don’t assume that I’m saying that they aren’t human either. I compared the fact of living not whether they were both human. Of course I know a damn plant isn’t a human.
I’m soooooo sorry that my knowledge is limited and not as great as yours or anyone elses. I’m glad that you pointed it out stupid I am. Thank you.
Please just tell me that I made a mistake, not point out every flaw like my mother has a habit of doing or else I’ll become hostile and this is a debate that I don’t want to turn personal. I know you never intended to start a fight though. I’m just a sore loser LOL.I agree with Dee about there being too many children, but I’m still trapped in the middle. I don’t want to kill anyone/thing, but I also don’t want to economy to become burdened with having to take care of so many children. Abortion is legal now. Imagine id it had been illegal. We’d all be knee deep in a sea of babies and the economy is already badly damaged as it is.
Exactly! You have no earthly idea when a fetus becomes a human. If it’s a human, it’s murder, if it’s not, it’s not murder. Simple as that. However, no one can definitely say when it is and isn’t, so we’ll never come to any real conclusion.
My issue with you comparing a fetus to a plant was that you were assuming a fetus wasn’t a human in comparing the two (that’s the only way the analogy would work), and you can’t assume that, as you haven’t proven it.
tarheel91 said: Dee, I haven’t given my own viewpoint anywhere in this.Err. You:
tarheel91 said: then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).]This is definitely a viewpoint, pretty explicitly. If you think that you’re being completely neutral or playing devil’s advocate, you’re either under a sad delusion or ur doin it wrong.
As for when exactly the fetus becomes a human being, there is no answer. This is completely subjective. Some religions advocate that it’s a human being from the moment the egg is fertilized and so it should be treated like one. Some people don’t consider it a human being until it can function independently from the mother’s body (after it is born). As far as the government goes on this idea, so far a fetus has no status as a human being until it is born. The census doesn’t count them, not even in the third trimester. If they were counted as human beings by government standards, HOV lane sensors would have to be replaced with ultrasound. If a woman travelled out of the country while pregnant, the fetus would need a passport. As soon as a woman got pregnant she could file for the unborn child on her taxes. So many huge changes would have to be made and they are all, quite frankly, inconvenient and ultimately ridiculous in nature.
I personally think that the fetus is a “human being” after it has developed the nervous system and brain function necesary to think, feel and move. By that point, it has our characteristics. I guess what I am trying to say is that abortion is a necessary evil.
As for abortion being murder, I disagree. The law defines murder as “The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse”. Ignoring the already murky area of wether or not the fetus is a “human being”, the fact is that no woman in her right mind elects to destroy her unborn child in the same way a murderer decides to take the life of another person. It’s not the least bit comparable in nature.
tarheel91 said:dee32693 said: Lol I don’t. My one major argument is WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).
Seriously people, discuss whether or not a fetus is living. That’s the assumption everything hinges on. Everything else is irrelevant.
Yes and no. The major proponent in legislating abortion is a woman’s freedom over her own body. Now the debate comes down to an even more abstract discussion: freedom versus life. It is the ongoing debacle in the justice system to decide which one is more sacred, and for God knows why, they chose viability to be the threshold. Assuming it is biologically imperative for the fetus to grow inside his mother (inviable), then the option for abortion should be available. Or at least, that’s how the justice system views it. And btw, while you say late term abortions are flat out murder, you should hold your tongue. There are countries as in Canada who allow women to commit abortions up until the moment of birth. Shocking isn’t it 😉
A4NoOb said:tarheel91 said:dee32693 said: Lol I don’t. My one major argument is WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).
Seriously people, discuss whether or not a fetus is living. That’s the assumption everything hinges on. Everything else is irrelevant.
Yes and no. The major proponent in legislating abortion is a woman’s freedom over her own body. Now the debate comes down to an even more abstract discussion: freedom versus life. It is the ongoing debacle in the justice system to decide which one is more sacred, and for God knows why, they chose viability to be the threshold. Assuming it is biologically imperative for the fetus to grow inside his mother (inviable), then the option for abortion should be available. Or at least, that’s how the justice system views it. And btw, while you say late term abortions are flat out murder, you should hold your tongue. There are countries as in Canada who allow women to commit abortions up until the moment of birth. Shocking isn’t it 😉
I also count that as murder. And as irresponsible. You should’ve thought out by first trimester whether you wanted it/the baby/the fetus and if you wait til that long…*shakes head* Tarheel is sort of right, when does the fetus become “a life” and deserves preservation? I’d say second trimester. Like by the middle month.
A women’s freedom of her own body vs Someone’s right to life
I think that’s really what pro-choice and pro-life are saying.
This is why i am so grateful I was born male. If anything I blame the anti-abortion groups NOT for emphasizing the value of life, BUT for running around pointing fingers and calling women they don’t even know criminals. They probably pissed off a lot of women and because of it they went pro-choice.
The debate of abortion is just a big giant ugly-ass quagmire full of moral crusaders who don’t even know anyone or what their life is like and go spouting their rants, etc. (moral crusaders should be shot. they just make things alot worse)]]
But if I got a girl pregnant, i would definately not say, “go for abortion”. That’s what a condom is for.
Wolfboy183 said: The debate of abortion is just a big giant ugly-ass quagmire full of moral crusaders who don’t even know anyone or what their life is like and go spouting their rants, etc. (moral crusaders should be shot. they just make things alot worse)]]Pretty much. And this applies to both sides of the debate, too.
I’ve recently taken a different stance on the issue, though. If I had to choose between pro-life and pro-choice, I would choose pro-choice. But there IS another option that people don’t usually see when they are debating this topic. Which is pro-development-of-contraceptive-technology-that-actually-works-all-the-time.
This article and this one make some noce points on the topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.