Abortion....why?

[SenseOfTumour]

What I don't get is the anti abortion folks seem to be the same ones who get so mad about people claiming welfare for their kids.

'What's wrong with people today is they're just having kids so they can get benefit money and free housing' - well give them the option of not having the damn kid then, without piling on even more guilt.

Sure a lot of young people are kinda daft and pregnancies happen that shouldn't, but that's not going to change, doesn't matter how much education is thrown at them, guys are horny and they'll talk girls into bed, and they'll ***** about the terrible effort of having to put a damn condom on.

Let us get the coathangers to work and we can cut welfare bills overnight, but you need to make a choice, guys.

I'm all for it, and I also wish people who want kids would adopt too, we've got enough people thanks, how about taking care of the existing ones instead of making more?

 

[Kennetic]

Anyways, I hate "pro-life" people for the simple fact that they are trying to make other peoples decisions for them, when they have no right to get all meddled in others business. Fuck em, if their lives are so boring that if all they have to do is protest abortion, then they can all just go kill themselves and save us the trouble.

Your life must be so boring that you ***** about how other people's lives are so boring. On the internet I might add.

 

[CaptainKoala]

There is no rational reason to have an abortion, even from a pro-choice view! If you don't want/can't support a kid, keep your legs closed. Don't punish your own child's life because you have no self-control. Put it up for adoption, there are millions of families who want children but aren't capable of having their own.
Abortion is murder, anybody that tells you otherwise is full of shit.

Abortion is not murder, a fetus is not a conscious life. Until it is born its a parasite living off of the mother and it is the mothers life whether to keep it. The mother could have gotten pregnant from failed birth control or in a worst case scenario rape. It is a much simpler and kinder thing to do to end the possibility of a human life then have a child abandoned from its mother in the adoption system when it is fully sentient. In the end though it all comes down to what the mother wants to do, a child is a heavy burden and if you think anyone who doesn't want to live with that is "full of shit" then you sir are an assh*le

What is it about a fetus that makes it not a human life? Honestly, that isn't condescending or rhetorical, I'm serious. How is this [http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-13-weeks] not a baby. That's only after thirteen weeks. To call it a parasite, or a clump of tissue is asinine. Does a random clump of tissue have arms and legs, eyes that can see, ears that can hear? Can a clump of tissue breathe, swallow, blink, or move its arms and legs? Can a tumor kick you? No.

Here are some of the main events that happen over the course of a baby's development. Note that all of these are characteristics of a person, not a parasite.

*The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.
*Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?

*The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.
*At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.
*At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has his own unique finger prints.
*At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long.

And yes, of course rape is a horrible thing. But don't punish your unborn child because of something horrible that happened to you. Like I said before, millions of people are look
ing to adopt children, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

EDIT: Please note that after only 43 days the baby has a beating heart and brain waves, meaning it meets the medical requirement for it to be considered a human life for adults. But I love the double standard within the medical community so it somehow doesn't apply to unborn babies.

 

[Olrod]

What's a "pro-abortionist"?

There's only pro-choice, and anti-choice.

 

[cheese_wizington]

Anyways, I hate "pro-life" people for the simple fact that they are trying to make other peoples decisions for them, when they have no right to get all meddled in others business. Fuck em, if their lives are so boring that if all they have to do is protest abortion, then they can all just go kill themselves and save us the trouble.

Your life must be so boring that you ***** about how other people's lives are so boring. On the internet I might add.

*insert obligatory "Your life must be so boring that you ***** about how other people ***** about how other people's lives are so boring, on the internet I might add" retort here*

 

[Athinira]

dont see the baby as having done anything to merit the forfeiting of it's life other than existing. I dont believe that anybody should be killed for their existence. It's wrong to kill a life out of " conviniance". Sometimes we kill out of mercy, or out of self preservation, but killing because somebody exists is quite frankly absurd to me.

...except that abortion IS a means of self-preservation. It's a way for a women to keep her life stable (if the baby doesn't fit in).

Like i said earlier: This isn't the old days where a woman could marry a man, and then rely on him to support her for the rest of her life. In this day and age, women have to stand on their own feet a hundred times more than they had to in the past, and a baby can get in the way of that (as far as totally ruining it). Hence, self-preservation.

but rather in a " you will never know what it is like to feel love, or to breathe air on your own, or to see anything" That to me is one of the utmost cruel things to do to somebody, not make them feel pain, but have them never feel a thing.

This is just another way of you paraphrasing the same question: "If you were sentient while being a fetus, how would you feel if you were denied the experience of love and life because your mother decided to have an abortion."
All it does is bring us back to the last part of my post, and the answer is the same: Since I'm not sentient, I'm absolutely 1000% ignorant of what I'm missing out on.

Ignorance is a bliss. You can't be cruel to a non-sentient being.

as for the skin cell thing, yes, skin cells do die, but you're not wiping a whole being out of existence. We have millions of cells in our bodys. If anything we are a large walking colony of cells. It wouldnt be murder to wipe out a few by scratching your skin, because thats not the wholo colony. But if I were to shoot you in the skull, which has the brain, which is needed for the whole colony to survive, i would comit murder by wiping out the whole colony of cells which need the brain.

You realize the flaw in that argument?

Spoiler: If not, click here for a demonstration

as for the fetuses, yes fetuses gets abortions, but you're not wiping humanity out of existence. We have billions of humans on earth. If anything, we are a large population of humans. It wouldn't be murder to wipe out some by having a few abortions, because that's not the whole human race. But if i were to unleash the nuclear holocaust, which would engulf the entire earth, which humanity needs to survive, i would commit genocide by wiping out the whole race which needs the earth.

^ Fixed. The problem with your argument is that i can easily upscale it (like i just did). Same principle, i just changed a few keywords and grammar and suddenly it's pro-abortion

.

and i disagree, i think that the question shouldnt be framed as " how would a non sentient being feel about something if it were alive" but " how would you feel if you werent allowed to exist"

That's just reiterating the same point, and the answer is still the same: I wouldn't exist, so i wouldn't feel anything.

You might as well be asking how all those wasted ejaculations from masturbating men feel because they weren't allowed to fertilize an egg.

loking at it retrosepcitvely of course. if your chance at life was taken away, wouldnt it be a bad thing?

Again: If your life hasn't existed in the first place, then you can't look at it retrospectively. That's a time paradox. To not make that a paradox, we would have to move to the assumption that parallel universes exist (one where you were born, one where you were an abortion), and then ask the "you" in the universe where you were born how it feels about the alternate universe.

And even if that was possible (ie. parallel universes exist), the 'you' that was born could simply realize that the other less lucky guy in the other universe isn't the same 'you' and reply "Even if he is another me, whether or not he is born doesn't influence me, so why should i care?"

Sure the thought might horrify you, but at the end of the day, you weren't an abortion, and neither was your siblings, your cousins, your friends or your pets. Appreciate them, and live in the moment instead of worrying about whether or not you could have had more/less siblings, more cousins, more friends or more pets.

 

[AngloDoom]

Spoiler

I used 'it' to refer to the fetus/baby, not killing in general, and I don't support assisted suicide. (I support the death penalty because the person has already made choices that (for obvious reasons) show the person is a danger to society and people in general)

So it's okay to kill a person if they murder someone else (but have every opportunity to turn their life around and use more of that old 'human potential') but it's not okay to kill someone who wants to die because they're suffering a painful degeneration which will certainly result in an undignified death?

Right.

Good for you.

I don't have that much faith in humanity.

Neither do I, but it's still a life. You seem uncomfortable killing a baby because it's a baby, a fully-grown individual with life, experiences, and people to miss it seems less important to you than an unwanted, unplanned, and possibly unloved life in future.

You speak as if the 'if' is an absolute truth - that it will happen, it's simply a matter of when. Abandoning the baby is no different than aborting it, doesn't make it any less wrong.

A baby laying in a street slowly dying of thirst, hunger, and cold is very much different than wiping off a collection of nerves from a human body which feels no pain. If you were given the two above examples (slowly painful death versus painless deletion) when deciding the fate of a child, I'm sure you'd know which to go for. Not that every case of disallowed abortion would have ended with a painful death, but I just wanted to point out a very loose comparison.

Killing someone and leaving them to die is EXACTLY the same.

That's a statement, not an answer. Again, you're given the two options: so long as you're a half well-adjusted person you do the humane one. Being shot in the head and dying instantly isn't the same as being shot in the leg and dying of infection. One of the people in the above example suffers more than the other.

You can't justify murder on the basis of 'the species will be better off'. Because that means serial killers should be left out to wander the streets. Heck, probably given medals.

You just did. Above. You said that murder is okay when it is for the good of mankind for such people as serial killers. Also, pro-choice isn't pro-murder, again this is a silly comparison. Serial killers do not kill for the good of society, and they do not kill things which cannot feel pain or comprehend suffering.

That was poor wording which i corrected in a subsequent post (please see post 308)

Fair enough, no argument there.

By your definition, that means it's ok to kill people who can't feel pain (yes, they exist) slowly and the Holocaust's gas chambers were perfectly acceptable, as they killed the people quickly.

By the poster's definition, it's okay to kill people (or potential people) who can't feel pain or understand what it is their losing or the very definition of suffrage itself. Such things that fall into this category are an undeveloped foetus, sperm-cells, and egg-cells. Your definition encapsulates people under anaesthetic and other hysterical examples.

[joke] 1) You now fall under that definition, as suffrage means the right to vote. =P [/joke]

2) I don't care if the thing can't feel pain (though he does say the fetus can) it's innocent and does not need to die.

1) Whoopsie-doodle...I thought that word rung the wrong bells.
2) A foetus can't feel pain until the 28th week, apparently. The 'wiring' from the receptors to the brain just isn't there. Sure, the baby doesn't need to die, but then no-one does. Sure, it's innocent, but often so is the mother and father: should their lives be potentially ruined because another person's views? Why should a woman risk her life for something she never wanted? Does she deserve it?

'Abadonment is worse than abortion' is not a valid point - you can't solve one problem by making another worse.

So why are you for the death-penalty? That is cutting your loses and killing human potential for the sake of saving others from suffering. This is precisely the same as killing a collection of undeveloped cells forming an undeveloped human foetus; except you may possibly be saving the potential infant itself from years of hardship and suffering. Using your logic, you're very much pro-choice.

Because you are not even considered for the death penalty unless there is a good chance you'll do whatever crime landed you there again.

It's better to have a life of suffering than no life at all. Loved and lost, and all that crap.

That's easy to say, but what about a life that lasts three days of being in a blanket and left in the cold?

My argument is based on this: that individual life begins when the egg is fertilized, not when the baby is born, or when it can start feeling pain. Birth control doesn't kill a fertilized egg, it prevents the egg from being fertilized at all.

Are you also against the morning-after pill, in that case?

I dunno. Probably. What's it do?

It basically prevents the fertilised egg from implanting and as such developing. It's a form of emergency contraception taken after sex that is used if contraceptive measures were not taken or had taken and failed during the actual sexual act.
Wait, so your view is every single accident in sex should have resulted in a child the parents should be forced to raise?
When I was seventeen a condom I used broke during sex. I noticed after, and my girlfriend and I rushed to the chemist and got the morning-after pill to prevent pregnancy. Are you saying that, if you were in the same situation, you would have forced the girl to quit her education, given up your own education and gone into a job, all for the sake of raising a child you don't want and never intended? Are you seriously suggesting that?
What about people who are raped, or condoms sabotaged? Both of these can occur and do occur, should the women in this scenario once again risk their ACTUAL life for a theoretical one?

Also, why once the egg has fertilised? The differences between a living, breathing, thinking baby and the collection of cells forming the first stages of a foetus are far greater than the differences between an fertilised egg and a fertilised egg.

A) That's a dumb point. A dumb, DUMB point. A baby is a fetus after about nine months of development, an unfertilised egg and a fertilised egg exist within a few minutes each other, of COURSE the differences are going to be massive!

Why is this point dumb? A human embryo is just as similar to a dolphin or a pig when it's first formed, but I'm sure you wouldn't care if a farmer used an abortion method on a pig.

B) Because the fertilization of the egg is the first point where a new individual is created. The individual may only be one cell, but before then, the sperm and eggs are technically incomplete cells of someone else's body.

A human embryo is, by it's definition, an incomplete set of cells too. A fly is more alive than a 1-3 week old embryo. I know this is, in your eyes, killing an innocent: but it's not alive. It doesn't even fit the requirements of being alive until around the 23rd week after conception: while abortion is performed before this stage. It is just as much murder as wearing a condom: the foetus is not alive by scientific definition and so abortion is a preventative measure, not an execution.

(i should mention that i am a very poor communicator - I could and probably have said something that sounds like something else)

I wouldn't be that hard on yourself; I got the message plain and clear with no difficulty.

The person in question is a criminal, and a terrible one if he/she is being considered for death row. The baby has done nothing wrong except existing, which frankly is the parent's fault. Moreover, a baby is more valuable than a living person, as it has nearly limitless potential (assuming nurture over nature, but that's a different argument) and while i can see scenarios where the person is more valuable than a baby, none of them are likely and few of them would require the baby to be directly killed.

Fair enough, with this bit. This is very much us just having two different opinions: I do not consider potential life as valuable as life already present and with memories, experiences, regrets, and people to miss it. While I'm also a supporter of capital punishment - simply for financial and preventative reasons - I just don't see the baby's prevention of life the same as murdering it once it's come out of the womb.

@Quick vs Infection: In either of those scenarios, the killer is to blame for murder, period, yet you don't blame doctors or parents for murder when performing abortion. In answer to your original question though... Your two choices are absurdly crappy and not at all representative of the actual choice in that scenario. We have foster care for a reason.

We don't blame doctors or parents because, as far as most are concerned, we are not killing a human being but preventing one. I understand the choices were very far removed from the subject but some people would rather take this route than the foster-care route as a result of shame or just plain cruelty. I'd rather the child never existed than to think of it's only experience of life, and the loss of it's potential if we wish to take that route, being taken by laying around in pain until it fades away slowly.

Thanks.

1)Nothing to respond with there
2)Yes. (except in cases of rape, which is why I wish that would result in as slow a death as possible for the offender) It's callous, I'll admit, but she spread her legs and he dropped his pants. It sucks, but they did, they gotta live with the consequences.

Phew, glad to see you make an exception for rape there. That would have had be frothing at the mouth.
That other bit, however, strikes me as unreasonable. Are you saying every single time a couple has sex, even while taking precautionary measures, they should be ready to accept responsibility of a child for potentially eighteen years, or at least long enough to give birth to it and give it to someone else? That's not at all practical. Couples often have sex daily if time allows and will almost always use contraception if it occurs this often, but it's still their fault?

Sucky life. But still a life. And therefore far more of value than no life period.

This point we won't agree with in general, methinks. If I had a dog that was going to die in intense pain shortly, I'd put it down myself if necessary. Similarly if I was going to die of a degenerative disease that would leave me in pain and miserable I'd take my own life if possible. Seems like we've just got too different morals on this point to ever agree.

For most of those: You shouldn't have been having sex in the first place >.> So yeah, it WAS your fault. If you didn't want to keep it, fine, put it in foster care. Callous, I know, and the foster care system sucks, I know, but it's better than never living at all.
For rape: It's not her fault but that's why the penalty for rape should be much, much higher, as mentioned above. And possibly include complete financial transfer from perpetrator to victim.

Woah, why shouldn't I have been having sex in the first place? I was using contraception, I was of the age of consent, I loved the girl I was with at the time, she loved me. What more qualifications do you need for me to be 'ready' for sex? Does every single act of sex have to be for reproductive purposes in your mind?
Wait, you'd advocate me forcing her to have the child and potentially die over what is essentially a torn condom? I genuinely can't believe anyone would ever bring that on someone they love and I think in the same situation. I understand you're saying "we had sex, deal with it" but why should I potentially take someone I love off of this planet, potentially ruin their remaining life, and potentially traumatise her and put her off of raising children she could love and care for in the future because condoms aren't indestructible? All for the sake of a blip of a person who has even less chance of surviving the process than the one I love. Again, would you seriously force a loved one to go through all of that for something no-one would miss?

For rape: Wait, what? You do think the raped should birth the child? At least, the "complete financial transfer" part indicates you do. There is no way I can answer this civilly, so I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ignore this section.

A) Because you can't compare two states of something nine months apart to two states of something nine seconds apart.

But we're doing that now. You're looking at an embryo as potential after it is born; nine months later. I'm looking at it as what it is at this point in time; a ball of cells with nothing to lose. I genuinely do not see the difference between killing these cells and killing a fruit-fly besides one can ruin your day and one can ruin your life. This ball of cells can be made cheaply, easily, manufactured if you so wish.
For me: a person is not a collection of cells but their experiences, passions, likes, dislikes, memories, regrets, hobbies, and habits. Destroy something containing those listed and destroying something without any of these cannot be put in the same box simply because one is as killing a fly while one is ending an ongoing struggle, story, and pursuit for happiness. I suppose, once more, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

B) The cells THEMSELVES are complete, though. That was the point.

Again, we have differing views. I don't think being human is having the right genes in the right order and that is where our value comes from. Until that child starts paving it's road in life - or at least around 20 weeks in - it can be viewed as a parasitic, unfeeling, unthinking creature inside of a woman from my perspective.

I spent over three weeks arguing with a guy once over what a song was about and it wasn't until days after he stormed off in disgust that i realized he'd been talking about what the writers intended for it and I was talking about alternate interpretations. And two or three times in this conversation i've worded my argument so poorly that it contradicted itself partway through. so yeah, i'm gonna be hard on myself ;P

Fair enough, my friend. You'll have to forgive me for any slip-ups I make too, I tend to write knowing what I intend to say so sometimes I don't see how it comes across as well.

That said we may have reached a point where all that can be said has been expressed: I've noticed we just have fundamentally different views that just are not compatible. Feel free to reply, of course, I just wonder how long we can keep this afloat.

 

[Caliostro]

But there is a "reason" for things, even if it is not a logical one.

Of course EVERYTHING has a reason in the sense that everything has a cause. Nothing is truly "random". That said, they are not following "logic" of any kind, and the true logic of their actions, regardless of how dysfunctional, is hidden even to them. So no, they do not act logically. Their premises are demonstrably wrong, and they refuse to even question them.

So yes, they have a "reason", in the same sense that the crazy guy running around the street with his underwear on his head shouting "THE END IS NIGH! THE ANT OVERLORDS ARE HERE!!" has a reason. But they're both just as valid.

 

[Charli]

And yet people moan about the world being overpopulated. It is pretty funny isn't it.

I really have no desire for kids at this point at my life, it boggles me when people nearly 4-5 years younger than me are getting excited for their bouncing baby ball of stress, work and tears.

(Seriously, spend your teenaged years helping out with young kids, that'll keep your legs together)

As for abortion, I believe it should be legal within certain month thresholds, any further than say 3 months along and I think you've gone past the brink and aren't sure enough why you don't want this baby to begin with, bringing up a baby in an unstable and unwanted environment is equally as cruel as just ending the process while it is incapable of coherent thought.

[Religious reasoning not welcomed on this quotation]

 

[Handbag1992]

or find ways of defending yourselves from rapists

So it's the victims fault for not protecting themselves? For living in countries where guns are illegal? Or for being attacked by too many people to fight off?

Perhaps it's the fault of the little girl when her uncle does things to her that she doesn't understand.

Either you stated your point of view without thinking, or you agree with what I've just said. I would very much like to know which.

 

[Galletea]

What's a "pro-abortionist"?

There's only pro-choice, and anti-choice.

Maybe they're murderous baby haters, who try to convince people they shouldn't have kids.

Anyhow, I can see this topic has descended into pointless arguing /not-suprised-face. I'll just wade in here and briefly say what I think...Ahem.

The reasoning all boils down to what is considered alive, with a 'soul' and so on. If it's alive and you kill it, you have committed murder and the bible says that isn't a good thing to be doing. As far as I can tell it really is that simple.

As for me I am very pro choice. Bringing a child into the world is hardly a beautiful thing if you can't give it what it needs, from food and water to simple love and devotion. However, it is a difficult one to call a limit on. After all, current laws have babies being aborted at the age where they can be saved...but then should we be limiting the abortion limit further, or limiting the age at which a child can be saved, considering the amount of premature babies who have serious defects and live hardly a life at all.

 

[Handbag1992]

What is it about a fetus that makes it not a human life? Honestly, that isn't condescending or rhetorical, I'm serious. How is this [http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-13-weeks] not a baby. That's only after thirteen weeks. To call it a parasite, or a clump of tissue is asinine. Does a random clump of tissue have arms and legs, eyes that can see, ears that can hear? Can a clump of tissue breathe, swallow, blink, or move its arms and legs? Can a tumor kick you? No.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28635507#.Tski40OXuso

http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/03/4380055-my-big-fat-greek-tumor

Yes.

And yes, of course rape is a horrible thing. But don't punish your unborn child because of something horrible that happened to you. Like I said before, millions of people are look
ing to adopt children, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043062/UK-adoption-figures-plunge-Just-60-babies-given-chance-family-life-year.html

There is always such a thing as an unwanted child.

Also, feel free to continue informing women as to what's best to do if they're raped. I'm sure your experience in gestating the child for nine months and how awesome it is to give the child away to a system that really doesn't care will help them immensely.

EDIT: Please note that after only 43 days the baby has a beating heart and brain waves, meaning it meets the medical requirement for it to be considered a human life for adults. But I love the double standard within the medical community so it somehow doesn't apply to unborn babies.

So abortions are OK up to 43 days after conception?

 

[Athinira]

Ok, yeah, my bad, I should've phrased it better: You can't kill somebody INNOCENT just because it'll help the species.

The thing you don't seem to get here is that the only difference i see between a baby and a fetus is that the latter hasn't been born yet: the fetus is still a human being, it's innocent as a baby. So unless the mother is at risk of death from it (and i mean serious risk) there is no reason to kill the fetus.

The thing you don't seem to get is that this is just your PERSONAL definition of what a human being. It's not something you can just pass off a universal truth and then expect it to fly in a debate.

It doesn't understand WHY but it can sure as heck (by your own admission above) feel pain.

Then i should perhaps also have phrased it better: It can't feel pain. It can REACT to pain.

"Reacting" and "feeling" is two entirely different things. The first only implies a simple cause and effect set of events. The latter implies sentience, which a fetus doesn't have in the legal abortion period (the nerve connections and brain development necessary for it is first developed in the 24th to 28th week of gestation, which is the equivalent of the 26th to 30th week of pregnancy).

A fetus might react to pain, but that is simply a programmed response from the nervous system. It's no more "aware" of it than your computer is "aware" of whenever you click a dialog box with the words "Okay" on it. And that is why i don't consider abortion the same as 'murdering' an innocent being, because by my definition, to qualify as a 'being' you have to be sentient. Sure, a fetus would eventually achieve sentience, but that argument can still be taken apart by arguing that an ejaculation would also eventually achieve sentience if directed into a vagina.

There is a good reason that the legal abortion period is typically 3-5 months, because it's around the 6th to 7th month that a fetus achieves sentience.

I didn't bring the whole camp into debate (i'm not THAT ticked) just the gas chamber. When brought to the gas chambers, they were told they were just going to get a shower.

You inherently assume that they believed what they were told, and that doesn't disqualify them from being scared of being killed at a later point either. You have to consider that the promised 'Bath' was the only positive thing that was promised them in a world that in the weeks leading up to it had treated them like sh*t.

You just repeated the same point. The one i just said was invalid for a reason you did not address.

On the contrary, you didn't address my point.

Was it you or the other guy who said that abortion was the lesser of two evils? I thought it was you =/

It was me, except that i didn't say that abortion was a lesser of two evils. What I said was that any ethical problems it might pose to some people (which, if i may remind you, is problems that exist solely on a personal level), it outmatched by the logical/practical problems that both society and the women in question face, as well as the ethical problems on the other side of the fence about women not being allowed to govern their own body (and who unlike the fetus actually can be considered sentient beings).

I'll assume the quote is a typo because it makes no grammatical sense. Also i don't know what it's saying.

It's not, and it makes perfect sense (i reread it just to make sure, and if someone had directed it at me i would have no problem understanding the point).

Fetuses are innocent and (for the most part) killing them serves no purpose. Why EARTH would it be okay to kill them? It makes no sense!

Again, i can still take that argument and scale it back to when the baby is just a sperm and an egg waiting to meet.

A fetus is a 'being' when it achieves sentience. Sentience isn't achieved until past 6 months into the pregnancy. Until that time it is no more innocent than the sperm ejaculated every time Old Man Bob is pleasing himself or the egg dispensed whenever Sally the Supervisor is having her period.

And yes, killing them DOES serve a purpose, pretty much all of the time. This is one of the points i explained several times in this thread. This isn't the old days where women would typically marry a man, and they would be together for life with him providing for her so she could manage the kitchen and raise the kids. Women these days needs to work towards a career of their own so they can stand on their own feet. An unwanted pregnancy can totally ruin that, hence women prefers an abortion to having her life made a mess.

On an interesting sidenote, the countries in the world where abortion is illegal for religious reasons are typically also countries where the world still functions like a few hundred years ago in Europe (the man earning the keep, the women managing the family).

Fighting abortion is just a moot point that serves little purpose other than trying to qualm some peoples personal ethical problems with it. It's as ridiculous as fighting against gene therapy and genetic research because of the belief that "Man shouldn't play god". Instead, I'd argue that all that energy would be much better spent limiting the amount of unwanted pregnancies, for example by reminding people to have safe sex, and perhaps provide easier and cheaper access to condoms (which has the positive side effect of fighting sexual disease).

 

[Erttheking]

Here is why I think that it is wrong, I think that it is ducking responsibility, if you don't want to have a kid, use a condom or take the pill.

And what if the condom breaks (low chance, but always possible), or you're one of the statistical minority of women for whom the pill is not 100% effective?

See the second part of my post, if you took the appropriate safety measures then I can't blame you if you want out if it went wrong.

 

[CaptainKoala]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28635507#.Tski40OXuso

http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/03/4380055-my-big-fat-greek-tumor

These are odd events, no doubt. But when I asked "Does a random clump of tissue have arms and legs, eyes that can see, ears that can hear? Can a clump of tissue breathe, swallow, blink, or move its arms and legs? Can a tumor kick you?" You answered Yes. Those articles you posed do not support your answer. The articles don't talk about tumors that can see, hear, swallow, suck its thumb, and move its arms and legs.
The first article talked about a baby with a deformed foot in it's brain. Not a fetus or a tumor, it's a baby that had already been born. So that article is completely irrelevant.
The second article is closer to making your point, but those tumors might include some stray teeth or brain matter. Those aren't even close to fully functioning human bodies with beating hearths, working lungs, and a working brain, which is what a fetus is. No tumor in the world has even come close to the sophistication of an unborn child.

There is always such a thing as an unwanted child.

That might be true in Britian, where that survey was taken, but look at the 2010 adoption statistics in the US, which are much
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report18.htm
That's a government survey conducted along side the census, so I trust the numbers are accurate.
52,340 were adopted by other families, that's over one hundred a week.
Roughly 40,000 exited the adoption system some other way (i.e. guardianship or moving in with a relative. But that number does NOT include people granted emancipation or who turned 18 and left the system.
250,000+ kids entered the adoption system in 2010, about 2% of those quarter million are still there. But there is a 3% margin of error, so give or take 3%.

Also, feel free to continue informing women as to what's best to do if they're raped.

Let me put it this way, if a guy gives you a gun and says if you don't kill your best friend he'll kill you, are you justified killing your friend? No. Of course rape is horrible, but murder isn't justified under any circumstances.

 

[Handbag1992]

These are odd events, no doubt. But when I asked "Does a random clump of tissue have arms and legs, eyes that can see, ears that can hear? Can a clump of tissue breathe, swallow, blink, or move its arms and legs? Can a tumor kick you?" You answered Yes. Those articles you posed do not support your answer. The articles don't talk about tumors that can see, hear, swallow, suck its thumb, and move its arms and legs.
The first article talked about a baby with a deformed foot in it's brain. Not a fetus or a tumor, it's a baby that had already been born. So that article is completely irrelevant.
The second article is closer to making your point, but those tumors might include some stray teeth or brain matter. Those aren't even close to fully functioning human bodies with beating hearths, working lungs, and a working brain, which is what a fetus is. No tumor in the world has even come close to the sophistication of an unborn child.

Then I direct you to the last statement of my previous post. If the little parasite doesn't have human parts, is it OK to abort? Where is the line for something being human and not human?

That might be true in Britian, where that survey was taken, but look at the 2010 adoption statistics in the US, which are much
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report18.htm
That's a government survey conducted along side the census, so I trust the numbers are accurate.
52,340 were adopted by other families, that's over one hundred a week.
Roughly 40,000 exited the adoption system some other way (i.e. guardianship or moving in with a relative. But that number does NOT include people granted emancipation or who turned 18 and left the system.
250,000+ kids entered the adoption system in 2010, about 2% of those quarter million are still there. But there is a 3% margin of error, so give or take 3%.

So in America do you just ignore the approximately 400,000 children that are still in care and have not been adopted? Do you think that if people stop having abortions that suddenly adoption rates will triple and take in all those kids?
Even then the average age of children being adopted is 9, meaning that unwanted children put up for adoption at birth will have an average of a nine-year wait in an underfunded and possibly abusive care system before getting adopted.

Let me put it this way, if a guy gives you a gun and says if you don't kill your best friend he'll kill you, are you justified killing your friend? No. Of course rape is horrible, but murder isn't justified under any circumstances.

Quite obviously, taking a pill and flushing the less than one inch long result of a horrible night of abuse from your body, is equal to shooting someone.

Actually lets turn this around for a moment. A pregnant woman (lets call her Mikki Kendal) is rushed to hospital with severe bleeding from her uterus. Mikki will die unless her foetus is removed. The foetus isn't viable and will die when the umbilical cord is severed.

Doctor A is on call, and decides leave the child alone and refuses to give Mikki any treatment, even painkillers.

Doctor B is contacted by a nurse and speeds to the hospital from her home to administer a vital life-saving abortion murder.

Do you side with the Doctor A or Doctor B?

 

[Athinira]

...Ok, you know what? I don't care.

You are sick. Absolutely sick. And I am sick of arguing this with you. You'd willingly kill something that you once were and for WHAT?! Convenience.

Be self righteous all you like. Abortion is wrong, it always has been and always will be. You will never convince me otherwise.

Getting involved in this at all was a mistake. Good day to you. Have fun murdering children.

And soldiers down in Afghanistan are willingly killing something they already are. And for what? Convenience, and it's not even their own.

Oh, and that's not the only thing we do for convenience. We also eat kill and eat animals for convenience (there are alternate food sources), some even do it for profit (animal farmers). We exterminate vermin for convenience.

As for whether or not I'm sick, if you define 'Sick' by the fact that i just don't consider it either practical, logical or productive to put things (no matter what it is) on pedestal for emotional reasons and declare it sacred, then I'm probably sick.
Personally, I'd call it emotional detachment, but that's just me.

On the other hand, you are displaying the same emotional attachment to fetuses as PETA is demonstrating for animals, and the common denominator always seems to be that these kind of attachments are entirely arbitrary, have no sound logic behind them and often leads to impulsive and erratic actions. For example, PETA are all for animal rights, yet they exercise that attachment with actions that can be considered terrorism, in addition to them not even bothering to understanding the implications of their actions (for example, releasing animals into the wild that has been in captivity all their life, and who is as likely to survive out there for more than a week as I am of becoming Prime Minister), and at the same time they also do it with complete disregard for the humans involved (which then in turn offends other people who care less for animal life, and more for human life... like, for example, you).

So yes, getting involved in all of this probably was a mistake. It usually is when people with emotional attachment becomes engaged in a debate. Good day to you. Have fun fighting your internal emotional war. Personally, i prefer staying sane.

 

[Olrod]

We will.

You have fun dictating what people can and can't do with their own bodies.

If women can determine whether or not to conceive, they'd better have the right to determine whether or not to gestate, too.

When you get pregnant, feel free to carry to term, but don't think you have the right to demand all other women must become walking incubators against their will.

 

[Powereaver]

because i dont wanna see another unwanted child left by the side of the road or a train station ... thats not fair to the child i think there should be the choice to have an early abortion.

 

[Kennetic]

Anyways, I hate "pro-life" people for the simple fact that they are trying to make other peoples decisions for them, when they have no right to get all meddled in others business. Fuck em, if their lives are so boring that if all they have to do is protest abortion, then they can all just go kill themselves and save us the trouble.

Your life must be so boring that you ***** about how other people's lives are so boring. On the internet I might add.

*insert obligatory "Your life must be so boring that you ***** about how other people ***** about how other people's lives are so boring, on the internet I might add" retort here*

High five to Old Trailmix because we single-handedly summed up this thread and every other thread on the Escapist.