[Guest]

I'll let someone else really start the discussion, but my view real quick: it should be entirely up to the mother - who else would be better to decide whether or not to do such a drastic thing? Leaving the choice up to others seems very wrong to me.

[Quag]

Paradox? Noooo. But when someone accuses me of being anti-life, I ask what they think about Muslims.

Now are you pro-life? No.

I dont understand this at all, please explain

[Guest]

People use pro-life as if they're the ones who love, while people who are atheist are anti-life.

Yet when you ask them what they think about eastern religions, they'll just start on how evil they are. Are they really pro-life then?

Once my friends shouted that I'm middle eastern (which I am) as a joke and somebody actually said "You stupid, satanist, sand monkey, Muslim atheist" and left.

I'm getting a bit off topic but...

I'M FOR ABORTION!

[Quag]

lol someone called you a satanist sand monkey muslim athiest?

How can you be a satanist muslim and athiest at the same time?

google image gave me this as a sand monkey any resemblance? Im guessing they are wrong on that as well.

[EDM]

Okay, I read all this and got pretty out.....

So my opinion: Abortion should be avoided as much as possible, unless there is a risk of harm to the mother &/or baby. Usually the mother should make the decision, but it's not always necessary. She must be consulted, of course.....but if she is unable to make the decision due to medical or emotional reasons (like in cases of trauma from rape; it can happen), then the family or close friend (whoever she has got) should make the decision. But overall; abortion is wrong ethically, morally, emotionally, physically, even grammatically (i just don't like the word...) wrong!

[Guest]

I do however think abortion should not be justified by hate.

BTW I'm giving a speech on why abortion should be legalized and stay that way... (I realize abortion is legal but you've seen what's been going on in the government )

I have some key points...

anything else to add??

Edited April 14, 2011 by Q-Cumber

[Molly Mae]

I'm pro-life...

...except for maybe two times.

[peace*out]

I do however think abortion should not be justified by hate.

BTW I'm giving a speech on why abortion should be legalized and stay that way... (I realize abortion is legal but you've seen what's been going on in the government )

I have some key points...

anything else to add??

these sites are your friend for arguments and rebuttles against the other side's arguments:

http://www.procon.org/

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia%21

[gvg]

I'm pro-choice, but I HATE abortions. With a passion. I would rather the fetus develop and be born, and then given up for adoption.

But then, I respect a woman's right to choose. It is her body, and that thing (the fetus) is not a human, nor is it living, nor can it suffer (all of these eventually happen, of course, but until they do, that thing is more like a tapeworm- a parisitic thing that takes and grows).

As george Carlin said brilliantly, most (not all) pro-lifers are simply antiwoman:

I am OK with abortions up to a certain point- after it can, if it leaves the womb, be a living thing and live on its own, which i believe medically happens around- 6 months? Something like that.

[Guest]

Before i decide whether or not i should kill something, it's best to find out what that thing is. I think i'll add a bit more support to my view that the fetus is human, just so you know that it isn't a Christian bias.

I only see a few differences between a fetus and a born child:

Size - The fetus is smaller than a born child, just as Hilary Clinton is a smaller person than Shaq O'Neal.

Level of Development - The fetus is less developed than a born child. But a 4 year old girl is still developing a reproductive system, which means she's less developed than a fourteen year old.

Environment - Being in the womb or out of the womb doesn't make much more of a difference than whether your in a box or out. Though as a fetus you're more dependent on that "box"

Dependency - The fetus is dependent on the mother for life just as a kidney patient is just as dependent on their dialysis machine for life.

I'm not saying in no circumstances should you get an abortion. If both lives are threatened by the pregnancy, then do all you can to save at least one of their lives, be it killing the child to save the mother.

The fetus is a stage in every human's life, and that being so, they should have a right to live through it. It's not a parasite, but a natural part of the woman's life as child-bearer and a human's development.

[unreality]

Before i decide whether or not i should kill something, it's best to find out what that thing is. I think i'll add a bit more support to my view that the fetus is human, just so you know that it isn't a Christian bias.

I only see a few differences between a fetus and a born child:

Size - The fetus is smaller than a born child, just as Hilary Clinton is a smaller person than Shaq O'Neal.

Level of Development - The fetus is less developed than a born child. But a 4 year old girl is still developing a reproductive system, which means she's less developed than a fourteen year old.

Environment - Being in the womb or out of the womb doesn't make much more of a difference than whether your in a box or out. Though as a fetus you're more dependent on that "box"

Dependency - The fetus is dependent on the mother for life just as a kidney patient is just as dependent on their dialysis machine for life.

I'm not saying in no circumstances should you get an abortion. If both lives are threatened by the pregnancy, then do all you can to save at least one of their lives, be it killing the child to save the mother.

The fetus is a stage in every human's life, and that being so, they should have a right to live through it. It's not a parasite, but a natural part of the woman's life as child-bearer and a human's development.

I agree with you LJ, your logic is pretty sound. If not aborted, the fetus will most likely become a human. The issue however is where you draw the line. Is every non-pregnating sperm, every egg passed unfertilized, a waste of potential human life? It's hard to say...

[peace*out]

Before i decide whether or not i should kill something, it's best to find out what that thing is. I think i'll add a bit more support to my view that the fetus is human, just so you know that it isn't a Christian bias.

I only see a few differences between a fetus and a born child:

Size - The fetus is smaller than a born child, just as Hilary Clinton is a smaller person than Shaq O'Neal.

Level of Development - The fetus is less developed than a born child. But a 4 year old girl is still developing a reproductive system, which means she's less developed than a fourteen year old.

Environment - Being in the womb or out of the womb doesn't make much more of a difference than whether your in a box or out. Though as a fetus you're more dependent on that "box"

Dependency - The fetus is dependent on the mother for life just as a kidney patient is just as dependent on their dialysis machine for life.

I'm not saying in no circumstances should you get an abortion. If both lives are threatened by the pregnancy, then do all you can to save at least one of their lives, be it killing the child to save the mother.

The fetus is a stage in every human's life, and that being so, they should have a right to live through it. It's not a parasite, but a natural part of the woman's life as child-bearer and a human's development.

I agree...somewhat. i (mostly) agree about how you look at a fetus, but think about this: what would be better - for this fetus to have never been born, or for it to grow up in poverty as an unwanted and unloved, (and possibly burdensome) child to the parents. now im not syaing this is always the case, but there will be people with this situation. the reason why i say i mostly agree with your view of the unborn kid is that, under a certain "age," it cant feel, cant understand. theres a point where it can feel or react, but until then, it is as unconscious of it's being as anything. "I think, therefore I am." If something can't think, is it then not considered murder? and even then, other animals are killed, and they can think.

Also: In terms of "kid potential," a point that many people have brought up, theres many MANY possibilities of "unreached potential." another point about "unborn potential" is that, at least for girls, it starts being "wasted" around the age of 13. you cant argue that every bit of dna should be used.

but yeah. just adding on.

[unreality]

I agree...somewhat. i (mostly) agree about how you look at a fetus, but think about this: what would be better - for this fetus to have never been born, or for it to grow up in poverty as an unwanted and unloved, (and possibly burdensome) child to the parents. now im not syaing this is always the case, but there will be people with this situation.

That's pretty cruel and closeminded. I'm not trying to be rude here but just because someone has less money than you doesn't mean they're unhappy or deserve to never have been born...

the reason why i say i mostly agree with your view of the unborn kid is that, under a certain "age," it cant feel, cant understand. theres a point where it can feel or react, but until then, it is as unconscious of it's being as anything. "I think, therefore I am." If something can't think, is it then not considered murder? and even then, other animals are killed, and they can think.

What about someone who's asleep? in a coma? unconscious? they're not thinking. But they WILL when they wake up (or get born, in the fetus's case).

Also: In terms of "kid potential," a point that many people have brought up, theres many MANY possibilities of "unreached potential." another point about "unborn potential" is that, at least for girls, it starts being "wasted" around the age of 13. you cant argue that every bit of dna should be used.

agreed. That's why it's a sticky situation.... one view is that when the sperm and egg come together, then it's life. But even that presumption stands on thin ice...

[peace*out]

That's pretty cruel and closeminded. I'm not trying to be rude here but just because someone has less money than you doesn't mean they're unhappy or deserve to never have been born...

my point is that what if it was better that they never had. Im not trying to say that people who are poor dont deserve to live. my point is that there are cases where its better for person X to have not entered a situation. ok. so weve talked about the "what if, by being born, the baby and the mom would (probably) die? what then?" situation. and by "probably" i mean that theres some sort of complication wehre they KNOW. im not talking about the regular dangers of childbirth. but what if 1) that baby was born in a place where there wasn't any medical care so the mom and the baby have a liklyhood of dieing (and, just saying, this is for people who would WANT ABORTIONS. this isnt a "im in this part of society so i have to do ____), and the mom had the option, and she WANTED TO. what if the baby would be unwanted, and would grow up in a home where they had to live a not-so-good quality life in an unwanted home. Its not about the poor. its a "waht if." what would be better? this doesnt mean we need to pass a law saying you HAVE to get an abortion, this is for an OPTION.

but i understnad your point. im sorry it sounded that way.

What about someone who's asleep? in a coma? unconscious? they're not thinking. But they WILL when they wake up (or get born, in the fetus's case).

this is why controversial topics are controversial. many people who are in a coma, and its known that they wont wake up will go off life support.

ever read My Sister's Keeper?

and remember - its not a WILL, its a LIKELY. theres never a 100% change that the baby will survive. things happen. they do. if they're likely to wake up, most people will keep them on life support. but someone has to pay. if you nor your family can pay for you to be on life support, then who pays? the government? do you think that THEY'LL keep you on life support for as long as necessary? I dont know.

agreed. That's why it's a sticky situation.... one view is that when the sperm and egg come together, then it's life. But even that presumption stands on thin ice...

from what i understand, it comes down to almost a "survivor of the fittest." but at the same time, what if the fittest doesnt get used for that purpose...im just going to hope you understand what im saying.

[unreality]

my point is that what if it was better that they never had. Im not trying to say that people who are poor dont deserve to live. my point is that there are cases where its better for person X to have not entered a situation. ok. so weve talked about the "what if, by being born, the baby and the mom would (probably) die? what then?" situation. and by "probably" i mean that theres some sort of complication wehre they KNOW. im not talking about the regular dangers of childbirth. but what if 1) that baby was born in a place where there wasn't any medical care so the mom and the baby have a liklyhood of dieing (and, just saying, this is for people who would WANT ABORTIONS. this isnt a "im in this part of society so i have to do ____), and the mom had the option, and she WANTED TO. what if the baby would be unwanted, and would grow up in a home where they had to live a not-so-good quality life in an unwanted home. Its not about the poor. its a "waht if." what would be better? this doesnt mean we need to pass a law saying you HAVE to get an abortion, this is for an OPTION.

Right but who are you (or anyone, or the mother) to judge someone's quality of life? Even if they have a bad childhood in an orphanage, they might go out and conquer the world one day. I don't think it's morally permissible to say someone should not be born if they'll be unwanted.

this is why controversial topics are controversial. many people who are in a coma, and its known that they wont wake up will go off life support.

ever read My Sister's Keeper?

and remember - its not a WILL, its a LIKELY. theres never a 100% change that the baby will survive. things happen. they do. if they're likely to wake up, most people will keep them on life support. but someone has to pay. if you nor your family can pay for you to be on life support, then who pays? the government? do you think that THEY'LL keep you on life support for as long as necessary? I dont know.

Agreed, though my point is, let's say someone is knocked unconscious or deep asleep or something and they'll wake up in 8 hours. They're not conscious, they're not "thinking", but they WILL, in another 8 hours. Sure you could kill them right now, but you agree that would be murder yes? Because they'll wake up in 8 hours and be fine. Likewise, the fetus may not be thinking yet but it'll wake up in 8 hours, 9 months, whatever, and be fine. It's "sleeping" and it will indeed most likely wake up (normal dangers of childbirth aside as it's been said) and then be alive

[peace*out]

Right but who are you (or anyone, or the mother) to judge someone's quality of life? Even if they have a bad childhood in an orphanage, they might go out and conquer the world one day. I don't think it's morally permissible to say someone should not be born if they'll be unwanted.

they may go out and conquer teh world someday. i never said they wouldnt. but this kind of goes back to the point of using every bit of DNA. Say the mom doesn't want the baby. then who gets to decide? the unborn baby? the dad? Who should make the decision? My point is NOT about the wealth. i was using that as an example, and i guess it was a bad example. Its more of a, "If unborn baby X was unwanted and a burden to their parents, why is unwanted baby x, before s/he was a baby, any different from all the other little bits of lovely-ness floating around? they never knew life, and (most likely) never affected anyone other than the parents. Granted, im not saying use this as another form of birth control, or a "Plan C," but what about the abandoned kids, and kids in orphanages. what if the kid goes there? sure, s/he may go out and do something great, but you could argue that the potential of it is just as likely as the potential of all the bits of dna that didnt get used. Why add to the numbers of kids in orphanages? Im not saying that that WILL happen, im just saying that if the mom doesnt want it, who are YOU to say that she needs to go through nine months of pain and the possibility of dieing or injury to give birth to a kid she doesnt want?

Agreed, though my point is, let's say someone is knocked unconscious or deep asleep or something and they'll wake up in 8 hours. They're not conscious, they're not "thinking", but they WILL, in another 8 hours. Sure you could kill them right now, but you agree that would be murder yes? Because they'll wake up in 8 hours and be fine. Likewise, the fetus may not be thinking yet but it'll wake up in 8 hours, 9 months, whatever, and be fine. It's "sleeping" and it will indeed most likely wake up (normal dangers of childbirth aside as it's been said) and then be alive

Say likely. not "will." theres no "will." you make me sound like a murderer.

this may sound really cruel, im warning you, but think of it like this: will they be missed/did they ever make an impact on someones life/will they feel it?

coma patient:

1) i assume, yes

2) i assume, yes

3) no

unborn baby:

1) if the mom and dad dont want the baby, then no.

2) the KNOWLEDGE of they baby maybe, the its not alive yet. so ill say no. feel free to disagree.

3) no

unwanted kid that never knew someone:

1) maybe. maybe not. lets say they're 100% unwanted. then no.

2) probably, but even if you argue no, theres number 3

3) yes. unless they're the one whos almost dead on the streets, in which case, they'll probably be dead anyways, since no one knew them

I add that last one in there to show similarites/differences between that and the second thing. if the mom/dad doesnt want it, then they'll probably not want to tell about it or brag. this is me guessing, i have no knowledge of how it works. i know if it were me, i would brag about having an unwanted baby in my belly. if the unwanted kid knows no one, then they may die anyways. but the odds are that the kid has made an impact, good or bad, on someones life. there are a gazillion kids that are like that in orphanages and on the streets today. Why should anyone other than the mom be able to say if they want to add to that number?? If they can feel it, than immediatly no. after a certain age, when the brain starts functioning in the kid, i say make a deadline for abortion. but if its unwanted from the start, if getting it aborted makes no difference at all, except to the parents, then why should anyone else have a say??

[gvg]

I think what needs to be remembered is that the fetus is not a human being yet, nor is it scientifically alive until around 6 months. All it is is another organ, except it's an organ that gives nothing back to the body (yes, it will be a human eventually, but we must remember that it isn't until six month.)

So, let's just see where everyone stands:

1. Would it be OK with you if it was a threat to the mother's life?

2. If it was rape?

3. If it was already dead? (I only put this here because there are some nutjobs who want to force the mother to go through with the miscarriage).

All three are yes for me, and I'm sure that at least the first will get a resounding yes from most people.

So now we move on to the rest of the abortions.

I personally, as i think I said before, hate abortions. I don't like it. I would much prefer to allow the child to be born and have it be adopted (if it wasn't one of the three above cases).

But this issue (most of the time) is not pro- or anti- abortion. It's pro- or anti- choice (pro-life is a disguised version of anti-choice).

And since the fetus is not a human until later on (I'm against late-term abortions except in extreme cases), and is really only a parasite that isn't even fully alive by scientific standards, then I think we should let the mother exercise her right of choice over her body. If she wanted to remove her tonsils, would you care? What if she wished to remove a tumor? Or a parasite? For me the answer is no. Thus, until it becomes human, I have no problem with it. Some say not until it can suffer, which is a little earlier than when it become human. This is fine too. But let's be honest with ourselves: Life does not begin at conception. That zygote is not anything more than a human cell, and if you wish not to kill that, well, I hope you've never rubbed or scratched or touched your skin. I hope you haven't bitten your tongue, or rubbed your eye. And i hope you haven't had any periods (for women obviously); as Carlin points out, most fertilized eggs don't ever attach, and are released from the body "during those delightful few days she has" .

So unless anyone would like to actually counter this point, I return to my original thought line: It's not human until later, it can't suffer until later. It's nothing more than a tonsil or a parasite.

So, yeah, that's why i'm pro-choice (which does not, as some conservatives and pro-lifers claim, mean I am pro-abortion).

[peace*out]

I think what needs to be remembered is that the fetus is not a human being yet, nor is it scientifically alive until around 6 months. All it is is another organ, except it's an organ that gives nothing back to the body (yes, it will be a human eventually, but we must remember that it isn't until six month.)

So, let's just see where everyone stands:

1. Would it be OK with you if it was a threat to the mother's life?

2. If it was rape?

3. If it was already dead? (I only put this here because there are some nutjobs who want to force the mother to go through with the miscarriage).

All three are yes for me, and I'm sure that at least the first will get a resounding yes from most people.

So now we move on to the rest of the abortions.

I personally, as i think I said before, hate abortions. I don't like it. I would much prefer to allow the child to be born and have it be adopted (if it wasn't one of the three above cases).

But this issue (most of the time) is not pro- or anti- abortion. It's pro- or anti- choice (pro-life is a disguised version of anti-choice).

And since the fetus is not a human until later on (I'm against late-term abortions except in extreme cases), and is really only a parasite that isn't even fully alive by scientific standards, then I think we should let the mother exercise her right of choice over her body. If she wanted to remove her tonsils, would you care? What if she wished to remove a tumor? Or a parasite? For me the answer is no. Thus, until it becomes human, I have no problem with it. Some say not until it can suffer, which is a little earlier than when it become human. This is fine too. But let's be honest with ourselves: Life does not begin at conception. That zygote is not anything more than a human cell, and if you wish not to kill that, well, I hope you've never rubbed or scratched or touched your skin. I hope you haven't bitten your tongue, or rubbed your eye. And i hope you haven't had any periods (for women obviously); as Carlin points out, most fertilized eggs don't ever attach, and are released from the body "during those delightful few days she has" .

So unless anyone would like to actually counter this point, I return to my original thought line: It's not human until later, it can't suffer until later. It's nothing more than a tonsil or a parasite.

So, yeah, that's why i'm pro-choice (which does not, as some conservatives and pro-lifers claim, mean I am pro-abortion).

1) yes

2) yes

3) yes

~i dont aprove of it as a method of birthcontrol/"plan c", but what about all the other children in the orphanages? What does adding in more kids do? just saying.

~"delightful" <_<

~so yeah, i agree (except for one thing), but i wanted to reply anyways. just to reply to the questions, and bring up that one point.

[Guest]

Agreed, though my point is, let's say someone is knocked unconscious or deep asleep or something and they'll wake up in 8 hours. They're not conscious, they're not "thinking", but they WILL, in another 8 hours. Sure you could kill them right now, but you agree that would be murder yes? Because they'll wake up in 8 hours and be fine. Likewise, the fetus may not be thinking yet but it'll wake up in 8 hours, 9 months, whatever, and be fine. It's "sleeping" and it will indeed most likely wake up (normal dangers of childbirth aside as it's been said) and then be alive

I feel like I'm barging in on someone else's conversation here but I like this topic.

The difference between an unborn fetus and an unconscious/comatose person is indeed a tricky one, and truth be told I think it's all just a matter of opinion rather than some absolute rule. However if you don't draw some sort of a line you get into all sorts of absurdities and before you know what's what you're a catholic. So here's my take on it: an unconscious person has been a functioning person in the past and probably will be in the future. A fetus is a potential person. It has not been a person in the past but given the right circumstances could be made into one in the future, maybe. It could turn out to be a wonderful kind person, or an axe murderer, or still-born. It is all potential. Anything you could say about the type of person that fetus will be, would be a guess. The same cannot be said of the unconscious person. Their personality, mind and will, is already manifest, it just happens to be temporarily out of action.

Treating a potential person as a real person is inherantly unworkable. It would morally oblige us to be having unprotected sex constantly in order that as many potential people as possible are brought into existence. Actual people must be given far greater priority, if only because the alternative is unworkable.

[peace*out]

I feel like I'm barging in on someone else's conversation here but I like this topic.

The difference between an unborn fetus and an unconscious/comatose person is indeed a tricky one, and truth be told I think it's all just a matter of opinion rather than some absolute rule. However if you don't draw some sort of a line you get into all sorts of absurdities and before you know what's what you're a catholic. So here's my take on it: an unconscious person has been a functioning person in the past and probably will be in the future. A fetus is a potential person. It has not been a person in the past but given the right circumstances could be made into one in the future, maybe. It could turn out to be a wonderful kind person, or an axe murderer, or still-born. It is all potential. Anything you could say about the type of person that fetus will be, would be a guess. The same cannot be said of the unconscious person. Their personality, mind and will, is already manifest, it just happens to be temporarily out of action.

Treating a potential person as a real person is inherantly unworkable. It would morally oblige us to be having unprotected sex constantly in order that as many potential people as possible are brought into existence. Actual people must be given far greater priority, if only because the alternative is unworkable.

that. is. amazing.

ok. on a more serious note, i agree, so this wont be off-topic. but that line...I started cracking up.

[unreality]

And since the fetus is not a human until later on (I'm against late-term abortions except in extreme cases), and is really only a parasite that isn't even fully alive by scientific standards, then I think we should let the mother exercise her right of choice over her body. If she wanted to remove her tonsils, would you care? What if she wished to remove a tumor? Or a parasite? For me the answer is no.

I don't care if she removes her tonsils, because they won't develop into a living human being

Thus, until it becomes human, I have no problem with it.

Aha, the old catch. I'll show you why this is an invalid argument (and by extension the rest of your argument falls into speculation) : say you have a set date (you seem to think it's 6 months but a lot of people have their own little opinions about "when" it's a person, lol), and at that point in the development, you consider the fetus to now be a human. You're no longer okay with aborting it at that point or later.

So what about a day before? What about literally 10 seconds before this "line"? Is that perfectly fine to kill the fetus, despite that if you wait 10 seconds longer it'll now be murder by your standards? It's a paradox of infinitesimals. You cannot draw an absolute line. it's very fuzzy. There is no distinction, being a continual, gradual process, that, if not interrupted, will most likely (in most reasonably healthy countries) be born into a living person if left to develop as it naturally does.

Life does not begin at conception. That zygote is not anything more than a human cell, and if you wish not to kill that, well, I hope you've never rubbed or scratched or touched your skin. I hope you haven't bitten your tongue, or rubbed your eye.

Once again, my skin cells, tongue cells, etc, will not keep multiplying into a new person. A zygote may not seem like a person yet but it will be.

So unless anyone would like to actually counter this point, I return to my original thought line: It's not human until later, it can't suffer until later.

A sleeping person cannot suffer until later, if, say, you fill the room with a poisonous gas that kills them in their sleep peacefully. Would you do that to a sleeping person? I hope not...

and yes octopuppy, a comatose person did have a personality, and will have a personality if they wake up. A fetus did not have a personality but they will develop one if they are born. The future is more important than the past.

[gvg]

I don't care if she removes her tonsils, because they won't develop into a living human being

Aha, the old catch. I'll show you why this is an invalid argument (and by extension the rest of your argument falls into speculation) : say you have a set date (you seem to think it's 6 months but a lot of people have their own little opinions about "when" it's a person, lol), and at that point in the development, you consider the fetus to now be a human. You're no longer okay with aborting it at that point or later.

So what about a day before? What about literally 10 seconds before this "line"? Is that perfectly fine to kill the fetus, despite that if you wait 10 seconds longer it'll now be murder by your standards? It's a paradox of infinitesimals. You cannot draw an absolute line. it's very fuzzy. There is no distinction, being a continual, gradual process, that, if not interrupted, will most likely (in most reasonably healthy countries) be born into a living person if left to develop as it naturally does.

Obviously, I understand this. I don't think i said that I would support it's illegality. Just because i don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. The point here is choice: are you for the choice of an already living human or do you support a mass of cells? That's what the fetus is, no matter what it will become eventually. No one seems to care that a chicken egg would turn into a chicken.

Once again, my skin cells, tongue cells, etc, will not keep multiplying into a new person. A zygote may not seem like a person yet but it will be.

But it currently is not. The human wins out over the will eventually possibly be human. It is a cell. That's all. And oviously, your skin cells are pretty special, because I believe i read somewhere that they used stem cells from the skin or something like that to grow other stuff. It could be a new human, but it is assigned the job of keeping THIS human alive.

A sleeping person cannot suffer until later, if, say, you fill the room with a poisonous gas that kills them in their sleep peacefully. Would you do that to a sleeping person? I hope not...

and yes octopuppy, a comatose person did have a personality, and will have a personality if they wake up. A fetus did not have a personality but they will develop one if they are born. The future is more important than the past.

But it is already living. That's the difference.

Choice> organ, no matter what it may eventually be. That's what this issue is about.

Edited June 2, 2011 by gvg

[peace*out]

I don't care if she removes her tonsils, because they won't develop into a living human being

thats not the point. the point is why should you have anything to say about what another person does to their body, because a fetus is part of her body until it can survive as a separate "being." Its her body, not yours. thats the point.

Aha, the old catch. I'll show you why this is an invalid argument (and by extension the rest of your argument falls into speculation) : say you have a set date (you seem to think it's 6 months but a lot of people have their own little opinions about "when" it's a person, lol), and at that point in the development, you consider the fetus to now be a human. You're no longer okay with aborting it at that point or later.

hows it an invalid argument? there is a point in time where a fetus is able to function and is able to survive. at that point where it could leave the mother, its a functioning being. im sure, if the mother wanted an abortion, tests could be done to determine the stage the baby was at quite easily.

So what about a day before? What about literally 10 seconds before this "line"? Is that perfectly fine to kill the fetus, despite that if you wait 10 seconds longer it'll now be murder by your standards? It's a paradox of infinitesimals. You cannot draw an absolute line. it's very fuzzy. There is no distinction, being a continual, gradual process, that, if not interrupted, will most likely (in most reasonably healthy countries) be born into a living person if left to develop as it naturally does.

the "line" isnt dead set. its the stage the fetus would be in. no one knows when it would be able to fuction as a separate being. so yeah, i think its quite late and that people will get one before then, but until its a functioning being, its a parasite.

oh - and look at the quote in my signature. unless you want to become catholic, you must draw some sort of line.

Once again, my skin cells, tongue cells, etc, will not keep multiplying into a new person. A zygote may not seem like a person yet but it will be.

thats like saying dont not pick at your skin because then the dust mites wont have any food. if the baby's aborted, does it make a difference to now? no.

A sleeping person cannot suffer until later, if, say, you fill the room with a poisonous gas that kills them in their sleep peacefully. Would you do that to a sleeping person? I hope not...

and yes octopuppy, a comatose person did have a personality, and will have a personality if they wake up. A fetus did not have a personality but they will develop one if they are born. The future is more important than the past.

we dont do that to sleeping people, but we have bombed cities as part of a war, killing people who are just there. id say that was quite worse. So no, i wouldnt do that. but what about the point that i made. is the fetus going to affect anyone other than the parents? will it ever influence someone, or make an impact on someone's life? yes, theres the possibility of the future, but it wouldnt change the present.

Edited June 2, 2011 by peace*out

[Guest]

Personally there are many cases where I wouldn't mind if mothers aborted their children after they were born. If you want to get into politics and ask me at what point I would initiate force against someone for aborting their child it would most certainly only be after the birth of the child and would in fact probably be when the child is multiple years old. I can imagine cases where I wouldn't like if someone aborted their child--say a month after they were born--but I definitely would still refrain from using violence against that mother for her "crime". Now, if my mother aborted me at 19 years of age, I would certainly consider that an act of murder and would hope that people would do something about it. Now, locking my mother up in a cage until she dies of old age wouldn't accomplish anything and having her pay a fine to the state would do just as little. Perhaps getting her to go to a mental institution would be a good way of dealing with her abortion of me. Also, due to her strong initiation of force against me I wouldn't have a problem with other people using force back against her to force her to go to this mental institution even if she resisted.

I think the abortion issue is a great way to see how the concept of initiation of force exists on a spectrum. Surely if someone drugged me in the night and then cut me in half with a knife while I was knocked out until I died then that would be regarded as an initiation of force against me by almost all of us. If my mother had been on the pill 19 years ago to stop the sperm cell from joining with her egg cell, however, I think that all of us would agree that there really isn't any significant initiation of force there. What would the initiation of force be? That she used force against the sperm to stop it from forming the person that I am now? Well seeing as it was my mom's egg I would say that is an example of using force in self defense anyways. At what point though does my mom's egg cell and the nutrients that she gave me when I was a fetus transfer from her property to mine? The whole spectrum is gray. At what point in my life from zygote to 19-year-old is her abortion of me worthy of using violence against her for what she did? That's gray too and each of us have to decide when we are okay with using violence against people to punish them for what we deem are their crimes. While some people (pro-lifers) advocate state violence against all women who have an abortion any time after the zygote is formed (some people even say before it is performed (contraception is immoral!), I would certainly say that the mother's use of force against their child does not nearly merit the kind of force that would be used against the mothers should the government make abortions illegal. In fact, I wouldn't even advocate making it illegal for a mother to abort her baby in the first few days soon after it is born. Then there is another gray area in the baby's life where I would deem the mother's abortion a crime, but not a crime worthy of having violence used against it. Then later when the child is a few years old if the mother were to abort it I would begin using violence against the mother in many cases, especially if I thought the mother was likely to go on causing other people harm.

Anyways, I don't really understand what the abortion debate lack of agreement really is.

If we're asking the question "When should mothers get abortions and when shouldn't they?" then I think the answer is that it varies tremendously depending on the given situation and really is just a matter of whether or not the mother wants to get an abortion.

If you're asking the political question "When do you want to criminalize mothers for getting an abortion?" I answer never in any circumstances before the baby leaves the mother's body. And since this is really what the abortion debate is usually about (rather than a debate about at what point in the baby's life after it is born you are going to allow the mother to kill it before you start criminalizing the mother) I don't see the problem. I know there are some crazy people out there who would disagree with me, but I would think that most all of us on this forum at least are decent enough (I hope) that you would all agree with me that criminalizing a mother for aborting her child before it is born is wrong no matter what. Can you think of a single instance where you would use force against a mother for aborting her child before it was born? I certainly can't.

So I'm pro-choice all the way and it seems absurd for anyone to hold a different view unless you expand the definition of pro-choice to include the question of whether you are going to give mothers the right to choose to abort their children or not after their child has been born. Does anyone here have a different view on the issue? In other words: is there anyone here who can think of an instance where they would want to criminalize a mother for aborting their child before the child is born? I know you may not like it if a mother aborts her child before the child is born in many situations, but I doubt any of you would go as far as criminalizing the mother for her actions.

[Aaryan]

A sleeping person cannot suffer until later, if, say, you fill the room with a poisonous gas that kills them in their sleep peacefully. Would you do that to a sleeping person? I hope not...

Yes, however, a developing fetus does not know, or feel anything at all; and it has not had any effect on this world. Once it is, say, a day old, it is considered human. If it cannot feel anything, it should be the mother's choice.

I feel like I am barging in...

[peace*out]

wait - maybe i read it wrong, but you were saying that if the baby should be aborted, it should be after the baby's born? like "have a 30 day trial, and if you dont like it, kill it" sorta thing? o.O