Should the government stop abortions?

[OrganisM]

So, Guido, if you've ever stepped on a roach or swatted a fly, you should be put behind bars for being a vicious murderer. After all, a roach is a living clump of cells, isn't it?

Oh, it's not human? Not cute? Then it must not be as important.

Sorry, my mistake.

Think of the cows argument devonin brought up. A clump of cells in the womb can't decide where it's going or what it wants, now, can it?

[Squeek]

Guido, what if it were you? There are male rapes too.

Either pay a ridiculous amount of child support for a baby you didn't want and really doesn't even belong to you, or opt out for an abortion?

What if it happens thirty times? Can you support thirty children?

One hundred?

Ten million?

Do you see how ridiculous it is to just disallow abortion yet?

[AOL_blows911]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Right. That's because it is life. It is a living, unique being.

Again, your opinion vs. mine. Technicaly it is living cells and all, but to me, it is not alive yet, in the sense that it has no sense of self, let alone any senses at all. It's individual DNA is unique, but other than that and the actual cell geometry/positions, it is the same as any other embryo of that stage. That is my opinion. I have mine, you have yours, thats what debates are about

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Nono. There's no potential about it. It is life.

Read above. In my opinion, it is living but not truely alive until the embryo developes senses (I tend to think of this as when it can start feeling pain, but I'm not an expert on the matter and it could be sooner that it has a nervous system enough that it can sense).

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

You're just a cluster of cells right now, too. Just a bigger one. You know that line which you drew about when it's okay to have an abortion and when it's not? One day before, it's just a cluster of cells. One day after, it's just a cluster of cells. One has certain chemical reactions and receptors, but is that where you draw the line of life? Our bodies frequently develop many new processes and functions throughout our lives. Just look at puberty.

Blood cells are not living entities since they are not individually metabolic. You don't take one brick out of a structure and call the brick a house.

I know plenty about puberty, because I'm 16 and stuck in the middle of it. And true, bodies do go through many different processes, creating new ones and the stopping old as life goes on. "One day before, it's just a cluster of cells. One day after, it's just a cluster of cells. One has certain chemical reactions and receptors, but is that where you draw the line of life?" - and after a certain period of time, nerve cells will develope and thoughts will begin to spark. I draw the line of life at the cognitive stage. The blood cell example was weak, I'll give you that, but I didn't have much time and wanted to post my views. The point of the analogy was that an individual zygote has no more power of mind than a blood cell. At least, it has never been proven to, anyway. For all I know, there is a meta-physical soul that makes every human intelligence. Or, it is interactions of chemicals and electrical charges throughout our brain and nervous system that make us who we are (which is my belief, as you may have guessed). Possibly some combination of the two. Until this is disproven, it is my belief. So, again, I draw the line of life at the point when thought (however basic) begins.

[devonin]

but is that where you draw the line of life?

It is an issue of threshold, not degree.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by AOL

Again, your opinion vs. mine.

Nono. Whether or not it is a living being is not an opinion. You said it yourself: "Technically it is living cells". That's all I was stating.

If you don't want to value the life it has, well, that's your opinion, but you can't deny the life that's there.

I'll agree to disagree with you about when life should be valued, but there's no reason to say that it's not alive.

Squeek: since when would I have to personally support the children of my rapes? I'm pretty sure no law forces rape victims to pay child support, and I could give a child that I couldn't support up for adoption.

I don't know the name of it, but I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy in proposing the situation where a guy gets raped ten million times and has a child from it each time. Either way, no, I don't see any reason why outlawing abortion is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by devonin

It is an issue of threshold, not degree.

...? Wasn't I talking about threshold when I said that?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[bluguerrilla]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Either way, no, I don't see any reason why outlawing abortion is ridiculous.

No reason? Even if both the mother and child are going to die during the pregnancy? Not that this may apply to you but would you want your mother, sister, wife, etc. to die because abortion is illegal?

I agree that it is hard to justify taking one life to save another but really, it's not your choice to make, it's hers, especially if she understands the risks and consequences.

[AOL_blows911]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Nono. Whether or not it is a living being is not an opinion. You said it yourself: "Technically it is living cells". That's all I was stating.

Fair enough
I think you summed it up better than I did, with the whole value vs. technical meaning argument.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by bluguerrilla

No reason? Even if both the mother and child are going to die during the pregnancy? Not that this may apply to you but would you want your mother, sister, wife, etc. to die because abortion is illegal?

I agree that it is hard to justify taking one life to save another but really, it's not your choice to make, it's hers, especially if she understands the risks and consequences.

Way to read my first post where I specifically addressed this situation.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

...? Wasn't I talking about threshold when I said that?

Yes, and we are claiming that you set your threshold at a point where reality does not actually reflect the label you are trying to apply.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Nono. Whether or not it is a living being is not an opinion. You said it yourself: "Technically it is living cells". That's all I was stating.

If you don't want to value the life it has, well, that's your opinion, but you can't deny the life that's there.

I'll agree to disagree with you about when life should be valued, but there's no reason to say that it's not alive.



--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Why should I value the almost non existant amount of life it has? I don't value the life of the bacteria I kill when I wash my face, and neither do you. It seems to me you're making an exception here because of your beliefs. The fetus certainly has potential to surpass the value of the bacteria in this case, but regardless they are on similar levels when making the important decision. If there are benefits for aborting the unborn, it is absurd not to.

Obviously abortion is something we want to avoid, but it should definitely not be banned. Abortion debates are pointless, IMO. People fight abortion on religious grounds, which is not nearly stable enough to win on. It's an udderly useless debate really...abortion isn't going anywhere.

[bluguerrilla]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Way to read my first post where I specifically addressed this situation.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

You're just as lazy as I am when it comes to reading posts. What you posted is different than what I posted, hence I posted it.

I'm not talking about treatment that might kill the baby. I'm talking about having an abortion because otherwise they're both going to die.

Not trying to flame in any way but where do you stand on capital punishment and killing in times of war?

Also,

Originally Posted by Reach

...abortion isn't going anywhere.

Do you mean that it's never going to be illegal? I disagree, every right that we have can of be taken away and will be if we are apathetic. We may not reach a conclusion but at least we still have our opinions and have figured out ways of better articulating them which makes us better at protecting them.

[KC-THE-KING]

I am a male. I personally believe that I have no place in this debate, it is 1000% a womans problem. The man who chose to have sex with this woman or rape her should be held completely responsible for his actions. He should, IMO, care for her and help her make the decision she wants to. If Guido wants to die giving birth to her child then it is HER decision, and if my girlfriend decides to have an abortion because she and I cannot afford it, allthough It's wrong in my opinion, SHE can do so. I will stand by that decision 100%.


All in all I am pro-choice. If you want to have an abortion, you should be able to do so. I do feel that the idiot people who would just have sex, abortion, sex, abortion, sex, abortion, ect. need to be taken care of somehow. THAT is simply a mockery of our technology. Maybe if our government were to fund a birth control center dealy thats free. Maybe there is one out there already, I'm not sure but it's just a thought, me trying to justify my personal opinion. Maybe just limit the number of abortions allowed per person. 1 per person please?

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

To those of you who say the baby could grow up and make a difference in the world, think about this. Yes, he could be another Einstein. He could also be another Hitler, another Mussolini, or another George W. Bush (laugh. That one's supposed to be funny. Haha.). Besides, why would you want another Einstein anyway? He was one of the main reasons the atomic bomb could be developed. Why would you want another one of him, considering he could probably make a single bomb that would destroy the entire world by now?

This argument is rather invalid. The point of saying something along the lines of, "The child could turn out to be the next Einstein!" is not to point out specifically that it will develop revolutionary theories in the fields of physics and derive equations that can link small amounts of matter to astronomical amounts of energy, leading to the creation of an outrageously efficient and catastrophic bomb. It is, rather, to say that any child has the potential to bring forth revolutionary ideas and enlightenments to help mankind. Because of this, it should be given a chance, regardless of the path it follows.

Also, to the person who believes killing any insignificant animal is as bad as killing a human fetus with a negative age, I can see where you are coming from. HOWEVER, humankind is extremely racist and elitist, favoring its own species. This is a prevalent characteristic of pretty much any animal I can think of. When I say racist, I mean that humans believe that they are superior to any other lifeforms in terms of brain power, ability to reason and recognize individuality, etc. We also favor animals over plants, but no one ever objects to this. An example of this is the ratio of vegetarians to people who don't eat plants. You will see TONS of vegetarians and probably already know several, but will almost never meet anyone who eats no plants. Ignoring those vegetarians who don't eat meat exclusively due to its taste, other vegetarians don't eat meat because they don't like to see suffering or life that has been slaughtered. What about plants? Do they not get severed and killed before we eat them? Because we can't seem to socially or even spiritually interact with plants, we see them as nothing, and dismiss their deaths as meaningless. This, in my opinion, shows that we favor the animal kingdom and cherish the animals more than the plant kingdom. If you are going to announce that killing an ant is as bad as killing a human fetus of similar size, then you are also saying that ripping a blade of grass out of the field is as bad as killing a human fetus of equal size.

A tiny little gathering ant can be compared to a tiny little human fetus. Nevertheless, the tiny little gathering ant will never do anything but eat, exchange scents with other laboring ants, and gather more food. Its potential is very small, and it has a very underdeveloped brain compared to the human. It will only continuously perform its job, not thinking much in the process. It probably cannot even distinguish between the other ants in the colony who share its caste and job. Humans have actual personalities and are larger contributers to the world as a whole. (I stand by this despite realizing the damage we have done to this planet thus far) We see this in the future a tiny little human fetus. We don't see the same glorious future with the ant.

Abortions can be seen as murder in this sense. I'm not quite sure what kind of action the government should take, however. It's extremely hard to put a quantitative value on the amount of time an abortion should be allowed for. It's also hard to step in and say abortions are allowed when the life of the mother MIGHT be in danger if the birth takes place.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by bluguerrilla

You're just as lazy as I am when it comes to reading posts. What you posted is different than what I posted, hence I posted it.

I'm not talking about treatment that might kill the baby. I'm talking about having an abortion because otherwise they're both going to die.

That's what I was talking about, too; I just didn't detail every possibility because I didn't feel it necessary.

In general terms, if the baby's death is an unfortunate result of saving a mother's life, I don't see the act being morally wrong. What I was saying in the other post is that I'd appreciate a distinction between abortion and a necessary-for-life procedure, much like the distinction between murder and self-defense. Going in to have your pregnancy terminated is not the same as saving your own life.

Not trying to flame in any way but where do you stand on capital punishment and killing in times of war?

This is neither here nor there, but I will say that I use the term "innocent" for a reason.

Originally Posted by devonin

Yes, and we are claiming that you set your threshold at a point where reality does not actually reflect the label you are trying to apply.

What? My threshold of life is completely grounded in reality, not in some "well, typically children develop brain functions in a gray window this many weeks into a pregnancy that in no way applies to everybody and is still just a personal choice of value" threshold.

Originally Posted by Reach

Why should I value the almost non existant amount of life it has? I don't value the life of the bacteria I kill when I wash my face, and neither do you. It seems to me you're making an exception here because of your beliefs.

Wow, someone holds an opinion based in his beliefs... Imagine that. You may think I'm crazy for valuing the life of an embryo, but I think you're crazy for not. I've given my reasons why I think you should value it already, and you've given yours (in the many previous incarnations of this thread, at least).

People fight abortion on religious grounds, which is not nearly stable enough to win on.

Again, where is the religious ground on which my stance rests?

It's an udderly useless debate really...abortion isn't going anywhere.

First of all, we're not talking about cow teats, here. =)

But I HIGHLY disagree. I have little doubt that some time in the future (maybe soon, maybe not) Roe v. Wade will be rightfully overturned, and when that happens, abortion most certainly is going somewhere, and it's away.

Originally Posted by KC THE KING

I do feel that the idiot people who would just have sex, abortion, sex, abortion, sex, abortion, ect. need to be taken care of somehow. THAT is simply a mockery of our technology.

Uh, bud, what technology? Abortion's been around for thousands of years, in many different forms, including someone jumping up and down on a pregnant woman's belly.

Also: I'm a dude, kthx.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

any child has the potential to bring forth revolutionary ideas and enlightenments to help mankind. Because of this, it should be given a chance, regardless of the path it follows.

And at the point at which you can even remotely identify the little bundle of cells as being a -child- we can talk about that. Up until a specific and rather well-defined point of the development of a fetus, it is -alive- but only in the sense that any and -all- living cells are alive, including the ones we don't grant moreal significance to.

I know it is all sweet and emotional and cuddly to think of it as "A little baby" from conception on, but that simply isn't the case. When a woman can get pregnant, and have a miscarriage and mistake it for nothing more than her period coming a day or two late, I hardly think we can say what "died" there is a living, thinking, hoping, dreaming human.

What? My threshold of life is completely grounded in reality, not in some "well, typically children develop brain functions in a gray window this many weeks into a pregnancy that in no way applies to everybody and is still just a personal choice of value" threshold.

I'm not talking about "life" we've all granted when "life" starts, the threshold I'm discussing is "The point at which that life resembles a human sufficiently to accord it any of the moral significance we give humans"

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm not talking about "life" we've all granted when "life" starts, the threshold I'm discussing is "The point at which that life resembles a human sufficiently to accord it any of the moral significance we give humans"

Ah, okay, thanks for clearing that up. I still disagree, but at least we're on the same page, now.

a specific and rather well-defined point of the development of a fetus

You forgot "arbitrary" in there, too.

I know it is all sweet and emotional and cuddly to think of it as "A little baby" from conception on, but that simply isn't the case. When a woman can get pregnant, and have a miscarriage and mistake it for nothing more than her period coming a day or two late, I hardly think we can say what "died" there is a living, thinking, hoping, dreaming human.

Tell that to the couples who try for years to get pregnant, finally get the early tests done, celebrate having a child at long last, and then miscarry days later. Something tells me that they're not going to just shrug it off.

Being ignorant of and being cold about a miscarriage are two very different things.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[bluguerrilla]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

This is neither here nor there, but I will say that I use the term "innocent" for a reason.

Maybe another thread should be (or has already been) made about this but many people are innocent in one way or another. I'm just not sure why a child's life should be valued more than someone who is grown. Many people that suffer capital punishment are innocent of their crimes and many people that die in wars and they aren't even fighting in them.

Anyways, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think you're not justified in saying that abortion should be outlawed. Personally, I think that reasons for abortion should only be medical but I don't think that just because that's my opinion that everyone else should do what I say. I want to them to agree with me because they think I'm right. Outlawing isn't the answer, education is.

[Lamoc]

Like I said in another post, the goverment shouldn't be able to stop abortions. Its not thier child. And if they do force the parents to have it, they should have to pay for everything a normal parent would have to. The goverment is gone completely insane on this. You can't force someone to have a child. It may ruin both lives of the parent and the child because of the goverments poor choices.

[devonin]

You forgot "arbitrary" in there, too.

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.

Tell that to the couples who try for years to get pregnant, finally get the early tests done, celebrate having a child at long last, and then miscarry days later. Something tells me that they're not going to just shrug it off.

Apples and oranges. 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. The emotional investment in a discovered pregnancy of a couple trying desperately to concieve is an entirely different thing.

[All_That_Chaz]

Alright. First of all, I'm not going to label myself as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" because I like to think that I'm not against either of those things.

Second of all, all of you people that keep saying, "LOL U KRISCHANS R GHEY DONT H8 ON ABORTION!" are freaking idiots. Abortion is not about religion. Yes, most religions say that life is good. I thought we could all agree on that anyway. When someone says they don't like abortion, they're not automatically some fundamentalist. I'm not even religious, but people that stupid piss me off.

Third. As issue of beliefs. I personally find abortion to be disgusting, horrifying, and wrong. However, I don't believe for an instant that just because I think abortion is wrong, and I probably wouldn't be too happy if someone I was with ended up pregnant and decided to have an abortion (there's so many other options! even an orphanage is better than a dumpster! but that's just my opinion), I still don't think that my opinion should hold sway over a woman's decision to keep her baby or not. As long as the law is in the books, I'm not going to tell her she can't.

Furthermore, yea, it ends a life that would with 99.9999% chance develop into a fully functional human being. Regressive murder, so to speak, and to use the right-wing buzzword. I've never argued with someone who says that abortion is murder. It clearly ends a potential life. What I say instead is, "Where do you draw the line?" Who says life starts at conception? There's potential life in every single egg and sperm. Isn't any sex without the intent of conception doing the same thing as abortion? You better not put that condom on, that's killing the potential life to be had! I know that's stretching the argument. But how can you draw the line anywhere were there's still a percentage involved if you say that abortion is illegal?

Just my two cents.
-Chaz