The Abortion Thread

[GI Cake]

A penny saved is worth two in the bush.

 

[Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker]

Don't eat cheese before noon

 

[DirtyJosé]

I'd like to point out that TWICE I have impregnated a girl through birth control and condoms. I'd like to think I have mutant sperm, but the greater message is that no form of birth control is 100%, even when combined. So there's that for all of you just going "be responsible and use protection".

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

There is no such thing as a vegetarian who eats fish. Anyone who claims to be a vegetarian but eats fish is a hypocrite. Fish meat is meat, just like poultry, pork and beef. Eat fish, you eat meat, therefore you are not a vegetarian.

I knew a hipster chick in high school who was a "vegetarian" that ate meat once in awhile. I asked her how that made sense and she said something along the lines of "I only do it a few times a year, that doesn't count."

Boggled my mind.

 

[Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker]

I know that I said I was done but I just felt like I had to say one more thing

I just want to say what point are you trying to make why are all these people who claim to be Pro-Choice going to against me? Pro-Choice means that it is the women’s choice to do whatever she wants if she gets pregnant. If she doesn't want to be pregnant and wants to use an abortion as her first option then that is her choice. That’s the whole point of being Pro-Choice you believe the women has the right to choose whatever she wants. Being pro-choice is still pro-abortion even though you think she should consider the other options first.

I'm tired of people who claim to be pro-choice going against me it doesn’t really make sense. Now I'm done with this discussion, after everything I have said I feel like my point was perfectly made and I can't explain myself anymore.

 

[iwinulose]

my friend please make paragraphs not this huge ass posts with noe spaces between every 3 -5 sentences......... and reread what you type......

you make little to no sence man, your opinions cross each other, need to get you shit together and i say that in a nice way. i do agree that females should have the right to decide if they want to get an abortion that should totally be their choice, it is their body, thats about the only thing i agree with you on, the rest of what you have said make no sence man.

 

[Milkyway!]

my friend please make paragraphs not this huge ass posts

You've got a singular/plural issue going on here bud.

with noe spaces between every 3 -5 sentences.........

You've got a misspelling, and ".........." isn't punctuation.

and reread what you type......

Forgot your hyphen, bro.

you make little to no sence man,

Oh lookie, another misspelling.

need to get you shit together and i say that in a nice way. i

Maybe you need to get your shit together. This is the English language, please be selfish enough to capitalize your "i."

i do agree that females should have the right to decide if they want to get an abortion that should totally be their choice, it is their body, thats about the only thing i agree with you on, the rest of what you have said make no sence man.

Another misspelling, you forgot your apostrophe, another capitalization issue, another singular//plural contradiction, and you have about 5 comma splices (I didn't actually count them.)

Before you grammatically critique someone fix your own shit first.

 

[Slyfox696]

Being pro-choice is still pro-abortion even though you think she should consider the other options first.

No it isn't, that's a completely stupid thing to say.

Be pro-abortion means you are for aborting fetuses. Being pro-choice means you are for giving the woman the right to choose what to do with her body. Being pro-choice doesn't have to mean you are comfortable with abortion, merely that you see the right of the woman being most important. You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice.

Allow me to illustrate this for you.

Abortion<----------Choice---------->Birth

Being pro-life means you feel the woman HAS to give birth, she has no other options. Being pro-abortion means the woman HAS to have an abortion, she has no other options. Being pro-choice means the woman gets to decide which direction she takes. Pro-choice is also about giving the woman the right to choose to give birth. China's policy of one child only per family, where any child you conceive after the first is automatically destroyed without any decision being made by the woman, is pro-abortion. We're talking about pro-choice.

Don't say stupid things just because you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Don't say stupid things just because you don't understand what you're talking about.

That ship sailed about 8 or 9 shitty threads ago.

 

[Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker]

Allow me to repeat myself

Pro-Choice means that it is the women&#8217;s choice to do whatever she wants if she gets pregnant. If she doesn't want to be pregnant and wants to use an abortion as her first option then that is her choice.

You can be pro-choice and be against abortion just because you wouldn't do it but it doesn't mean someone else can't if that&#8217;s the way the women wants it then is her choice Your just against abortions on your own body.

Don't be pro-choice and tell other women she shouldn't get an abortion if she wants to get one just because you personally wouldn't get an abortion that defeats the purpose of being Pro-Choice

The choice is for the women who&#8217;s pregnant to make Not for you or me to make to make that decision


The policy they have in China isn't that bad that country is over populated

 

[Mustang Sally]

Be pro-abortion means you are for aborting fetuses. Being pro-choice means you are for giving the woman the right to choose what to do with her body. Being pro-choice doesn't have to mean you are comfortable with abortion, merely that you see the right of the woman being most important.

Exactly. I can't see myself ever having an abortion; the thought of the procedure makes me uneasy. Still, how I feel about it for myself has no bearing on how I feel about it for other women. I don't see that my personal preferences should affect the actions of someone else. I don't know their circumstances; it's none of my business.

I'm pro-choice and I like the concept of "choice" better than "no-choice." Pro-life people probably wouldn't care to be described as anti-choice, yet that's what they are. They're not offering anything else concerning abortion; they're saying: "You'll do things my way and that's the only way you'll do them." As we've seen in many areas of life, there are tons of people who are perfectly comfortable dictating how others should be living their lives. Personally, I don't feel competent to do that.

A former friend of mine (named Sharon) was pro-life (anti-choice) She spent years fighting against women's rights to have an abortion, even becoming an officer of Birthright and actively working to make it illegal. One day, her husband accidentally let slip that Sharon had had an abortion. Needless to say, a couple of us went ballistic on her; after all we had heard her rant, rave and sermonize about abortion being forbidden under God's laws, she saw fit to handle her own unwanted pregnancy by having an abortion and keeping the truth from those of us who had been listening to her for years. When we protested, Sharon looked at us as if we had gone insane, proclaiming: "Oh, but mine was a special case!"

Can you imagine? In her self-righteousness, she didn't allow herself to understand that every woman's own pregnancy is a special case, and if Sharon claimed the right to handle it as she chose, how could she justify trying to take the choice from someone else? The hypocrisy was almost beyond belief as she sought to justify her actions.

Choice is always better. If you're a woman who gets pregnant and doesn't want an abortion.....fine and dandy, no one's going to force you to have one. But if you do want it, it's comforting to know you can choose what's best for yourself. If the anti-choicers ever succeed in getting the laws changed legislatively, they won't be stopping abortions; there are two generations of women who've known nothing but legalized abortion. Some won't have the procedure, but others will find a way to get it done; often by dangerous means. While the anti-choicers are kissing their own images in the mirror for having the procedure outlawed, there are going to be a lot more women walking around damaged by botched abortion attempts, along with a lot more unwanted children trying to make their in the world.

Choice.

 

[Davi323]

This is one of the fundamental differences those of us who are pro-life have with the pro-choice people. We also believe that a woman should be able to do whatever with her body, we just don't believe that the fetus is actually considered her body. Because it has a unique genetic signature separate from that of the mother, it is a separate life form. Therefore, while a woman has a right to her body, she does not necessarily have the right to the fetus's. If you believe that a fetus is indeed a human being, as I do, then it should have a right to life, just like everyone else. A fetus grows inside the mother, receives nutrients from the mother, BUT IS NOT the mother. It is it's own unique person. Humanity is not granted from merely passing through a vagina or being surgically extracted via C-section. Humanity is something that is fundamental, something that is inherent, a core part of who we are, not something that can be granted or denied. Pro-Choice people want to play god by withholding that humanity from a baby until it is born, as if it's humanity is yours to give.

You all have the exact same genetic code that you had in your mother's womb. Nothing altered that between the time you were gestating and now. Is your genetic code uniquely yours, or is it not? If you are yourself now, why weren't you yourself then?

 

[SalvIsWin]

This is one of the fundamental differences those of us who are pro-life have with the pro-choice people. We also believe that a woman should be able to do whatever with her body, we just don't believe that the fetus is actually considered her body. Because it has a unique genetic signature separate from that of the mother, it is a separate life form. Therefore, while a woman has a right to her body, she does not necessarily have the right to the fetus's. If you believe that a fetus is indeed a human being, as I do, then it should have a right to life, just like everyone else. A fetus grows inside the mother, receives nutrients from the mother, BUT IS NOT the mother. It is it's own unique person. Humanity is not granted from merely passing through a vagina or being surgically extracted via C-section. Humanity is something that is fundamental, something that is inherent, a core part of who we are, not something that can be granted or denied. Pro-Choice people want to play god by withholding that humanity from a baby until it is born, as if it's humanity is yours to give.

You all have the exact same genetic code that you had in your mother's womb. Nothing altered that between the time you were gestating and now. Is your genetic code uniquely yours, or is it not? If you are yourself now, why weren't you yourself then?

The fetus is a part of her body, I don't see how that they can be argued. Eventually, after birth, it will not be a part of her body, but until that time, it is. You're essentially saying:

'Look, the mother should have choice over her own body, except that I don't think that a fetus is a part of her body, therefore I think that she should be forced to do something with her body that she doesn't want to do.'

That makes no sense. You think people should make their own decisions about their body, except that pro-life people want to make those decisions for that person instead. Giving birth and growing a baby inside a body takes both the mother and the fetus, they're both entwined, you can't separate one from the other, that's the point. Aborting a fetus is making a choice about her own body and making a choice for the fetus - it's both.

It comes down to what you value more - the right of the woman to her own body, or the right of a fetus to its own body. I see the woman as a higher form of life than the fetus, and as the fetus becomes more and more complete that's where a lot of pro-choice people start to think that you shouldn't have the right to abort a baby at that point, because it will feel pain or reasons like that, people's values change.

Abortion sucks, but it's stupid to force someone to have a fetus they don't want, you're not doing that future baby any favours by forcing their birth. The most sensible thing is to educate people on contraception and other safe sex measures so that this shit doesn't happen, but if it does, then the choice is the mothers. In the case of the latter, a fetus that would have grown to be a human is lost, that sucks but it's something we're better off with than forcing people to have children, more harm is done that way that the former.

 

[Vega]

In Germany, there's the rule that you can abort until three months after the begin of pregnancy or even a little later when circumstances are special (rape etc.), which I think is a good compromise.

Like in every ethical question, the affected interests have to be considered and weighed. When a sperm cell merges with an egg cell, we still have two cells and no sentient being whose interests could be disregarded, because there aren't any. On the other hand, a baby being born has an interest in living, so we shouldn't kill it.
Therefore, the obvious question is: When does consciousness begin, when are interests formed and when can they be considered stronger than those of the mother? It has to be somewhere between the begin of pregnancy and nine months later, around a point where brain and nerves are developed and function. It doesn't make sense to set the deadline earlier, because there would be just the mother's interests, but later and you kill someone who has a strong interest in living.

We have to rely on research here, and it showed that this point can be set around three months after cell merging, so I think it's a good compromise to go with that rule.

 

[SalvIsWin]

In Germany, there's the rule that you can abort until three months after the begin of pregnancy or even a little later when circumstances are special (rape etc.), which I think is a good compromise.

Like in every ethical question, the affected interests have to be considered and weighed. When a sperm cell merges with an egg cell, we still have two cells and no sentient being whose interests could be disregarded, because there aren't any. On the other hand, a baby being born has an interest in living, so we shouldn't kill it.
Therefore, the obvious question is: When does consciousness begin, when are interests formed and when can they be considered stronger than those of the mother? It has to be somewhere between the begin of pregnancy and nine months later, around a point where brain and nerves are developed and function. It doesn't make sense to set the deadline earlier, because there would be just the mother's interests, but later and you kill someone who has a strong interest in living.

We have to rely on research here, and it showed that this point can be set around three months after cell merging, so I think it's a good compromise to go with that rule.

Agreed, and I think most pro-choice people with agree with a familiar compromise.

 

[Davi323]

The fetus is a part of her body, I don't see how that they can be argued. Eventually, after birth, it will not be a part of her body, but until that time, it is.

No, it is not part of her body. It is growing inside her body. The mother has a specific genetic code that is unique to her. If the baby was a part of her body, it would have the same genetic code. It does not, therefore it is separate being from her.

Giving birth and growing a baby inside a body takes both the mother and the fetus, they're both entwined, you can't separate one from the other, that's the point. Aborting a fetus is making a choice about her own body and making a choice for the fetus - it's both.

This is exactly why abortion is wrong. It is making a choice about her own body, but it is also about making a choice for the fetus. Based on the language you used, you acknowledge that a fetus is a separate life form from the mother, otherwise you wouldn't need to point out that it takes both. Both implies plural, not singular. In fact, this quote disproves the first quote. Either the fetus is just another part of the mothers body, as you indicate in the first, or it is a separate being, requiring the plural language from the 2nd quote. You can't have it both ways.

If it's just part of the mother's body, then there is no plurality, the baby IS her, and there is no need for the mother and fetus to form a partnership to grow the baby to term. You can't be a partner with yourself.

If the baby is NOT the mother, but a separate entity, as I am arguing, then you cannot argue that abortion is merely the choice of a woman's control over her body, because it does not just affect her, it affects the child too. It's why a criminal who kills a pregnant woman can be charged for a double homicide, because not only does the mother count, but so does the unborn baby.

Think about that for a second. Legally, an unborn child can be murdered. In order to be murdered, based on how the law defines murder, that unborn child must be considered to be a human being. Yet, the same laws say that it is not murder to abort an unborn child. It's murder if someone else does it, but not murder if a doctor does it? Bullshit. It is a huge inconsistency within the law. If an unborn child can be murdered, because it is human, how in the blue fuck can abortion not be considered murder? Murder isn't defined by the occupation of the murderer, it's defined by the victims. If an unborn baby is a human being, it is a human being, and has the same right to life as anyone else.

And if it has that right to life, it is certainly far more important than a 9 month inconvenience to the mother.

It comes down to what you value more - the right of the woman to her own body, or the right of a fetus to its own body.

Right to life > Right to body.

The mother's right to her body only extends to her body. The second that right encroaches on the right of the unborn baby to live, it takes a backstep. It must. We already accept the general premise that rights, even Constitutionally protected ones, only extend so far, that they stop being a right as soon as it encroaches on someone else's rights...Abortion by it's very definition, denies that baby it's fundamental right to live. The inconvenience of the woman to not have total control over her body is a temporary one only. The inconvenience of that unborn baby losing it's right to life is a little more permanent, wouldn't you say?

The mother has the ability to express her rights, the baby does not. The baby is completely incapable of defending itself. It cannot speak up, cannot complain about it's rights being trampled on. It is completely powerless to prevent the violation of it's rights. Don't we have a moral duty to protect the rights of those who cannot speak up for themselves over the rights of those that can? Isn't there something inherently wrong about being willing to completely trample the rights of a human being simply because it lacks the capacity to stand up for itself and demand that you respect those rights?

 

[Slyfox696]

Allow me to repeat myself

Pro-Choice means that it is the women&#8217;s choice to do whatever she wants if she gets pregnant. If she doesn't want to be pregnant and wants to use an abortion as her first option then that is her choice.

You can be pro-choice and be against abortion just because you wouldn't do it but it doesn't mean someone else can't if that&#8217;s the way the women wants it then is her choice Your just against abortions on your own body.

Don't be pro-choice and tell other women she shouldn't get an abortion if she wants to get one just because you personally wouldn't get an abortion that defeats the purpose of being Pro-Choice

The choice is for the women who&#8217;s pregnant to make Not for you or me to make to make that decision


The policy they have in China isn't that bad that country is over populated

Shhh...the grownups are talking now. The time for your silliness has ended. Sit off to the side like a good little boy, and let the big people talk now.

We also believe that a woman should be able to do whatever with her body, we just don't believe that the fetus is actually considered her body.

Two things:

1) The fetus cannot survive on its own outside the mother's body.

2) Forcing a woman to carry through with a pregnancy is STILL telling her what to do with her body. Even if you consider the fetus is not part of her, the fetus is still a drain on her strength, causes hormonal shifts and imbalances, causes weight gain and mobility loss, requires regular doctor visits and checkups, etc. Even if you feel the fetus is not part of the mother (a view I disagree with, since, as I said, the fetus cannot survive on its own without the mother's body), you cannot deny carrying a fetus still causes issues with the mother's body, and by forcing her to carry the baby until birth, you ARE telling her what to do with her body, or more appropriately, what she cannot do with her body.

Pro-Choice people want to play god by withholding that humanity from a baby until it is born, as if it's humanity is yours to give.

And I would argue anti-choice people (I like Mustang Sally's term) are playing dictator with other people's bodies. While there may be a question of whether or not God exists, there is no question people in the United States do not want dictators.

Ironically enough, it's USUALLY Republicans who are the ones who are for "smaller government" who wish to pass government regulations telling people what they can and cannot do with their own body. That's not to start a Democrat vs. Republican argument, it's just ironic. I only bring it up because I know you side with Republicans and it made me think of it. Nothing personal.

 

[Davi323]

An infant cannot survive without the help of others either. What difference does it make? Whether the child is in the womb or in a crib, it is completely incapable of survival without the assistance of external forces. Does that make an infant less human as well?

What difference does it make if a baby receives it's nutrients through an umbilical cord or through drinking breast milk? Either way it is completely helpless and incapable of survival on it's own.

How about someone in a coma? They cannot survive without all kinds of external intervention...did they lose their humanity the second they lost consciousness? Is a quadreplegic less human because he or she cannot walk, cannot feed themselves, cannot dress themselves? Is someone with a severe mental handicap (beyond typical Down's Syndrome, etc) who is incapable of surviving on their own not human either? Should a parent be able to kill their severely handicapped child because of how it has and will inconvience them? Because of the stress that child will cause, both emotional and financial, etc?

If humanity is based on the ability to survive without intervention, you have just opened up a huge can of worms. It's a very, very poor argument to make, because it opens up a world of possibilities.

(You were responding to the initial response to SalvIsWin's post I made, that has since been revised for additional content. The rest of this was more or less addressed in my additional edits to that post, so does not need readdressing here)

 

[Vega]

How about someone in a coma? They cannot survive without all kinds of external intervention...did they lose their humanity the second they lost consciousness? Is a quadreplegic less human because he or she cannot walk, cannot feed themselves, cannot dress themselves? Is someone with a severe mental handicap (beyond typical Down's Syndrome, etc) who is incapable of surviving on their own not human either? Should a parent be able to kill their severely handicapped child because of how it has and will inconvience them? Because of the stress that child will cause, both emotional and financial, etc?

No, but not because they're human, but because they want to live. And that interest is stronger than the interests in "free time" or "money" that are negatively affected.
The same can't be said about growing cells inside a woman's body, until there's a certain level of complexity at least.

 

[Slyfox696]

An infant cannot survive without the help of others either. What difference does it make? Whether the child is in the womb or in a crib, it is completely incapable of survival without the assistance of external forces. Does that make an infant less human as well?

Completely different and you know it.

What difference does it make if a baby receives it's nutrients through an umbilical cord or through drinking breast milk? Either way it is completely helpless and incapable of survival on it's own.

It matters because one is a function of human existence and the other isn't?

When was the last time you received nutrition through your belly button?

How about someone in a coma? They cannot survive without all kinds of external intervention...did they lose their humanity the second they lost consciousness?

Using that theory, I'm just as good of a basketball player as Michael Jordan, because neither of us play in the NBA. Of course, it ignores the fact he once DID play in the NBA, but since our situations are now similar, we're equal in basketball ability, right?

Again, different situations. The person in the coma had already been born, and had already been able to provide for themselves. A fetus has not.

Is a quadreplegic less human because he or she cannot walk, cannot feed themselves, cannot dress themselves? Is someone with a severe mental handicap (beyond typical Down's Syndrome, etc) who is incapable of surviving on their own not human either? Should a parent be able to kill their severely handicapped child because of how it has and will inconvience them? Because of the stress that child will cause, both emotional and financial, etc?

Your hyperbole shows the weakness you know exists in your argument.

If humanity is based on the ability to survive without intervention, you have just opened up a huge can of worms. It's a very, very poor argument to make, because it opens up a world of possibilities.

Except that wasn't my argument. My argument countered your argument of whether or not a fetus was part of a mother's body. I'm afraid you misunderstood what I was getting at.

 

[SalvIsWin]

No, it is not part of her body. It is growing inside her body. The mother has a specific genetic code that is unique to her. If the baby was a part of her body, it would have the same genetic code. It does not, therefore it is separate being from her.

The fetus is a separate being but until it's birthed it's reliant on the mother - that's what I'm trying to say. Ultimately what we call it is not important.

This is exactly why abortion is wrong. It is making a choice about her own body, but it is also about making a choice for the fetus. Based on the language you used, you acknowledge that a fetus is a separate life form from the mother, otherwise you wouldn't need to point out that it takes both. Both implies plural, not singular. In fact, this quote disproves the first quote. Either the fetus is just another part of the mothers body, as you indicate in the first, or it is a separate being, requiring the plural language from the 2nd quote. You can't have it both ways.

If it's just part of the mother's body, then there is no plurality, the baby IS her, and there is no need for the mother and fetus to form a partnership to grow the baby to term. You can't be a partner with yourself.

If the baby is NOT the mother, but a separate entity, as I am arguing, then you cannot argue that abortion is merely the choice of a woman's control over her body, because it does not just affect her, it affects the child too. It's why a criminal who kills a pregnant woman can be charged for a double homicide, because not only does the mother count, but so does the unborn baby.

Think about that for a second. Legally, an unborn child can be murdered. In order to be murdered, based on how the law defines murder, that unborn child must be considered to be a human being. Yet, the same laws say that it is not murder to abort an unborn child. It's murder if someone else does it, but not murder if a doctor does it? Bullshit. It is a huge inconsistency within the law. If an unborn child can be murdered, because it is human, how in the blue fuck can abortion not be considered murder? Murder isn't defined by the occupation of the murderer, it's defined by the victims. If an unborn baby is a human being, it is a human being, and has the same right to life as anyone else.

And if it has that right to life, it is certainly far more important than a 9 month inconvenience to the mother.

I'm not saying it's just a choice of the mother over her own body, where you say that it's not actually a part of the woman isn't really important, whatever we call it we can both agree that the choice is being made for both the fetus and the mother, and that giving birth or not giving birth involves both the fetus and the mother.

You're making an argument for me and than attacking it, I wouldn't even disagree that you're killing the fetus, obviously you are, call it murder if you want, I don't really care what terms you use, I wouldn't classify it as that but it's pretty much irrelevant.

Right to life > Right to body.

The mother's right to her body only extends to her body. The second that right encroaches on the right of the unborn baby to live, it takes a backstep. It must. We already accept the general premise that rights, even Constitutionally protected ones, only extend so far, that they stop being a right as soon as it encroaches on someone else's rights...Abortion by it's very definition, denies that baby it's fundamental right to live. The inconvenience of the woman to not have total control over her body is a temporary one only. The inconvenience of that unborn baby losing it's right to life is a little more permanent, wouldn't you say?

The mother has the ability to express her rights, the baby does not. The baby is completely incapable of defending itself. It cannot speak up, cannot complain about it's rights being trampled on. It is completely powerless to prevent the violation of it's rights. Don't we have a moral duty to protect the rights of those who cannot speak up for themselves over the rights of those that can? Isn't there something inherently wrong about being willing to completely trample the rights of a human being simply because it lacks the capacity to stand up for itself and demand that you respect those rights?

I agree that rights only extend so far, if I disagreed with that point that I would agree that you should be able to abort a fetus/baby up until the moment it's birthed, but I wouldn't agree with that. I'm also not disagreeing that by aborting a fetus you're denying it it's life.

Saying that going through a pregnancy is an inconvenience is really dumb, you're making it sound like it's just a minor hardship for the woman. There are effects of both, trying to say which is more permanent is irrelevant. If you abort the child, it's dead and no longer coming into this world, if you have the child, there are consequences of that - there's consequences for both choices.

Now about the fetus' rights being trampled on, it doesn't give a shit because it's a fucking fetus, it doesn't have conscious thought, it's not mulling over what it's going to do when it's alive, it's not thinking about that, it's a growing life that will eventually have those feelings, until it does though, it doesn't. The point is, there's no actually harm if you abort a fetus before three months. The fetus isn't aware of itself, it doesn't feel pain, and the mother doesn't have to go through the ordeal if she doesn't want to. You're actively causing harm by forcing the mother to go through the ordeal. Why does it matter whether the fetus is alive or dead, it's not a being that's even aware of itself or has an interest of self-preservation, it just is what it is until it's something more.

 

[Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker]

Slyfox

Can you show and tell me at what part I don't make any sense and where I'm wrong?

How come when I say a fetus can't survive outside the womb I'm dumb but when you say a fetus can't survive outside the womb your right?

Why are you going against me anyways?

 

[Davi323]

No, but not because they're human, but because they want to live. And that interest is stronger than the interests in "free time" or "money" that are negatively affected.

Oh, this should be fun...

How do you know a fetus doesn't want to live? Have you asked? Are you suggesting then, that abortion is actually fetal suicide, not homicide? For the record, I completely agree that it should be more important than free time or money that get negatively affected. That's my point. Don't you think that if you cannot ask the baby whether it wants to live or not, you should probably err on the side of caution and assume it does? If it doesn't want to live, when it gets old enough, it can self-correct the mistake. If it does want to live, and you kill it, it's irreversible. If life is a mistake, it can be corrected. If death is a mistake, it cannot.

The same can't be said about growing cells inside a woman's body, until there's a certain level of complexity at least.

What is that level of complexity, exactly? Nobody seems to agree on it. Some claim it's when the child can survive, some when the lungs are developed, some when it has a heart beat, some when there is brain activity. There is no consistency. That is a huge problem, don't you think?

If you and another "pro-choice" person believe that it becomes human and not just a cluster of cells at different times during a pregnancy, and a mutual friend of yours has an abortion somewhere in between those values, is it wrong? It either met or didn't meet some arbitrary threshold that you and your friend can't even agree to. Different people will believe in many different thresholds, yet all claim to be pro-choice. There is no absolute standard.

In fact, there is only one moment during the entire pregnancy, that you can't say that with. Before the sperm fertilizes the egg, it is not alive. After the sperm fertilizes the egg, it is. At that moment, a unique life form, with a unique genetic code has been created, when it did not exist before. That is the only point during the entire process that you can be absolutely sure that it wouldn't be murder.

If I am wrong about the timing, and humanity doesn't begin at conception, but much later, then I am wrong...but at least I don't have the blood of another human life on my hands. Can you say the same? What if human life begins earlier than you think? What are the consequences to your conscience if that is the case? The stakes are much higher if you are wrong than if I am. If you are going to err when it comes to the moment humanity is conferred onto a life form, isn't it MUCH more preferable to err on the side of caution and assume it's human the entire time? No blood on your hands if you are wrong that way.

Your hyperbole shows the weakness you know exists in your argument.

And your faith in your friends is yours...I mean, your lack of addressing it. Being inside something does make you that thing. Being attached to that something does not make you that thing. Needing that something in order to survive does not make you that thing.

Are conjoined twins one person, or two? They actually are physically attached to each other just like a mother and unborn child, they share nutrients with each other, just like a mother and unborn child. Hell, in some cases, they even share organs with each other. Yet, we consider them as twins, plural, as two separate entities, not as a single two-headed individual. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that an unborn child and a mother are two, not one?

Also, while I initially addressed this to SalvIsWin, you may feel free to answer it as well: Why can a criminal be charged with a double murder for killing a pregnant woman if the fetus inside is not a unique human being? If the fetus is just an extension of the mother, and not a separate human being, shouldn't the criminal only be charged once, not twice?

 

[SalvIsWin]

How do you know a fetus doesn't want to live? Have you asked? Are you suggesting then, that abortion is actually fetal suicide, not homicide? For the record, I completely agree that it should be more important than free time or money that get negatively affected. That's my point. Don't you think that if you cannot ask the baby whether it wants to live or not, you should probably err on the side of caution and assume it does? If it doesn't want to live, when it gets old enough, it can self-correct the mistake. If it does want to live, and you kill it, it's irreversible. If life is a mistake, it can be corrected. If death is a mistake, it cannot.

The point is that a fetus isn't complex enough of a being to even have those kind of thoughts, it's not even aware of itself, so it's not a matter of not being able to communicate whether it wants to live or not, it's a matter of the being not even being to comprehend thoughts at all.

What is that level of complexity, exactly? Nobody seems to agree on it. Some claim it's when the child can survive, some when the lungs are developed, some when it has a heart beat, some when there is brain activity. There is no consistency. That is a huge problem, don't you think?

There really isn't a huge inconsistency here except among those who aren't basing their opinion on science. Scientifically we know at what stage a fetus is capable of knowing it exists and having self-preservation, feelings of pain, etc.

If you and another "pro-choice" person believe that it becomes human and not just a cluster of cells at different times during a pregnancy, and a mutual friend of yours has an abortion somewhere in between those values, is it wrong? It either met or didn't meet some arbitrary threshold that you and your friend can't even agree to. Different people will believe in many different thresholds, yet all claim to be pro-choice. There is no absolute standard.

Yeah there is, science has set it, people talking around a dinner table don't get to be like, 'yeah, this is a good standard I think'. There are clear points where a child can feel pain, where a child is conscious of itself, shit like that, it's not random lmao.

If I am wrong about the timing, and humanity doesn't begin at conception, but much later, then I am wrong...but at least I don't have the blood of another human life on my hands. Can you say the same? What if human life begins earlier than you think? What are the consequences to your conscience if that is the case? The stakes are much higher if you are wrong than if I am. If you are going to err when it comes to the moment humanity is conferred onto a life form, isn't it MUCH more preferable to err on the side of caution and assume it's human the entire time? No blood on your hands if you are wrong that way.

I really don't care. Saying, 'you have blood on your hands' isn't a very convincing argument, you're appealing to emotion and not to reason. My conscience is just fine trying to balance the harm as best as possible. If you abort a fetus that can't feel pain, and doesn't know it exists, you're not harming it, it doesn't know any better. You're actively harming the woman by forcing her to go through pregnancy, and then you have a child that the woman doesn't want - well done, you've certainly done your good deed for the day .

 

[Davi323]

The point is that a fetus isn't complex enough of a being to even have those kind of thoughts, it's not even aware of itself, so it's not a matter of not being able to communicate whether it wants to live or not, it's a matter of the being not even being to comprehend thoughts at all.

There really isn't a huge inconsistency here except among those who aren't basing their opinion on science. Scientifically we know at what stage a fetus is capable of knowing it exists and having self-preservation, feelings of pain, etc.

Yeah there is, science has set it, people talking around a dinner table don't get to be like, 'yeah, this is a good standard I think'. There are clear points where a child can feel pain, where a child is conscious of itself, shit like that, it's not random lmao.

I really don't care. Saying, 'you have blood on your hands' isn't a very convincing argument, you're appealing to emotion and not to reason. My conscience is just fine trying to balance the harm as best as possible. If you abort a fetus that can't feel pain, and doesn't know it exists, you're not harming it, it doesn't know any better. You're actively harming the woman by forcing her to go through pregnancy, and then you have a child that the woman doesn't want - well done, you've certainly done your good deed for the day .

And the exact same characteristics can be applied to a child born with a severe mental ******ation. They may never attain self-awareness. Never be able to communicate meaningfully. They may never know any better either. I am not talking about a typical level of Down's Syndrome, I am talking about the really, really bad cases. Profound ******ation, not mild. The kind that requires complete care for their entire life, someone who absolutely is incapable of learning even basic motor skills, let alone cognitive skills. Is it wrong to kill them?

If you abort a fetus that can't feel pain, and doesn't know it exists, you're not harming it, it doesn't know any better.

Do you realize just how barbaric you sound? It's not harmful as long as they don't know it's harmful? Really? Really? Is that really the philosophy you want to have? That an action is okay as long as the victim of that action doesn't know that they are a victim? So, as long as the victim doesn't know any better, you can do whatever you want to them, and there is nothing wrong with it. You don't see the problems with that?