Should the government stop abortions?

[GuidoHunter]

EDIT (ninja'd)

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm saying, if someone can be pregnant, and have a miscarriage and not even be aware that either thing has happened, it provides an argument in support of the idea that for at least a short span of time, nothing remotely resembling a human is inside of the woman.

Ignorance of a pregnancy does not support the notion that what is inside of the woman isn't human!

My story only considered one scenario, but you were making a blanket statement that nobody gets attached to the embryo until it's of a certain size. One situation shows that that's wrong.

I'd say "The point at which it develops a sufficient brain and nervous system to be aware of its own existance and able to take and react to outside stimuli" seems a pretty specific and reasonable point.

Specific, for the most part (like I said, though, that only points to a window, not a specific date for every child). Reasonable? To some. That doesn't change the fact that it's arbitrary, though. Who is to say when exactly we should accord a fetus human rights? I say the simple answer is when it becomes a human: at conception. There's no way to pick out a specific point of a pregnancy (especially one that applies to every child equally) without arbitrary judgment.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Izzy-chandess]

Obviously none of you males have been pregnant and never will be pregnant, so you wouldn't know. I think that women should have the right to an abortion. What if they don't want children? What if they think that giving up a child for adoption is wrong? I don't think adoption is wrong myself because I did that January 2006, but if you're carrying a child you despise full term, you just want it to die. Not to mention, that last term, you can't bend over without squatting, you can't do a s***-load of stuff you used to be able to do.

Then you birth the baby you despise and pray to God that it was a still-born. Wouldn't it have been better to abort it before it got to that point?

There's the issue of the whole "boyfriend" thing, too. Mine left my ass in the middle of my pregnancy, so what's to say that the boyfriend they're with won't? It's common knowledge that pregnancy isn't all smiles and giggles.

I really think that abortion should be pro-choice, no matter how the baby was conceived. All the people that are saying that the baby will contribute to society don't know that the baby could very well be the next Adolf Hitler and he wasn't a very good man, was he?

[GuidoHunter]

Double post to switch gears (but clearly ninja'd again)

Originally Posted by All That Chaz

It clearly ends a potential life.

Chaz, you will NEVER see me use the word "potential" when describing life because it's a terrible argument to use. I hate seeing other anti-abortionists use it, too. The "well, it could grow up to be Einstein or Mother Theresa" argument is easily countered and does nothing for the movement, so I'd appreciate it if you just ignored people who don't think about what they say and didn't assume them to be paragons of good debate skills when it comes to abortion.

Who says life starts at conception?

Biological definitions of life, species, and individuals.

Isn't any sex without the intent of conception doing the same thing as abortion?

Are you joking? I mean, I know you're trying to be absurd, but really, now, do you actually see this as a valid argument?

But how can you draw the line anywhere were there's still a percentage involved if you say that abortion is illegal?

Who said anything about a percentage? I've no idea what you're trying to say here.

Originally Posted by Izzy-chandess

Then you birth the baby you despise and pray to God that it was a still-born.

Oh, since you've been pregnant, you get to speak for every woman ever. I see how it is. I'm sorry you had to go through that in the manner you did, but I'm glad to see that your child's in the hands of someone who'll care for him or her.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[All_That_Chaz]

Guido, intercourse is for one thing - reproduction. The very fact that it can end in life makes all other uses redundant. Any time one copulates, if they aren't intending to have a child, they are killing a child. What I meant by percentage is the chance a child will be conceived any given time a couple has sex (unprotected). The condom kills the child just as efficiently as abortion, just even earlier. The fact that you draw the line at conception is wrong. Yes, that cell clump isn't alive until the DNA mixes, but stopping that DNA from mixing is just as bad.

The question is do you consider stopping life bad before or after conception. Regardless, without any intervening action, a child will be born.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by Izzy-chandess

Obviously none of you males have been pregnant and never will be pregnant, so you wouldn't know. I think that women should have the right to an abortion. What if they don't want children? What if they think that giving up a child for adoption is wrong? I don't think adoption is wrong myself because I did that January 2006, but if you're carrying a child you despise full term, you just want it to die. Not to mention, that last term, you can't bend over without squatting, you can't do a s***-load of stuff you used to be able to do.

Then you birth the baby you despise and pray to God that it was a still-born. Wouldn't it have been better to abort it before it got to that point?

There's the issue of the whole "boyfriend" thing, too. Mine left my ass in the middle of my pregnancy, so what's to say that the boyfriend they're with won't? It's common knowledge that pregnancy isn't all smiles and giggles.

I really think that abortion should be pro-choice, no matter how the baby was conceived. All the people that are saying that the baby will contribute to society don't know that the baby could very well be the next Adolf Hitler and he wasn't a very good man, was he?

Its almost sickening to hear someone talk about reproduction in such a horrible anti-baby way. "I dont like it cause its inconvenient to bend over" i mean really... and thats besides the fact that wishing you have a still-born child is almost the most horrible attitude i have heard.

Also, i agree with Chaz as far as intercourse having the primary function of reproduction. With pleasure comes consequences, and if you choose to participate with something that has such a high rate of risk then it is your own fault.

[Ichiro_Suzuki_desu]

No, no, **** no, that is NOT staying on these forums. No.
*warning for graphic nature*

edit: sorry, I did read the forums rules before my apologies. It might have seemed like a nightmare, but I guess it demonstrates the reality of it all and how horrible it is.

[All_That_Chaz]

^ninja'd by guido. thank god, thank you for removing that. that was horrifying and unnecessary.

ichiro, go drink bleach.

edit post-ichiro's edit: all surgical procedures look gross. of course abortion is going to be gross. people don't argue against it because it ain't pretty. continue on your quest for clorox.

[devonin]

like I said, though, that only points to a window, not a specific date for every child

The "date" is three months, the window is, at most a week, maybe even two. The development of a human fetus follows a very predictable and observable pattern. You'll also note that we're looking at "three months, give or take at -most- two weeks" and my window for supporting abortion is "two months" You're two weeks away from the -widest- margin there.

I say the simple answer is when it becomes a human: at conception.

We simply have differing definitions of what consitutes a "human" then. I don't think a freshly laid egg is a chicken, any more than I think my sperm is thousands of humans. "Life" begins at conception, but we end the life of things -far- more advanced up the chain than a 2-week old zygote all the time, and think nothing at all of it.

I disagree with late-term abortion for every single reason you've quoted as why you oppose abortion, I just simply don't think it is valid logic to apply that same reasoning all the way back to the instant of conception.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

Guido, intercourse is for one thing - reproduction. The very fact that it can end in life makes all other uses redundant. Any time one copulates, if they aren't intending to have a child, they are killing a child.

You don't seriously believe that, do you? The idea that having sex without getting pregnant is killing a child? There is no child if there is no conception.

The reasons you give are reasons why contraception is a sin to Catholics, but even the Church, one of the most antiabortion institutions in existence, allows for sex that's intended to not impregnate in the form of natural family planning.

Nor do they think that using a condom is as grave a sin as getting an abortion.

Reel your extremism back in, Chaz. I know you don't think that way, and I don't know of anyone who actually does, so let's be real about this.

The condom kills the child just as efficiently as abortion, just even earlier.

Completely wrong for the above reason. There is no child if the sperm is stopped by a prophylactic.

The fact that you draw the line at conception is wrong. Yes, that cell clump isn't alive until the DNA mixes, but stopping that DNA from mixing is just as bad.

Again, completely wrong. Destroying a life and preventing a life from forming are two very VERY different things, and I don't sincerely believe that there's any pro-lifer who thinks they're the same. They're on two totally different levels of bad.

Regardless, without any intervening action, a child will be born.

Because every act of unprotected sex results in conception, mirite? Not that that even matters, here...

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[All_That_Chaz]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

You don't seriously believe that, do you? The idea that having sex without getting pregnant is killing a child? There is no child if there is no conception.

The reasons you give are reasons why contraception is a sin to Catholics, but even the Church, one of the most antiabortion institutions in existence, allows for sex that's intended to not impregnate in the form of natural family planning.

I'll concede that. Using natural family planning is a viable solution.

Reel your extremism back in, Chaz. I know you don't think that way, and I don't know of anyone who actually does, so let's be real about this.

Of course i don't actually think this way. I'm extending the pro-life argument. What I'm saying is that I don't understand how you can draw a line at conception. Of course the extreme level I put forward here sounds like lunacy. That's why I think that this issue is an all or nothing kind of thing. Either abortion is legal, or (beyond natural family planning) the product of sex is whatever happens, and we can't do anything to control it.

Originally Posted by Chaz

The condom kills the child just as efficiently as abortion, just even earlier.

This is why I used the word "potential." Put a condom on, you're decreasing the chances a child will be born by 99.99%. Have an abortion, you're decreasing the chances a child will be born by 100%. The hundredth of a percentage point is statistically negligible.

Originally Posted by Chaz

The fact that you draw the line at conception is wrong. Yes, that cell clump isn't alive until the DNA mixes, but stopping that DNA from mixing is just as bad.

Two different levels of bad? So a condom is like manslaughter or something? In all seriousness, what the prevailing pro-life thinks doesn't matter, since what matters in that camp is what's moral. Eh, I take it back, that matters everywhere. But here we're arguing whether stopping and "destroying" is the same thing. In the end there isn't life where there would be. I see those as basically the same in the pro-life argument, even if they are "two totally different levels of bad."

Originally Posted by Chaz

Regardless, without any intervening action, a child will be born.

You're drawing a line in the percentages again. If there's a chance and you're pro-life, that should be wrong.

To sum up. I'm not for abortion. I'm against making abortion illegal. I can't imagine making something illegal when there's things that accomplish the same thing that will always be legal. It doesn't make sense. The ends bind the means. I really think it's the horrific nature of it that makes the difference to people. And that really shouldn't be the reason.

-Chaz

[Squeek]

Guido, to me, your argument that a the very instant sperm meets egg = child is just the same as saying unused sperm are dead children too. That is just how extreme I see your ideals as being. I seriously hope none of the congresspeople who are working on this matter think like that. It'd just depress me too much.

Personally, I don't get why people are trying so hard to find middleground. Legalize it for all reasons at all times or make it illegal for all reasons at all times. Of course, the latter, as I suggested before, is really stupid.

I can go to the extreme and say it's a rape baby that will end up killing the mother during childbirth and leave the child physically deformed and scarred for life. And what would you say? Well, better to have a child end up in an orphanage and possibly live on welfare for the rest of his life taking up taxpayer's money and contribute nothing to society than to save an innocent woman who actually had a future, right?

But what if you find out that information too late? What if it's the day before she's expecting? Is it still wrong?

To me, no. Abortion should be an option right up until the instant the child is born. Otherwise, the above situation could still happen.

Edit: It's true. FFR really can't have abortion threads.

We're all going to start hating each other soon.

[devonin]

Abortion should be an option right up until the instant the child is born. Otherwise, the above situation could still happen.

It can be and -is- an option right up until that point, but at least for me, the "middle-ground" is the point at which it switches between being a question of morals and ethics and not.

I mean...after a certain point, they could just cut you open, pull the fetus out, and it could survive on its own. My cousin was born -very- premature, and is still alive. At a certain point, it becomes substantially more difficult to claim that what you are doing isn't murder.

I guess there are, to me, three stages of pregnancy which need to be looked at as seperate from an ethical standpoint. Namely, the period in which the cells in you are completely unrecognisable as a human, and are not possessed of any intelligence, sentience or even self-awareness; the period in which it has formed to a state where it is self-aware, capable of recieveing and comprehending stimuli in a way that indicates an actual mind at work; and the period in which it could survive seperate from the mother, even if only through extensive medical attention.

I think allowing abortion in each of those three stages is a seperate -type- of question, and different factors ought to be considered in each different case.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Guido, to me, your argument that a the very instant sperm meets egg = child is just the same as saying unused sperm are dead children too.

Except that biology backs me up, here.

Originally Posted by All That Chaz

Of course i don't actually think this way. I'm extending the pro-life argument.

Reductio ad absurdum. You're extending it far past reason.

What I'm saying is that I don't understand how you can draw a line at conception.

Well, you see, there's no life before conception, and then there's life after it. That seems like a pretty clear line to me.

This is why I used the word "potential."

And this is exactly why I DON'T use the word "potential". No point with it has any firm ground to stand on.

Lemme make this clear: sperm and egg are what you are calling "potential life". They are not living; they are not life. Preventing them from joining is not, in any way, shape, or form, destroying life because there is no life to be destroyed. Abortion has a pretty clear definition, and that's the termination of a child's life. No child? No abortion.

Put a condom on, you're decreasing the chances a child will be born by 99.99%. Have an abortion, you're decreasing the chances a child will be born by 100%. The hundredth of a percentage point is statistically negligible.
...
But here we're arguing whether stopping and "destroying" is the same thing. In the end there isn't life where there would be.

Do you understand what you're saying and the gaping logical hole that's in the middle of it?

What you're saying here is tantamount to suggesting that killing someone in self-defense is morally equivalent to killing someone in cold blood. Hey, they have the same end result in that someone's dead, so the means are exactly the same!

Come on, man, that's ludicrous.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

Abortion arguments/threads/whatever are dumb because it's impossible to draw a line for when human life (not just life) begins that everyone will agree on.

You people really need to work on your lexicon when arguing with Andy. Seriously, first the gay marriage thread and now this.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Except that biology backs me up, here.

sperm = life
egg = life
sperm+egg = life

They're all life. You are saying that it's a -human- right from that point, and plenty of people are disagreeing with you in a way that I don't find your responses to be especially compelling at this point.

Abortion arguments/threads/whatever are dumb because it's impossible to draw a line for when human life (not just life) begins that everyone will agree on.

Well...unfortunately for us, lawmakers don't have some magic power that lets them discern what the "actual" answer is either. They also have to argue/debate/discuss too, and do their best to find a consensus that if nothing else, offends the least people. There's no harm in also doing so ourselves.

Some people, myself included, like to debate -any- point we have a stance on, even if just to further hone our own personal opinions. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong or myself right, I'm trying to refine my own belief system as much as I can.

[All_That_Chaz]

Originally Posted by devonin

sperm = life
egg = life
sperm+egg = life

They're all life. You are saying that it's a -human- right from that point, and plenty of people are disagreeing with you in a way that I don't find your responses to be especially compelling at this point.

under that logic, masterbaters and women on their period are murderers according to pro-lifers, which is incorrect.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

under that logic, masterbaters and women on their period are murderers according to pro-lifers, which is incorrect.

Er...yes...that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Guido was pointing to the fact that 'egg+sperm=life' and that therefore abortion=murder, but I was pointing out that both sperm and eggs are also life, but that a woman on her period or a man ejaculating are -not- considered murder...

(Just in case I'm still not being clear enough: The point I was trying to make is "Just because it is alive doesn't make it morally forbidden -murder- to render it "not alive")

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by devonin

sperm = life
egg = life
sperm+egg = life

They're all life. You are saying that it's a -human- right from that point, and plenty of people are disagreeing with you in a way that I don't find your responses to be especially compelling at this point.

Gametes are not life. They fail to meet basic requirements of definitions of life, mainly since they are not metabolic. (They're also not reproductive, but I'm afraid that problems with definitions would make the debate go to hell in a handbasket if that were considered, so just stick with the other one.)

Sperm and eggs are not human lives. Consider them like neurotransmitters; they are the intercessors by which the important process is carried out. That may not be the best analogy, but the mental image worked for me.

When they combine, however, a new, unique life is formed. It is human (not to Kilga: there's no question here, either) and it is not merely a mitotic clone of a parent.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[All_That_Chaz]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

What you're saying here is tantamount to suggesting that killing someone in self-defense is morally equivalent to killing someone in cold blood. Hey, they have the same end result in that someone's dead, so the means are exactly the same!

Your comparison is inaccurate. Someone killed in self-defense is not the same person killed in cold blood. One is coming at you with a knife, the other you just don't want to live. The example I put forth is the development of a conception.

I don't know, the biggest thing we seem to disagree on is that I tend to think that if you're going the pro-life way, conception seems like a random point to draw a line. Yes, I understand that: pre-conception = organic material & no life, conception = life. Hear me out. To me, it's like a stopwatch. You know it's going to hit 10 seconds and when it will happen if you don't change it. We can reasonably predict conception, so that shouldn't be the dividing line. I don't see it as an absurd extension of the theory (and your latin is very cute).

I'm tired and suck at debating. g'night.
-Chaz

[sherbtail]

Im just wondering, what do anti-abortionists think about the morning after pill?