[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.

[Aaryan]

Me? I didn't say anything like that.

[peace*out]

Me? I didn't say anything like that.

not you. above you. UTF.

and dont worry - your not barging in. these topics are for you to reply!

[unreality]

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.

Chicken eggs are unfertilized. And it's a non-human animal, which we eat aplenty of (even post-birth animals too, ie, cows etc) but that's not what this debate is about, regardless of whether it is ethically correct to kill other animals. We're talking about killing other humans here.

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.

Skin cells can't be made into humans as far as I know. And if they can, it's a procedure that is different from the natural progression of things (whereas the fetus => birth => baby is the natural progression of things and that will indeed happen (with a high success rate) if left alone (i.e. not aborted).

To be clear, in the event where the success rate is predicted to be low and the mother's life at risk, I am in favor of abortions, just like any other triage at a hospital. But most childbirths go 'according to plan' and produce living human beings...

...unless interrupted. Then the human being will not exist.

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.

That's not the point. What if a living adult is dependent on my nutrients for survival. Like somehow, a portion of everything I eat goes to them. Despite this, you would probably call it murder if I killed my "parasite".

I think it's a sad world when we call potential humans "parasites" to justify aborting them for mostly selfish reasons...

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.

And a day before it is able to function, it is not alive by your reasoning. Say in 8 hours it will have crossed the grey area and be "alive" by your reckoning and then you support criminilization of aborting it. But now (8 hours before this time), you are somehow pro-abortion??

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

I'm well aware of the sperm-egg analogy. But it's a matter of probability. At one point does it become quite likely that a new human is going to enter this world? At that point, it is too precious to kill. I could never kill it at least, though you seem to be bent by society into thinking it's okay to do this. So yes, a line must be drawn. But for me, that line is fairly early (once we are fairly positive that a new human will come to exist as a result of what's going on). And yes, past that point, I believe it is murder.

thats like saying dont not pick at your skin because then the dust mites wont have any food.

Once again, other animals are not the subject here. Dust mites aren't people and aren't as precious to me as people are. But apparently you see dust mites and people as being on the same (rather low) pedestal...

if the baby's aborted, does it make a difference to now? no.

This obsession with the present!! What about the future??? What about one day before birth?? It still isn't conscious but it seems like murder now doesn't it? As I said above, I draw the line at the point when it becomes very likely a new human will come to exist. And I think that answers UtF's post too

[unreality]

by the way, I have no intentions of coming off as mean or condescending, I'm just really really tired And I think this issue is somewhat important (though actually not really that important, I ultimately don't care all that much what the law(s) on abortion is(area) )

[peace*out]

Chicken eggs are unfertilized. And it's a non-human animal, which we eat aplenty of (even post-birth animals too, ie, cows etc) but that's not what this debate is about, regardless of whether it is ethically correct to kill other animals. We're talking about killing other humans here.

its more of the point that when people eat an egg, they dont think of it becoming a baby chick. they think of it as an egg. its the way you look at it. when you say fetus, you say "potential human." but when you say egg, you think either "egg" or "breakfast" - not "potential chicken."

Skin cells can't be made into humans as far as I know. And if they can, it's a procedure that is different from the natural progression of things (whereas the fetus => birth => baby is the natural progression of things and that will indeed happen (with a high success rate) if left alone (i.e. not aborted).

To be clear, in the event where the success rate is predicted to be low and the mother's life at risk, I am in favor of abortions, just like any other triage at a hospital. But most childbirths go 'according to plan' and produce living human beings...

...unless interrupted. Then the human being will not exist.

still - its a piece of life. think about it. person x is pregnant. its not like person x is carrying kids inside of kids inside of kids and so on. person x is carrying potential kids, and as those kids grow, THEY start growing potential kids. life does come from a single cell that forms and grows. and while tounge cells dont do that, were not trying to compare apples and oranges. THEY'RE JUST CELLS. and unless they can function, its not life. im not saying cut a person in half and say "har-de-har-har, they're just cells," but if you have skin cells - they're just cells. together they form life. im not talking about the potential, im talking about right here, right now. *starts singing HSM3*

That's not the point. What if a living adult is dependent on my nutrients for survival. Like somehow, a portion of everything I eat goes to them. Despite this, you would probably call it murder if I killed my "parasite".

I think it's a sad world when we call potential humans "parasites" to justify aborting them for mostly selfish reasons...

what do you mean by that? like you care for them like a grandparent in a nursing home? or is it that they literally absorb half of your food?

parasite |ˈparəˌsīt|

noun

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

• derogatory a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Parasites exist in huge variety, including animals, plants, and microorganisms. They may live as ectoparasites on the surface of the host (e.g., arthropods such as ticks, mites, lice, fleas, and many insects infesting plants) or as endoparasites in the gut or tissues (e.g., many kinds of worm), and cause varying degrees of damage or disease to the host.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek parasitos ‘(person) eating at another's table,’ from para- ‘alongside’ + sitos ‘food.’

then yes, it is a parasite.

And a day before it is able to function, it is not alive by your reasoning. Say in 8 hours it will have crossed the grey area and be "alive" by your reckoning and then you support criminilization of aborting it. But now (8 hours before this time), you are somehow pro-abortion??

yes. that may sound crazy, but yes. thats like cooking a chick. before the egg hatches into a chick, will you boil it? yeah, sure! YUMMY! but after? you wouldnt just drop a chick into a pot of boiling hot water! or would you? cause if you would...we need to open up a thread about animal cruelty.

I'm well aware of the sperm-egg analogy. But it's a matter of probability. At one point does it become quite likely that a new human is going to enter this world? At that point, it is too precious to kill. I could never kill it at least, though you seem to be bent by society into thinking it's okay to do this. So yes, a line must be drawn. But for me, that line is fairly early (once we are fairly positive that a new human will come to exist as a result of what's going on). And yes, past that point, I believe it is murder.

i know you place less of value on animal life than human, but think about it in terms of animal life. again, the chicken and the egg. we're all mammals. so if you think an egg is going to be fertilized, is it bad to take it for your own good? (aka, dye it/eat it)

what did the egg say to the pot off boiling water?

sorry if it takes me a while to become hard - i just got laid last night.

get it? get...yeah sorry. i thought i was kinda funny...

Once again, other animals are not the subject here. Dust mites aren't people and aren't as precious to me as people are. But apparently you see dust mites and people as being on the same (rather low) pedestal...

...its a metaphor, or whatever you call it. analogy? its a parallel. its my version of saying, how is that other argument wrong?

This obsession with the present!! What about the future??? What about one day before birth?? It still isn't conscious but it seems like murder now doesn't it? As I said above, I draw the line at the point when it becomes very likely a new human will come to exist. And I think that answers UtF's post too

fine. lets say no present. the more and more people that earth takes on, the worse it will be. we're still recovering from an ice age, and global warming isnt that things are rising, its that they're rising at a larger rate. at some point, if we have the technology, well move onto other planets or SOMETHING. but do you wnat to increase the number of people living on the streets/the number of people in general? wars take out a good number of humans, but at some point...ever heard of Malthus's Law? (I have sources for once! )

(if you cant read ^^)

quantity vs. time, after a while there will be the stripes or "crisis."

- - - - - = population

–––––––– = resources

Edited June 2, 2011 by peace*out

[Guest]

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

No, no. Of course the earlier you have your abortion the better in my opinion. I'm just saying that if for some odd reason a mother didn't get around abortion her baby until the baby was week old I would probably be okay with that. I mean, I probably wouldn't like it any may not agree with the mother's choice, but I wouldn't declare the mother a murderer. So while I might not like the mother's decision to kill her one week old baby I wouldn't criminalize her for it either.

[peace*out]

No, no. Of course the earlier you have your abortion the better in my opinion. I'm just saying that if for some odd reason a mother didn't get around abortion her baby until the baby was week old I would probably be okay with that. I mean, I probably wouldn't like it any may not agree with the mother's choice, but I wouldn't declare the mother a murderer. So while I might not like the mother's decision to kill her one week old baby I wouldn't criminalize her for it either.

ahhhhh...

i will say that i do disagree with that late of a deadline (i mean, if the babys a baby, then you should give it up for adoption). just adding my opinion.

[Aaryan]

Chicken eggs are unfertilized. And it's a non-human animal, which we eat aplenty of (even post-birth animals too, ie, cows etc) but that's not what this debate is about, regardless of whether it is ethically correct to kill other animals. We're talking about killing other humans here.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be looking at humans as superior. If we can eat a chicken egg, then an abortions should be the same.

[Guest]

ahhhhh...

i will say that i do disagree with that late of a deadline (i mean, if the babys a baby, then you should give it up for adoption). just adding my opinion.

I would like it if parents gave up their week-old babies for adoption rather than killing them in a lot of cases also, but if the parent didn't do what I wanted and instead killed their child, what would I do about it? Would I support having the state fine the mother or arrest or punish her in some other way forcefully? No I wouldn't. So while I may be opposed to mothers getting abortions (and killing their babies) a lot of the time, my political view on the subject is that the mother can choose to abort her baby even in the days right after the baby is born. I may not like it, but I'm not going to criminalize the mother for killing her baby unless it's at least several months old. Maybe I'll socially ostracize her if I know her, but that's about it.

[unreality]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be looking at humans as superior.

Objectively I don't view humans as superior. All animals are part of a vast interconnected ecosystem and all have a part to play in nature. Humans have even overstepped their boundaries and become a scourge to the Earth, a major problem to the natural balance. We are a virus on the planet.

But subjectively, yes, the closer something is on the family tree to me, the more "important" it is for me personally. So whereas I don't raise as much of a fuss when we eat chicken eggs (which aren't even fertilized by the way... eggs can't even hatch!), eating baby lambs is a bigger problem I think, etc.

It seems my playing devil's advocate didn't really get us anywhere, but in reality this logic has been in the back of my mind the whole time:

fine. lets say no present. the more and more people that earth takes on, the worse it will be. we're still recovering from an ice age, and global warming isnt that things are rising, its that they're rising at a larger rate. at some point, if we have the technology, well move onto other planets or SOMETHING. but do you wnat to increase the number of people living on the streets/the number of people in general?

In the end, the less humans, probably the better I guess. So fine I concede. I don't like abortions and I still think there's a line to be drawn SOMEWHERE in the process, but I will give a little ground and agree that most women should not be penalized by the state for making this choice...

[peace*out]

It seems my playing devil's advocate didn't really get us anywhere, but in reality this logic has been in the back of my mind the whole time:

In the end, the less humans, probably the better I guess. So fine I concede. I don't like abortions and I still think there's a line to be drawn SOMEWHERE in the process, but I will give a little ground and agree that most women should not be penalized by the state for making this choice...

...of course. you had the answer the entire time. and you were hinting at it. and...sneaky sneaky unreality

I do have to admit, i dont like abortions either, but in terms of rights, i do feel that someone shouldnt have a say over someone else's body.

that was the best argument that ive had in a long time!

[Guest]

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...

I disagree on your saying that the fetus is only a potential human. At the point of conception, where the sperm and egg meet, is where life begins. The fetus is growing. It may not be able to feel or think, but that's only because it hasn't developed that much. So I'm not killing potential human life by wasting sperm and eggs, but killing the fetus when the two have joined is where I draw the line.

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.

If the child is unloved and unwanted, that's the parents problem for not caring for their child. I understand that can be harsh, but if the parents aren't willing to care for the kid, don't get the kid. But if the child's conception was unintentional (such as rape) that isn't any more excuse for terminating. There will always be someone willing to care for a child. The parent just has to look hard enough. Their life has been messed up a lot already by having the child, so going a little more out of the way to at least make sure it gets cared for is necessary.

Like I said before, thinking comes with the development of the child. It's still human, which brings me to recall my whole argument I posted up earlier. I don't believe the fetus is mere potential. There are only four differences between unborn and born, and those aren't significant enough to differentiate between human and potential.

[Guest]

I disagree on your saying that the fetus is only a potential human. At the point of conception, where the sperm and egg meet, is where life begins. The fetus is growing. It may not be able to feel or think, but that's only because it hasn't developed that much. So I'm not killing potential human life by wasting sperm and eggs, but killing the fetus when the two have joined is where I draw the line.

Fair enough that you should think so, but "human" is just a word, whose meaning is unclear in this case, and morality just a matter of opinion. When people believe morality to be well defined and universal, they form extreme views on subjects such as this, because the idea of it being a grey area is displeasing to them. I don't know if that is the case here, but IMO your view is fairly extreme, since it suggests that a microscopic organism, incapable of survival on its own, incapable of thought or feeling and unaware of its own existence, is no different in moral terms than a full grown human being. Somewhere along the line the fetus becomes human in terms that everyone can agree on. Since there is no clear point at which this occurs, there is no clear point at which abortion becomes immoral.

[unreality]

Fair enough that you should think so, but "human" is just a word, whose meaning is unclear in this case, and morality just a matter of opinion. When people believe morality to be well defined and universal, they form extreme views on subjects such as this, because the idea of it being a grey area is displeasing to them. I don't know if that is the case here, but IMO your view is fairly extreme, since it suggests that a microscopic organism, incapable of survival on its own, incapable of thought or feeling and unaware of its own existence, is no different in moral terms than a full grown human being. Somewhere along the line the fetus becomes human in terms that everyone can agree on. Since there is no clear point at which this occurs, there is no clear point at which abortion becomes immoral.

Right right and I love playing el diablo so much I'm going to hop in again for a second, by that same logic, you're fine with murdering 2-year old people? (you know I'm not suggesting that you are fine with it, I'm suggesting that you're not fine with it (presumably) leading you to conclude that there must be a line somewhere however fuzzy the reality seems to be...)

[peace*out]

I disagree on your saying that the fetus is only a potential human. At the point of conception, where the sperm and egg meet, is where life begins. The fetus is growing. It may not be able to feel or think, but that's only because it hasn't developed that much. So I'm not killing potential human life by wasting sperm and eggs, but killing the fetus when the two have joined is where I draw the line.

If the child is unloved and unwanted, that's the parents problem for not caring for their child. I understand that can be harsh, but if the parents aren't willing to care for the kid, don't get the kid. But if the child's conception was unintentional (such as rape) that isn't any more excuse for terminating. There will always be someone willing to care for a child. The parent just has to look hard enough. Their life has been messed up a lot already by having the child, so going a little more out of the way to at least make sure it gets cared for is necessary.

Like I said before, thinking comes with the development of the child. It's still human, which brings me to recall my whole argument I posted up earlier. I don't believe the fetus is mere potential. There are only four differences between unborn and born, and those aren't significant enough to differentiate between human and potential.

from: http://www.rykersdream.com/Statistics.html

Laos

Estimated total – 1000 (1990’s) “It is stated that there are 20,000 orphaned children in Laos. There are only three

orphanages in the whole country providing places for a total of 1,000 of these children.” No Title. by Anneli Dahlbom

broken source link

Rwanda

Total – 5000 Out of 400,000 orphans, 5,000 are living in orphanages. Read “Social Protection of Africa’s Orphans and

Other Vulnerable Children.” African Region Human Development Working Series Paper source

Tajikistan

Approximate total – 9,000 (1997) “No one can be sure how many lone children are there in the republic. About 9,000

are in internats and in orphanages.” Read “Children and the Society,” by Natalia Bruker, Irada Guseinova. Asia Plus

(1997) source

Tanzania

Approximate total – 3000 “Currently, there are 52 orphanages in Tanzania caring for about 3,000 orphans and

vulnerable children.”

Read “A Program on Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Aids affected areas in Tanzania.” Axios International source

^^do you really think there will always be someone to care for these children? just saying. :/

[Guest]

Right right and I love playing el diablo so much I'm going to hop in again for a second, by that same logic, you're fine with murdering 2-year old people? (you know I'm not suggesting that you are fine with it, I'm suggesting that you're not fine with it (presumably) leading you to conclude that there must be a line somewhere however fuzzy the reality seems to be...)

No, I think at some point you have to consider human beings as equal with regards to whether you can murder them, and it seems sensible to me that birth should be that point. You could justify that by saying that birth is the point where a baby stops being a parasite and becomes self-supporting at least as far as life support functions are concerned. But really I just think you have to draw the line and unlike Use the Force I'd draw it there, because it seems the obvious place to draw it. But that's more of a legal matter than a moral one. I would not consider a mother killing a newborn to be as immoral as a mother killing a five year old child, but in both cases I would want it to be illegal (though in the former case, the appropriate action would probably be counselling rather than punishment).

During the 9 months of pregnancy I'd consider it a moral issue, and thus more open to debate. The abortion of a newly-fertilised egg is something I consider of no moral importance except as far as it affects the woman concerned. Then there is a sliding scale where the longer you leave it, the less I would condone it. Abortion at, say, 8 months is almost as immoral as killing a newborn and I would expect it to be unacceptable practice for doctors unless it was a choice between saving the child or saving the mother. So the notion of a "right to life" begins before birth but it kicks in gradually rather than at a well defined point.

[Guest]

^^do you really think there will always be someone to care for these children? just saying. :/

Yes, but that's the unfortunate part. Not all of these kids are in touch with those willing to care for them. That's what I mean by saying "willing," not that someone will always be there, but there are those of us that wan't to, but can't.

[peace*out]

"its the thought that counts" ~ random saying

yes, but sometimes the thoughts not enough...

if the people who are willing, wont, then they wont. if they will, there really shouldnt be as many orphanages as there are.