What I don't understand about the arguement for Abortion.

[mathetes123]

You mentioned that earlier, my dear. As was stated; that was a late course abortion, obviously because things have gone wrong. The fetus wouldn't be feeling pain, anyway, because it's heart would already have been stopped by a pill. Sorry to burst that bubble.

I don't recall Sharon stating what term the "fetus" was aborted in? You are the one that said a "fetus" (unborn baby) does not have consciousness or feel pain. You did not make a distinction between early and late term. To justify killing the unborn baby because it has not yet developed consciousness or feeling would be the equivalent of justifying the killing of the elderly or anyone for that matter because one day they will die anyway.

 

[mathetes123]

You can’t have it both ways! Selective reading is such an amusing thing to witness.

You are the one wanting it both ways, arguing for from Gods law when it suits you and against when it suits you.

 

[SaraJarvis]

I don't recall Sharon stating what term the "fetus" was aborted in? You are the one that said a "fetus" (unborn baby) does not have consciousness or feel pain. You did not make a distinction between early and late term. To justify killing the unborn baby because it has not yet developed consciousness or feeling would be the equivalent of justifying the killing of the elderly or anyone for that matter because one day they will die anyway.

How is that in any way a comparison? The elderly are of course going to die; we all are. How is a fetus comparable to an old person? That is a ridiculous argument. A fetus does not have a consciousness. Unless you're telling me that a thing that doesn't even fit into the centre of my palm has the ability to think whilst in the mother's womb? Abortions at late-stage are done for medical reasons. The mother's life is at risk, etc.

You are the one wanting it both ways, arguing for from Gods law when it suits you and against when it suits you.

I'm not arguing god's law; I'm calling you a hypocrite for believing in original sin, and yet calling a fetus an "innocent baby". It either is or isn't. Make up your mind.

 

[VolRaider]

I'll just reply to all in one, shall I?

You're going off science books from school? Well, that makes you educated. The reason that I mention journals, is because journals have a LOT more to them than a human biology book taught to children.

The fetus becomes a child as it grows in the womb, obviously. A fetus doesn't have a consciousness. It doesn't have the capacity to feel pain, or have human emotions.

Trogool is right. You're saying that "babies" in the womb are innocent, but obviously not, if you believe in original sin!


A spongebob? I'm sorry, I thought that this was an intellectual debate.

There's nothing intellectual about this debate. This is over common sense. And it's beginning to be a waste of time, I'm afraid. On to the next board....

 

[SaraJarvis]

There's nothing intellectual about this debate. This is over common sense. And it's beginning to be a waste of time, I'm afraid. On to the next board....

There is nothing intellectual in this debate, because you're keeping to a strictly narrow-minded belief, and refusing to budge. You just keep regurgitating the same thing, over and over again.

It is over common sense, yes! Unfortunately, you're failing to understand that that common sense really doesn't have anything to do with you, because you don't have an unwanted fetus in your womb. You will never be affected by an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Well, that’s what you’re arguing, so I’m getting that impression! My scientific articles on abortion (how can you argue with science? Are you a doctor?) explain that a fetus is just a fetus. As I keep telling you. It obviously has human DNA (I have never said otherwise), but it is not a baby. I have HAD an abortion, you seem to forget this. I had the process explained to me, and then had it happen to me. Sorry, but a tiny thing the size of a 50p, with no shape at all, is not a person. It is not a baby. It is a fetus.

Do you believe that you have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies?

Nope, as I keep telling you; they are made of human DNA, but they’re not actual human beings. I’m sorry, but a fetus just doesn’t count as a person. I’m very open-minded, but I just can’t believe stupid argument, based on age-old patriarchal scripture. My body, my womb, my life. Simple as that.

The only point I'm arguing is that the unborn, from conception to birth, is a 100 percent human being. And that embryonic science is in agreement with that. Nobody said that a fetus is a baby, a fetus is a fetus and a baby is a baby. Why you keep bringing that up is beyond me. Actually having an abortion or having an abortion explained to you has nothing to do with wether it is right or wrong to have an abortion.

And I have never even mentioned "person" in this thread. Let's stick with science and not bring philosophy into it.

I have no right to tell you what to do with your body, but since the unborn is a human being and has every right to life that you do, then I have a right to tell you that when you have an abortion you are killing an innocent human being.

And I keep telling you that science has determined that the unborn are actual human beings. You view is your opinion only, not science. A science fact is not a stupid argument, just your denial of it.

Again what are you talking about when you say "based on age-old patriarchal scripture" when I have never brought up God or scripture?

Your body, your womb, your life. Unborn's body, unborn's right to life. Not yours to take. Simple as that.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Wow, wish I didn't come into the conversation so late. I have some points I would like to address.

1. Abortion IS a women's health issue. Pregnancy does affect a woman's health. I'm not just talking about the complications during pregnancy that can arise and harm the woman's life. I'm talking about long term health affects as a result of pregnancy. I have never had to worry about diabetes before because I was never at risk for it. I am now a type II diabetic as a result of the gestational diabetes I developed during my first two pregnancies. I've also never had to worry about high blood pressure and, in fact, was always told by my doctors how great my blood pressure was. I am now being monitored because my blood pressure is rising as a result of this pregnancy and my type II diabetes.

2. Partial birth abortions and late term abortions are rare and illegal except in the cases that the woman's life is at risk. Also, not everything that "qualifies" as a late term abortion is "actually" a late term abortion. This happened to a good friend of mine from high school. Her body began to shut down due to her pregnancy. Her womb became too hostile for her son to survive and he had a better chance of survival outside of the womb. Unfortunately he didn't survive and because he was born before age of viability his death was listed as a late term abortion, even though the procedure was done to try and SAVE his life, not end it.

3. As far as a pregnancy from rape goes, the mother should not be obligated to carry on with that pregnancy. It's asinine to think that should have to go through with it. That pregnancy was forced on her during a vicious and violent attack. I commend mother's who are able to continue a pregnancy under such circumstances, but to say that all woman should risk physical and psychological well being for that pregnancy is wrong.

4. The difference between the unborn and born is this. The unborn's survival is contingent solely on the body of the mother. The mother is directly affected by the pregnancy. Her body is placed at risk and can be damaged to keep the unborn alive. While a newborn baby is still dependent on others, it is not solely dependent on the mother, nor is her body being affected and possibly damaged by it. That is where the line is drawn.

5. The bottom line is, is that the decision for abortion lies with the woman and her doctor, no one else. No one else is being affected by that pregnancy. If we really want to cut down abortion rates, making it illegal is not the answer. Proper education is. It's no coincidence that most states that have comprehensive sex education taught in their schools have lower rates of abortion and teen pregnancy on average than states that teach abstinence-only.

Here's the bottom line...

If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification is necessary.

If the unborn is a human being, then no justification is adequate.

 

[SaraJarvis]

The only point I'm arguing is that the unborn, from conception to birth, is a 100 percent human being. And that embryonic science is in agreement with that. Nobody said that a fetus is a baby, a fetus is a fetus and a baby is a baby. Why you keep bringing that up is beyond me. Actually having an abortion or having an abortion explained to you has nothing to do with wether it is right or wrong to have an abortion.

And I have never even mentioned "person" in this thread. Let's stick with science and not bring philosophy into it.

I have no right to tell you what to do with your body, but since the unborn is a human being and has every right to life that you do, then I have a right to tell you that when you have an abortion you are killing an innocent human being.

And I keep telling you that science has determined that the unborn are actual human beings. You view is your opinion only, not science. A science fact is not a stupid argument, just your denial of it.

Again what are you talking about when you say "based on age-old patriarchal scripture" when I have never brought up God or scripture?

Your body, your womb, your life. Unborn's body, unborn's right to life. Not yours to take. Simple as that.

It is a human fetus, obviously. However, when it is inside the womb, it cannot rely on its own body to survive. Only the mother's. I have stated on various occasions that I am fully aware that it is a human fetus.

How can something with less functions than a snail have rights? It is an embryo. Not a life.

The unborn doesn't even HAVE what we would consider a body. At the age of abortion, it is (quite literally, I had a good look) no more than a near-translucent, jelly like blob.

So, your views on abortion have nothing to do with religion, then?

My body, my womb. Whatever is inside my womb (unless it is a fully fledged child, and I'm not in medical danger), I have a right to abort.


The saying goes "Without a brain, personhood is absent". Sorry, but it's true. It would only be murder if it was a person that was being killed. It is not. A fetus has no brain; it is just an embryo. Human life refers to personhood, whether you like it or not.

 

[TomZzyzx]

It is a human fetus, obviously. However, when it is inside the womb, it cannot rely on its own body to survive. Only the mother's. I have stated on various occasions that I am fully aware that it is a human fetus.

How can something with less functions than a snail have rights? It is an embryo. Not a life.

The unborn doesn't even HAVE what we would consider a body. At the age of abortion, it is (quite literally, I had a good look) no more than a near-translucent, jelly like blob.

So, your views on abortion have nothing to do with religion, then?

My body, my womb. Whatever is inside my womb (unless it is a fully fledged child, and I'm not in medical danger), I have a right to abort.

The saying goes "Without a brain, personhood is absent". Sorry, but it's true. It would only be murder if it was a person that was being killed. It is not. A fetus has no brain; it is just an embryo. Human life refers to personhood, whether you like it or not.

If the fetus is a human. And the fetus is alive. Then the fetus is a human life. This is science. What's not to understand. It doesn't matter if the unborn doesn't rely on it's own body to survive.

My argument against abortion that I am presenting to you has nothing to do with religion.

Personhood is a philosophical argument and not a scientific argument. Everyone has a different idea of when a human being becomes a person. Since there isn't a definitive definition of personhood then it should never be used to justify the killing of an innocent human being.

But according to your definition, the fetus is a person since it is a human life.

 

[SaraJarvis]

If the fetus is a human. And the fetus is alive. Then the fetus is a human life. This is science. What's not to understand. It doesn't matter if the unborn doesn't rely on it's own body to survive.

My argument against abortion that I am presenting to you has nothing to do with religion.

Personhood is a philosophical argument and not a scientific argument. Everyone has a different idea of when a human being becomes a person. Since there isn't a definitive definition of personhood then it should never be used to justify the killing of an innocent human being.

But according to your definition, the fetus is a person since it is a human life.

Can you tell me, then; why is abortion legal? If my views are so distorted, then why have they been made law? I understand that this could change, but for the moment, abortion is legal. Why do you think this is?

Your view is rose-tinted. I deal with reality. For many women, keeping a child would be torture. Depending on the woman, pregnancy could be bad enough. Who knows what mental problems a woman could have? Severe depression, and a forced pregnancy could force a woman to take her life AND the "child's". You seem to be placing more emphasis on a fetus' life than a woman's. What about her rights? Don't say abstinence, not everyone wants to remain celibate. Some of us just enjoy sex, and sometimes protection fails us.

What about pregnancy through rape or incest? Should women be forced to remain pregnant, then?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Can you tell me, then; why is abortion legal? If my views are so distorted, then why have they been made law? I understand that this could change, but for the moment, abortion is legal. Why do you think this is?

Your view is rose-tinted. I deal with reality. For many women, keeping a child would be torture. Depending on the woman, pregnancy could be bad enough. Who knows what mental problems a woman could have? Severe depression, and a forced pregnancy could force a woman to take her life AND the "child's". You seem to be placing more emphasis on a fetus' life than a woman's. What about her rights? Don't say abstinence, not everyone wants to remain celibate. Some of us just enjoy sex, and sometimes protection fails us.

What about pregnancy through rape or incest? Should women be forced to remain pregnant, then?

The reason that abortion is legal has not to do with scientific fact. It has everything to do with judicial bias. But that's for another thread.

Now you have changed the reasoning to justify abortion. It is tragic that some women go through a lot of difficult problems when pregnant, but if it is not life threatening to the mother then it does not justify abortion. This is why we need more professional help for pregnant women.

In the cases of rape or incest, both of these are very traumatic to the woman. But why should the unborn pay, with it's life, for the crime of the father?

 

[SaraJarvis]

The reason that abortion is legal has not to do with scientific fact. It has everything to do with judicial bias. But that's for another thread.

Now you have changed the reasoning to justify abortion. It is tragic that some women go through a lot of difficult problems when pregnant, but if it is not life threatening to the mother then it does not justify abortion. This is why we need more professional help for pregnant women.

In the cases of rape or incest, both of these are very traumatic to the woman. But why should the unborn pay, with it's life, for the crime of the father?

You really do have some staunch right-wing views.

So, a woman has to go through the hell of rape, discovers that she is pregnant by the attacker, and is forced to endure that pregnancy and deliver the child of a man she despises and fears? What if this "woman" happens to be a 13 year old girl?

That is abuse of a real human life. Your views are so distorted, and so hypocritical.

Of course; you're a man. You have no idea how utterly nauseating that would be. No idea at all. If I was personally stopped from aborting a child through rape, then I would commit suicide before delivering that baby.

 

[TomZzyzx]

You really do have some staunch right-wing views.

So, a woman has to go through the hell of rape, discovers that she is pregnant by the attacker, and is forced to endure that pregnancy and deliver the child of a man she despises and fears?

That is abuse of a real human life. Your views are so distorted, and so hypocritical.

Of course; you're a man. You have no idea how utterly nauseating that would be. No idea at all. If I was personally stopped from aborting a child through rape, then I would commit suicide before delivering that baby.

Let me see if I have you view correct. It's ok to kill an innocent human being, who has the same right as you do, because of the discomfort of the mother. And you say my views are distorted.

Are you against wars and capital punishment? I'm sure if you are then you all for the right to life for the casualties of war and the people on death row, but not for the unborn who have the same right to life. And you call me a hypocrite.

 

[SaraJarvis]

Let me see if I have you view correct. It's ok to kill an innocent human being, who has the same right as you do, because of the discomfort of the mother. And you say my views are distorted.

Are you against wars and capital punishment? I'm sure if you are then you all for the right to life for the casualties of war and the people on death row, but not for the unborn who have the same right to life. And you call me a hypocrite.

These are entirely different things. I am against war and capital punishment, because it is the killing of an independent human being, with a brain, and the ability to function completely outside of the womb.

An embryo is entirely different. I have been over this on various occasions. You are obviously blind to the massive difference between a fetus with absolutely no consciousness, feelings, or senses, and a living, breathing, independent human being.

It is defined as human through genetics. Please, for your own sake; at least read up on the difference.

 

[TomZzyzx]

These are entirely different things. I am against war and capital punishment, because it is the killing of an independent human being, with a brain, and the ability to function completely outside of the womb.

An embryo is entirely different. I have been over this on various occasions. You are obviously blind to the massive difference between a fetus with absolutely no consciousness, feelings, or senses, and a living, breathing, independent human being.

It is defined as human through genetics. Please, for your own sake; at least read up on the difference.

Another faulty philosophical argument, "independent human being". I'm sure everyone has a different definition for "independent human being" just like "personhood".

I have never even heard of "independent human being" as justification for abortion.

Again, these types of philosophical arguments alway leave out someone of the human race.

What is defined as human through genetics? And what does it have to do with the justification for killing an innocent human being?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

But isn't the potential for human life just almost or just as important as human life?

You can think so, I guess, but if you do, do you apply the distinction equally? Sperm and ova are potentially human life. Every time a woman has a period, is that potential human life as important as the potential human life you're talking about?

Also, a thought provoking question, is an acorn as important as an oak tree? If not, why not? If so, when I offer to sell you a tonne of oak timber, and deliver instead an acorn, would you be upset?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Another faulty philosophical argument, "independent human being". I'm sure everyone has a different definition for "independent human being" just like "personhood".

I have never even heard of "independent human being" as justification for abortion.

Again, these types of philosophical arguments alway leave out someone of the human race.

What is defined as human through genetics? And what does it have to do with the justification for killing an innocent human being?

Yo're conflating "human", with "human being".

 

[TomZzyzx]

Yo're conflating "human", with "human being".

How so?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

How so?

What is defined as human through genetics? And what does it have to do with the justification for killing an innocent human being?

No one disagrees that a foetus is human. But there's nothing intrinsicly special about human material, think fingernails, hair clippings, spilt blood, removed diseased organs, amputated limbs and discarded male and female gametes.

A human BEING, is, of course, special. But just because something is human doesn't make it a human BEING. I think most people agree that one only becomes a human BEING when one becomes self aware. Of course, the precise moment THAT occurs is very hotly debated, and open to debate.

 

[TomZzyzx]

No one disagrees that a foetus is human. But there's nothing intrinsicly special about human material, think fingernails, hair clippings, spilt blood, removed diseased organs, amputated limbs and discarded male and female gametes.

A human BEING, is, of course, special. But just because something is human doesn't make it a human BEING. I think most people agree that one only becomes a human BEING when one becomes self aware. Of course, the precise moment THAT occurs is very hotly debated, and open to debate.

This is completely wrong. The foetus is not just human cells like fingernails. Fingernails will never develop into a baby which develops into a child, then into an adult and so forth.

You are confusing parts with wholes. The foetus is a 100 percent whole human being at one stage of it's life, just as special as you and me.

"self aware" is not science, it's philosophy. You don't get to decide who lives and who dies with philosophical arguments. That's why they are hotly debated, because no two people have the same definition.

Let's let science decide what determines a human being. The foetus is human and the foetus is living, therefore the foetus is a human life also known as a human being. Since the foetus is a human being it has the same right to life that you and I have. Nothing more and definitely nothing less.