Abortion!

[Arshune]

Ok, I see a lot of back and forth debates on this forum, so I think I'll contribute one of my own.

How do you feel about abortion?

I personally feel life begins at conception, but WORTHWILE and VIABLE life does not begin until sentience is achieved (there's debate on that one too, but since humans can't relate intelligent thought until they can speak I'm gonna say that it's not until a child's first complete sentence.)

What do you all think of that? Think I'm on to something? Think I'm a pig? Well sound off, I'm mad bored and this is one of my favorite topics for discussion.

Oh yeah, if there was already a thread like this I apologize for making another one, but I didn't see one so :p

[Nohimn]

HAHAHA!! this reminds me of the official forums where I flamed a guy for trying to create a clan with the name "Abhortion" and the clan name "Abhortion".

Overall, abhortion is fine with me.

[SandTrout]

Nothing good can come of this thread. I am against abortion, but I wont give my reasons, because it will just spark the flames that this tread is feuling.

[Arshune]

I thought nothing good would come of the religion threads, but they stayed pretty decent for the most part.

[Nohimn]

no they didn't!! here's an example of a religion thread:

Person 1(curious): Well god does exist because....
Person 2(troll): That's stupid! You're stupid!
Person 3(troll: Shut up 2! You are a moron because ......
Person 4(troll): 2 and 3 are both wrong! ....
Person 5(spammer): STFU!!
Person 6(stupid): My, there are very different views on this topic.

[mistled]

I'll bite. I can handle the shitstorm.

The idea that you should be able to kill a baby as long as they haven't spoken a sentence yet is the sickest thing I've ever heard. I don't think I'll get flamed too much for that.
---------------------
According to science, organisms can be told apart by their DNA. I am different from my mother because our DNA is different. It is also true that a child's DNA is different from it's mother's at the moment of conception. (
Here's (http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1998/11/05/52.asp) a link that says the fetus has different DNA, it's the quickest source I could find)

So if a woman has an abortion, she is killing a completely seperate human being. It's scientific fact. There honestly isn't anything to debate here.

[KeviN]

Yeah, but Arshnue, they can still convay thoughts and emotions. And, if you put it like that, that would mean you could somewhat legally kill a person that was born without the ability to talk. Or, a deaf person could kill everyone because they have never heard a sentence spoken. Catch my drift?

[�io]

The debate isn't (or shouldn't be) about if it is indeed taking someone else's life or not but rather is it a good thing?

When it comes to abortion i'm on the fence.

Positive side of abortion: It's better that a young run away have an abortion than dumb the kid 9 months later in some dumpster and let him freeze to death. Or what about a kid born from a rape, i think the mom doesn't want a reminder of that 24/7. Basically it can help save the baby and/or mother a lot of pain and trouble in certain bad circumstances. This may sound disturbing but nevertheless it also helps keep the already huge population down.

Negative side: It is indeed killing another human being even if it isn't concious yet. Said future being could have been the next picaso, mozart or enstein or simply be an unexpected source of joy after the mother thought she wasn't ready for it.

[mistled]

Dio, forget all of your positive sides to abortion. If you don't want the child, put it up for adoption. And don't anyone tell me that the adopted child would probably have to live a hard life, so it's a bad idea. When the choice is hard life or no life, I'll take a hard life anyday.

[Yuyi]

This is going to be the biggest thread in lounge yet, i predict.

[Lexington_Steele]

I think this can stay in the realm of intelligent discussion.

When I vote, it is pro-choice. When it comes to decisions regarding my family I am pro-life.

I think it is difficult to pinpoint when and where the human condition first begins.

Some would say conception and I would ask them why. There are many other animals that, genetic material wise, posess more complex and more developed fertilized egg than a newly fertilized human egg.

So if it is not the complexity of the creature at conception it must be that this fertilized egg has the potential to become a human. Well, if it is morally incorrect to end the potential of there being a human, then we run into a small problem. Every moment of every day we could be either inpregnating or becoming impregnated. At every moment we are ending the potential of there being human. So if the argument is that it is immoral to end a potential humans life, then we are obligated to be screwing and reproducing like rabbits.

Since it is tough to make a strong moral argument that pinpoints any particular moment where the human experience begins, I find it tough to impose an unwanted fetus upon a woman. I think it should be her choice. I am against second and third trimester abortions because the first trimester gives a woman plenty of time to make a choice.

[mistled]

nah, we're like 1800 behind the word association thread :D

[Yuyi]

erm 2nd longest :D

[�io]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Dio, forget all of your positive sides to abortion. If you don't want the child, put it up for adoption. And don't anyone tell me that the adopted child would probably have to live a hard life, so it's a bad idea. When the choice is hard life or no life, I'll take a hard life anyday.

True but you can't ignore a hard life could be very hard, i mean i'd hate to get beaten by your dad every single day and be forced to do everything he says including wipping his ass with your bare hands, or being born with an IQ of 50 and only 1 arm and 1 leg. Or if you want to ignore that then ok here's another : Said future being could be the next Hitler, Osama or Saddam.


Oh and just to be clear as i said i'm 50-50 on abortion but i do agree with : "I think it should be her choice. I am against second and third trimester abortions because the first trimester gives a woman plenty of time to make a choice."

[mistled]

Lex, I thought you would be one to bring science to this. We define separate human entities by their DNA. The fetus has a separate DNA pattern; therefore, it is a separate person.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Dio
Said future being could be the next Hitler, Osama or Saddam.
And the chances of this are about 1 in 15 billion.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Lex, I thought you would be one to bring science to this. We define separate human entities by their DNA. The fetus has a separate DNA pattern; therefore, it is a separate person.
Haha, I knew someone would come up with that one (you do not dissapoint :) ), so how about this scenario. If a cloned embryo is put into a woman, is it immoral to abort it? There is not a unique human DNA. But that fetus would have becoma a fully functioning sentient human just like anyy other fetus. If it is immoral to abort one it is immoral to abort the other. So here we see that Unique DNA is not the deciding factor.

[�io]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
And the chances of this are about 1 in 15 billion.

So is the baby being the next picaso or mozart but you didn't say anything then. :p

And of course it's an off chance but it's still a reason, one of many.

[mistled]

Well, considering that we aren't positive that it can be done yet, I see it as a moot point at the moment. :)

I personally think it's immoral to attempt to clone humans anyway, so we're already in trouble.

But... for the sake of argument. The point is not entirely that the child is unique upon the planet, but that it is separate from it's mother. So what if it's DNA matches that of another human, it is still separate from the mother.

Now, if the mother is impregnated with her own DNA, we have the issue of whether or not the clone is ever a legally separate entity. Can the "mother" always determine what the clone will do since they are actually the same person?? I'm going to assume not. Once clones are legally different entities, they will be compared to normal children for questions such as these. If not, the clone is working on a different standard and we have legal discrimination all over again.

It ultimately doesn't change the issue.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Dio
So is the baby being the next picaso or mozart but you didn't say anything then. :p I would also never use that as a reason to be against abortion for the very reason you point out. I simply didn't comment on it before because I hate to try and debate both sides of the same argument at the same time. It confuses people. :)

[SandTrout]

OK, I'll post the reason that I am pro-life sence this isn't includeing much flameing.

I am against abortion, with the exception of the mother's life being in jeapordy, because any embryo that can be aborted will become a sentient human being if left to develop on it's own.

This is not the only reason though. I also, I find it offenceive that pro-abortion is refered to as "pro-choice." This term is intetionaly missleading because you are removeing one person's choice at life because another wants a choice to avoid difficulty. It is tradeing one choice for another, more valuable, choice. The term "pro-choice" makes it seem like anti-abortion laws are restricting freedoms assured by the Constitution and Declareation of Independence, but isn't life the most valued right upheld by these documents?

At the very least, maybe we can agree with the president about partial-birth abortions. It is a realy sick practice, and I personaly cannot see it as anything other than blatent murder.

I'm grabing my umbrella and preapreing for the incomeing shitstorm. Flame away.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Well, considering that we aren't positive that it can be done yet, I see it as a moot point at the moment. :)

Now, if the mother is impregnated with her own DNA, we have the issue of whether or not the clone is ever a legally separate entity. Can the "mother" always determine what the clone will do since they are actually the same person?? I'm going to assume not. Once clones are legally different entities, they will be compared to normal children for questions such as these. If not, the clone is working on a different standard and we have legal discrimination all over again.

It ultimately doesn't change the issue.
First of all, you must have missed it, the first human clone was born a couple months ago. :(

We are not talking legality, we are talking moraly. Morality determines laws, laws don't determine morality.

I think you have a tough time finding a real moral argument that a fetus that has the same DNA as its mother has different rights than a fetus that differnt DNA.

Unique DNA does not address my argument that other animals have a more complicated DNA structure upon conception. Why is a human DNA special? It is not the complexity. If it is special because it could become a human, then every sperm in you love stick has that same special quality. Are you therfore commiting murder by not trying to have a baby at every moment of the day?

[Navaron]

I have to say, I'd rather have the worst life in the world, than not have life at all. Kinda like better to love and loose than to never love at all.

The real point is where does the mother get the right to end someone elses life? She's not the only one who made it. So did dad. Regardless, even if two people agree that the baby should die, it doesn't make it right. I gaurentee I can find one other person on this forum that wants Bill Mahr dead. Should we have the right to kill him?

The abortion thing is a load of crap. Not only is the mother reminded every day of being raped (regardless of if she has the baby or not) she now gets to live with the fact that she has killed someone else. Two wrongs don't make it right. I know a girl who got pregnant at 16 and had an abortion. Shortly thereafter she committed suicide. It doesn't make your life easier.

Putting the baby up for adoption is always the best choice.

People say it's not a big deal, just a surgical proceedure, where a "growth" is removed. If I have a wart on my hand, I'm gonna have it lanced no biggie, right? Right. Now then, why is it such a big deal when a woman has an abortion. Because it's more than just a growth.

I've heard an arguement that a woman has the right to choose the life she wants. Well, what if the child is female? Where are her rights? Funny thing is, all children are female until 12 weeks into the pregnancy.

What are the 5 qualities that determine life? An unborn child meets them all.

It's odd that the same people who will sacrifice firefighters lives, because they can't get water where endangered salmon live, are the same ones who say an unborn child is not a human. They also oppose eating caviar.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
This is not the only reason though. I also, I find it offenceive that pro-abortion is refered to as "pro-choice." This term is intetionaly missleading because you are removeing one person's choice at life because another wants a choice to avoid difficulty. It is tradeing one choice for another, more valuable, choice. The term "pro-choice" makes it seem like anti-abortion laws are restricting freedoms assured by the Constitution and Declareation of Independence, but isn't life the most valued right upheld by these documents?

I think you have a tough time convincing me that a fertilized egg has achieve what it take to be a human.

You have the right to do whatever you want to your body as long as you am not harming yourself. So when you tell a woman she can not abort you are denying her a personal freedom.

BTW, Constitutionality gets fishy with abortion. Unborn babies are not necessarily protected by the Constitution.

[Lexington_Steele]

Nav, why is destroying a fertilized egg any more morally incorrect than killing a pig?

[Arshune]

HOLY CRAP! I probably shouldn't have stopped watching this thread to go play CS, I can see you guys totally took my original post the wrong way. I was saying I'm for abortion because people just aren't even really people until they can talk. An animal can convey thoughts and emotions too, but we eat those every day. The reason killing them isn't wrong is because they don't have the potential to develop into an intelligent being. I'm not for baby-killing, once the thing's born the damage that abortion is in place to prevent has already been done (i.e. ruining the pregnant girl's life by sitting her with financial responsibility). I can see how you guys could take what I said to mean "kill em if they can't talk" though, I should have probably qualified that statement more. I think the current United States federal standards are great, a mother has 3 months to wrestle with her conscience on whether or not bringing an unwanted child into the world is the right thing to do, and if she decides it isn't then she has the option to terminate it while it's still an unthinking, unfeeling mass of cells. I think people who say that human life begins at conception should rethink their position. At conception, an embryo is little more than a cell taking off with a wing and a prayer. I feel that until the brain has completely formed in the fetus, life hasn't officially begun.

[Navaron]

Cause we don't eat fertilized eggs?

No, because we are a higher being than other animals. Point is that they are two seperate beings. The mother does not have the right to infringe on her childs life or lack thereof. A pig willl never become human.

When you start killing humans because of what traits they do or don't exibit is when you have a severe problem. What makes an unborn child not human? It doesn't speak, reproduce, or do much of anything. Neither do old people, mentally handicapped, or stroke victims. Should we get rid of them because it is more "convinient" for their respective family members?

[Navaron]

".e. ruining the pregnant girl's life by sitting her with financial responsibility"

So then rich people shouldn't be able to have abortions.

That is easily the most shallow arguement ever. What about people in Togo, I think all Americans and Euroupeans are wealthier than they are. Life isn't money. If she doesn't want to foot the bill, she doesn't have to. The gov will foot the hospital bills, and adoption is free.

[Hellsfire123]

I believe there are more then 5 qualities that define life. And i know the ability to reproduce is one. How can an undeveloped fetus reproduce?

In all actuallity, the fetus is alive. But i wouldnt call it human. Its a parasite. It feeds off of its host for 9 months before becoming semi dependent.

Anyway, weather the fetus is alive or not is not the question. Is abortion moral? Ethical? Should it be legal? Well ask yourself this. What if it was your girlfriend who was pregnant? Or you? What if your only 16, or 17? I dont know anyone that age that could support a child. Will you doom 2 or 3 lives? Or will you kill something that isnt human, wont be concious for months, and could ultimatly destroy your life?

Well, im pro-choice. And id be interested to see how some of the pro-life people would answer the questions if they were the ones involved. And dont flame me about the parasite thing, look it up in a dictionary first.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
First of all, you must have missed it, the first human clone was born a couple months ago. :( Please tell me you aren't talking about that woman who claims to have had a clone, and yet will not reveal her name, will not allow any tests to be done, and is said to have been impregnated with a technique created by an organization that has never in it's history published a scientific paper of any sort. You don't believe that, do you?? And you talk about Americans having blind faith in their country.

We are not talking legality, we are talking moraly. Morality determines laws, laws don't determine morality.
Actually, the question that started the thread was 'how do you feel', which ask neither about legal or moral issues, but merely emotions. If you're going to play that card, then we're boh off topic. :)

I think you have a tough time finding a real moral argument that a fetus that has the same DNA as its mother has different rights than a fetus that differnt DNA.I'm not trying to. I was talking about scientific reasons why abortion is murder. If you want to talk morals, that's fine as well. Killing either is wrong. Just because I think it's wrong for teenagers to have sex, I don't think that they should kill the child if the girl gets pregnant. By the same token, just because I think that cloning humans is wrong, I don't think we should kill the child.

Unique DNA does not address my argument that other animals have a more complicated DNA structure upon conception. Why is a human DNA special? It is not the complexity. If it is special because it could become a human, then every sperm in you love stick has that same special quality. Are you therfore commiting murder by not trying to have a baby at every moment of the day? Animal DNA doesn't even fit in this discussion. I'm not sure how you think it does. Human DNA is special because it is human. I don't particularly care if you go out and kill a deer or not. You can't murder deer. They're just deer.
Onward.....
You're not commiting murder every moment of the day because we are not talking about potential. Sperm is potential. It also has the same DNA as the parent, thus proving that it is potential and not reality. At the moment of conception, it is no longer potential. New DNA is formed and that potential has become reality. Stop the potential all you want to, but once conception has occured, the time to speak of potential has passed.

[Arshune]

Valid points, Nav, but finances aren't the most shallow argument ever. A lot of abortions take place because the mother doesn't want to take care of the child, and a big part of taking care of a child is financial responsibilities.

Yes, you could put a child up for adoption, but also remember that pregnancy is an ordeal. Some people rationalize that they shouldn't go through what is considered one of the most painful things a human being can go through for someone they don't even care enough about to take care of.

[Navaron]

HAHAH

You just shut down your own arguement. But first, point by point

1) "I believe there are more then 5 qualities that define life"

I was referring to the 5 scientific requirements (now 6 I believe).

2) "But i wouldnt call it human. Its a parasite. It feeds off of its host for 9 months before becoming semi dependent. "

A parasite is the way that something obtains sustainance, so yes a human can be a parasite.

3) "What if it was your girlfriend who was pregnant? Or you? What if your only 16, or 17? I dont know anyone that age that could support a child. Will you doom 2 or 3 lives? Or will you kill something that isnt human, wont be concious for months, and could ultimatly destroy your life?"

And here's where you damn yourself. I got my gf pregnant at 16, and was a father at 17. We kept our daughter, and now my gal is a nurse in the NICU, and I am a Junior in College with my private pilots license and almost have my ppi license. I will graduate shortly with my Bachelors in Aviation Administration with a specialization in security. Mist can vouch how much money my family had. We were poor. I am a thousand times better off for having my daughter. I am a bigger, stronger person, and am such a better person than I would have been otherwise.

4) "wont be concious for months"

My boss was in a car wreck, he's been unconsious for about 7 weeks now. I have no lost love for him, since he's unconcious can I kill him? I don't think that's legal.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Cause we don't eat fertilized eggs?

No, because we are a higher being than other animals. Point is that they are two seperate beings. The mother does not have the right to infringe on her childs life or lack thereof. A pig willl never become human.

When you start killing humans because of what traits they do or don't exibit is when you have a severe problem. What makes an unborn child not human? It doesn't speak, reproduce, or do much of anything. Neither do old people, mentally handicapped, or stroke victims. Should we get rid of them because it is more "convinient" for their respective family members?

I am sure fertalized egges are a delicacy somewhere. :p

I don't see a fertalized egg as any more human than an egg and a sperm sitting next to eachother. But apparently you make a distinction between before and after they combine because of certain traits it posesses or doesn't posess.

What makes the fertilized egg more special than than the egg and sperm? Why is that distinction the special one. Why isn't the difference between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester fetus the special distinction?

[Navaron]

"Yes, you could put a child up for adoption, but also remember that pregnancy is an ordeal. Some people rationalize that they shouldn't go through what is considered one of the most painful things a human being can go through for someone they don't even care enough about to take care of."

Pain killers. Don't feel a thing. I've watched with my own eyes.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
. You're not commiting murder every moment of the day because we are not talking about potential.

If we're not talking about potential life, then killing a fetus isn't wrong because that's what it is, potential. Say a fetus could live outside of the mother and it could never develop further, it wouldn't really be much of anything, would it? But given time, it becomes something, even if it isn't something at present. So if you don't care about sperm cells dying, why do you care about something that's technically still just "potential?"

[mistled]

Sorry guys. but I'm starting to get a little pissed here after reading a couple of these comments....

Originally posted by Hellsfire123
I believe there are more then 5 qualities that define life. And i know the ability to reproduce is one. How can an undeveloped fetus reproduce? So if you're impotent, you aren't human?? So every single person on the planet that hasn't reached puberty isn't human?? So every woman who is pass the point in her life where she can conceive isn't human?? Think before you post.

Anyway, weather the fetus is alive or not is not the question. Is abortion moral? Ethical? Should it be legal? And just how in the hell do you expect to answer the legality or morality of something if you aren't even sure if it's alive?? Again, think before you post.

And id be interested to see how some of the pro-life people would answer the questions if they were the ones involved.And why don't you go fuck yourself for having the balls to act like you know anything?? You've no idea who you are talking to on these forums. We're all strangers. You've no clue about anyone's life on here. I'm sick of people acting like everyone who has been through this situation is pro-death. Once again I'll say to think before you post.

[Navaron]

"that's what it is, potential."

No, once it has passed conception it is no longer potential, it is human.

Jeez, I'm gonna use your arguement, Lets say we pull out a 6 year old, and stop his growth right there. He's not good for much. Why not wax him too. I mean he's not getting anywhere, or helping anything, plus he's expensive.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
If we're not talking about potential life, then killing a fetus isn't wrong because that's what it is, potential. Say a fetus could live outside of the mother and it could never develop further, it wouldn't really be much of anything, would it? But given time, it becomes something, even if it isn't something at present. So if you don't care about sperm cells dying, why do you care about something that's technically still just "potential?" You obviously didn't understand the entire point I was making. A fetus is not potential any more than you are potential. It's life has already begun. Once it had it's own DNA pattern, it's life started. The potential that the sperm had has been realize at that point in time.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
I think people who say that human life begins at conception should rethink their position. At conception, an embryo is little more than a cell taking off with a wing and a prayer. I feel that until the brain has completely formed in the fetus, life hasn't officially begun. Science states that life begins at conception. It's not like we are picking what feel right, it's fact. It's got nothing to do with what you feel.

[Navaron]

"You've no idea who you are talking to on these forums. We're all strangers. You've no clue about anyone's life on here. I'm sick of people acting like everyone who has been through this situation is pro-death. Once again I'll say to think before you post."

I'm with mist here, (suprise). You're waaay outta line. I'd bet good damn money I'm the only person on this whole forum who was a father at 17. What the hell. I'm not sure where you get off telling me what I think, when I'm just about sure of shit you've never been there. I'd like to see where you would be when you see that sonogram.

[Navaron]

"I feel that until the brain has completely formed in the fetus, life hasn't officially begun. "

You gotta come up with some facts. People can live with less than 40% of their brain. Watch TLC sometime. Can we kill all of them too?

[Arshune]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
You obviously didn't understand the entire point I was making. A fetus is not potential any more than you are potential. It's life has already begun. Once it had it's own DNA pattern, it's life started. The potential that the sperm had has been realize at that point in time.

But what makes the fetus above a chimpanzee or a cow? From a purely technical standpoint, the chimpanzee is probably a higher form of life than the fetus, yet we experiment on them in extremely cruel fashion for our own benefit every day. Yes, the fetus is alive, but is it alive enough to consider it a human yet? When does that fetus get that "special something" that makes it a person?

And Nav, I can see this is a sensitive issue to you, and no one is asking you to say if the decision is right or wrong for yourself, just if you think the option should be open to other people. What if someone wasn't a big enough person to handle such responsibility?

[ABRAXAAS]

For abortion . And I walk away :D

[SandTrout]

If we're not talking about potential life, then killing a fetus isn't wrong because that's what it is, potential. Say a fetus could live outside of the mother and it could never develop further, it wouldn't really be much of anything, would it? But given time, it becomes something, even if it isn't something at present. So if you don't care about sperm cells dying, why do you care about something that's technically still just "potential?"

Sientificly speaking, a fetus isn't potential life. It does indead proform all functions that define life by sientific standards. If you bring up reproduction, the cells of a fetus reproduce very rapidly. Just because you're not screwing a girl every second of the day doesn't mean you are not alive every second of the day. This is not a potential human at this point, this is a liveing human parasite with the potential of dieing.

It is not fully developed, or even self-sustaining, but then again, fully developed humans must also kill something else to survive. If you argue development, humans aren't fully developed for nearly 2 decades after they are born.

From a moral standpoint, life should only be taken to preserve other life. We hunt to eat, we fight for control of food and land, which can be esential to our lives, our immune systems kill millions of liveing organisms inside of us.

The arguement of abortion realy lies in how you define life.

This debate will never change anyone's view on this subject. I've seen arguements go on for hours in chat rooms with noone giveing an inch to the other position. I realy dont know why I wasted this much time writeing this post.

[mistled]

Someone answer this for me.

Why is it that anytime there is a religion thread, everyone talks about how mighty science is and how God can't exist because science can't prove it... And people tend to agree because, after all, how can science be wrong?... but then, when abortion comes up, everyone suddenly wants to forget science. Why is that?? Maybe because science supports the fetus?? Imagine that. Science bitchslaps a topic and suddenly people avoid it.

In religion, which is entirely about morality, people want to talk about science. But in abortion, which is about both legality and morality, we want to leave science at the door even though it is more suited to the discusson.

Isn't that a bitch?? Makes you wonder...



... and yes, I do use science in religion debates. Science is valid everywhere. I don't pick and choose when I like it.

[Navaron]

"What if someone wasn't a big enough person to handle such responsibility?"

You get your head out of your pussy, suck it up, and make some fuckin lemonade. People today are so self centered and weak. My friend who whacked herself. She was weak. I know weak when I see it. People today are too selfish and weak. Sometime's I'm ashamed they're the same species as me.

"But what makes the fetus above a chimpanzee or a cow"

Cause the Cow will never become a human. Technically speaking.

[Arshune]

As far as science and religion...I feel there's no proof either way, so why bother worrying about it? Go with what suits you best, or none at all.

Science relating to this argument, however, is something else entirely. Yes, at conception, something is technically "alive," but humans so frequently don't give a damn about whether something is alive or not. We kill to survive every day, the question you should really ask yourself is "what kind of life is worth preserving?" When someone says "does life begin at conception" you should instinctively add the word "human" before life. Because human life doesn't begin until something becomes a person.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
But what makes the fetus above a chimpanzee or a cow? From a purely technical standpoint, the chimpanzee is probably a higher form of life than the fetus, yet we experiment on them in extremely cruel fashion for our own benefit every day. Yes, the fetus is alive, but is it alive enough to consider it a human yet? When does that fetus get that "special something" that makes it a person? What?!?!?!??!?!?!? Are you alive enough to be considered human?? What kind of statements are these?? What if I told you I was against all killing of animals?? Would that suddenly make my point valid?? How exactly are you comparing killing a cow and killing a human again??


And Nav, I can see this is a sensitive issue to you, and no one is asking you to say if the decision is right or wrong for yourself, just if you think the option should be open to other people. What if someone wasn't a big enough person to handle such responsibility? Adoption. I think we've covered this one about a dozen times now.

[ABRAXAAS]

"But what makes the fetus above a chimpanzee or a cow"

Cause the Cow will never become a human. Technically speaking. [/B][/QUOTE]

and we can kill cows whenever we want:D

no good comes of these threads im going to go play UT2003 :D

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
Science relating to this argument, however, is something else entirely. Yes, at conception, something is technically "alive," but humans so frequently don't give a damn about whether something is alive or not. We kill to survive every day, the question you should really ask yourself is "what kind of life is worth preserving?" When someone says "does life begin at conception" you should instinctively add the word "human" before life. Because human life doesn't begin until something becomes a person. The long standing debate that pro-abortionists used was that the fetus was the same as the mother. Then someone came along and asked, 'well, if the DNA is different, then is the child separate?' The abortionists decided that yes, it was, but it didn't matter because the tests were not advanced enough to determine such a thing. Then years later the tests became advanced enough and science discovered that the DNA was different at the moment of conception.
What was a good enough way of deciding suddenly wasn't good enough once the results came out. Again, makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Please define a person for me. I guarantee you that I will find you people in the world today who will not fit your discription and therefore, should be legally and morally killable.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
What?!?!?!??!?!?!? Are you alive enough to be considered human?? What kind of statements are these?? What if I told you I was against all killing of animals?? Would that suddenly make my point valid?? How exactly are you comparing killing a cow and killing a human again??


I'm comparing the fetus to the cow because we kill the cow every day for our own benefit, and sometimes killing a fetus would benefit some people. Saying you were against the killing of all animals wouldn't necessarily change the validity of anyone's argument, but it would make your views more in line with each other. We all seem to agree that killing humans is wrong, but where does humanity begin?

[Navaron]

Arshune, you have failed to make sense or points now.

"Go with what suits you best, or none at all."

So let's throw everything out the window, and anyone can resort to "No, I'm right, you're wrong." Comon man.

"but humans so frequently don't give a damn about whether something is alive or not. "

That's not the point. We care about HUMANS being alive or not.

" Because human life doesn't begin until something becomes a person."

WTF? I think you need sleep.

[Arshune]

The point I was trying to make was that I believe that a fetus isn't a person yet, even though it is technically alive.

Edit: ...and the suits you best thing was referring to religion, I'm saying that since it isn't regulated by law (for most of us) that it makes little sense to get worked up about it. Abortion, however, could potentially be made illegal, and therefore is more worthwile to debate.

[Navaron]

For the love of all that is holy, define a person.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
I'm comparing the fetus to the cow because we kill the cow every day for our own benefit, and sometimes killing a fetus would benefit some people. I can think of a lot of people that could be killed and I would benefit from it. Does that make it right or legal?? Hell no.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I can think of a lot of people that could be killed and I would benefit from it. Does that make it right or legal?? Hell no.

I refer you to the thousands of wars that have been fought over civilizations history. It benefitted them to kill people, so they did. Was it right? Sometimes. Was it legal? Oh yeah. Murder, however, is illegal and wrong. Murder is defined as the killing of another person in cold blood. My personal definition of a person is any member of a sentient species that is currently intelligent, or at the very least 100% certain to become intelligent.

[Navaron]

You have no arguement anymore, you're out of straws to grasp, come back when you've had some sleep. You've succesfully ignored facts and points, and your post lost congruency a while back.

[SandTrout]

Originally posted by Arshune
We kill to survive every day, the question you should really ask yourself is "what kind of life is worth preserving?"

We should never be asking this unless the person has been proven threat to society by the act of murder. This is the worst thing that our society could come to, and should be avoided at nearly any cost.

The decision should be left to the individual. I'm an advocate for people commiting suiside as long as they are not insane or just in a temporary dip in thier life.

When we start trying to make the decision on what kind of lives are worth preservein, and which should be romoved, we will have become the same as NAZIs.

The NAZIs belived that the lives of ****, homosexuals, ******, and the dissabled were not worth preserveing.

I think that Pro-abortionists are pro-murder, so I dont think their lives are worth preserveing. Should I go on a crusade to kill these murders?

*Edit: I've now lost all respect for Abortionists, thanks for the epiphiny. People don't look at what they are saying close enough.*

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
My personal definition of a person is any member of a sentient species that is currently intelligent, or at the very least 100% certain to become intelligent. That's awful. You've managed to put a subjective concept into such an important thing. Who, exactly, determines what 'intelligent' is?? What happens when someone starts basing 'intelligence' on a particular test?? What happens when people fail?? How about if a person has a stroke. Can we kill them if they have brain damage?? What about brain damage from an accident?? Can we kill them as well?? If someone is mentally retarded and can't take care of themselves, are they intelligent??

100% certain huh.... how would you determine this?? No child can be guaranteed to grow up intelligent, no matter what your definition of 'intelligence' is. Strange things happen. Diseases that may not have been seen before birth come about. What if there is a 2% chance that the child is born with brain damage?? Do you kill it because of that 1 in 50 chance?? Or do you take the much better odds that the child will be born just fine?? According to your own definition, the child is not alive, so murder away.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
You have no arguement anymore, you're out of straws to grasp, come back when you've had some sleep. You've succesfully ignored facts and points, and your post lost congruency a while back.
O....k. That was harsh man, no need to resort to the hatorade.

I'm not "ignoring" anything, I've been trying my very best to be respectful to your viewpoints while at the same time responding with my own. I just happen not to agree with you. If that's the way you feel, great. I'm merely asking if you feel it's right or wrong, and I got a straight answer. I like to argue, and I did.

I didn't put my entire opinion in my very first post because quite frankly, it's a long bit of typing. I'm going to now though. My view on the issue is that until a lifeform becomes a "person" it's got no rights. Now, when there's a conversion from simply "life" to "person" is something no one seems to agree on. I think people just aren't people until they're intelligent. Does that mean you should wantonly kill them? No, not unless they're going to hurt you. Killing is always wrong unless it directly aids survival. Someone said that there's no objective test for intelligence, and that's entirely correct, I agree with that, but that doesn't change my view. I don't think something without intelligence has the same rights as something with intelligence. From reading some of your posts, you seem to think that I'm saying we should just kill anything that isn't a human or that isn't intelligent, and that's simply not true. If someone has a stroke or gets brain damage, they really should have prepared a living will that clearly expresses what they want done with them, and most people DO have such a thing. But if someone doesn't and they're suffering or have servere brain damage, shouldn't they be allowed to end their lives with the dignity of a human being? This brings up a whole other argument about euthanasia though, so I won't get into that. Personally, if I received brain damage that impaired my normal functioning, I wouldn't want to go on. But that's just me. This gets back to the "intelligence as a subjective term" thing. I have a somewhat loose definition of intelligence, as long as it can convey ideas and express thought in some way, I feel it's intelligent. That's why I'm against experimenting on certain animals, because they're intelligent. That's why I'm against killing brain damaged people and babies, because they're intelligent. Are they necessarily human? That really depends on your definition of human. In my book, not really. Does that mean I want them dead? No.

I also feel that if someone isn't going to take care of their unborn child when it finally is born, then they should either carry it to term and put it up for adoption or have an abortion. If it was me in that situation, I would probably put it up for adoption, an abortion would play hell on my feelings. Do I feel that the option should be open to other people? Yes, this is America, it's their life. If they can deal with the emotional problems and don't want to take care of the child, they should be able to do it.

Both pro-abortion and anti-abortion viewpoints make valid points, but what seperates them is the mind of the person considering them.

That's how I feel about it, and if you disagree, I'm not really trying to change your mind. Though I do like to argue...

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Animal DNA doesn't even fit in this discussion. I'm not sure how you think it does. Human DNA is special because it is human. I don't particularly care if you go out and kill a deer or not. You can't murder deer. They're just deer.
Onward.....
You're not commiting murder every moment of the day because we are not talking about potential. Sperm is potential. It also has the same DNA as the parent, thus proving that it is potential and not reality. At the moment of conception, it is no longer potential. New DNA is formed and that potential has become reality. Stop the potential all you want to, but once conception has occured, the time to speak of potential has passed.

Ahh, you don't see the fertilized egg is a potential human you see it as a full fledged human. You have come up with a very clear definition as to what it is to be human. This opens a whole new ball of moral problems (that I won't go into unless you really want me to).

If have an egg and a sperm in a test tube and they combine, would it be murder to not find a woman to put it into? Should a person who does this be tried for first degree murder? Would you feel confortable sending someone to the electric chair for not finding a woman to put this fertalized egg into?

If I have an egg and a sperm in one cup and an egg in a sperm in a second cup that have combined. Why is there something special in one cup, but not in the other? I don't see anything special in either cup.

If I take a cell of mine, and replace one chromosome with another chromosome. We have a new and unique set of genetic material that has the genetic propeties that a human posses'. Does this new cell deserve the same protection that a fertilized egg has.

I feel that a right to life comes from something more then simple genetic coding. What we are protecting by not aborting a baby is something more than the sum of it's genetic parts. I feel your definition of what makes a human a human it wrong (and many great philosophers would agree).

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
You have no arguement anymore, you're out of straws to grasp, come back when you've had some sleep. You've succesfully ignored facts and points, and your post lost congruency a while back.

No offense nav, but you are being very rude to Ashune. He is making many good points and concerns. I could just as easily say you are ignoring his facts and idea. Try to be more civil.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron

"But what makes the fetus above a chimpanzee or a cow"

Cause the Cow will never become a human. Technically speaking.

What if the chimp learns to write english and proves that he can function in society? Would you be so quick to say the chimp does not have the rights a human has.

I think the rights we are trying to protect extend beyond the idea of being a human.

[Navaron]

That would be one very cool chimp, and yeah, I'd like to see it stay alive as long as possible.

[Arshune]

Side note-they've already taught some chimps and gorillas sign language, and they can hold up simple discussions with humans. Granted, they talk more about simple things like food and feelings, but they can communicate nonetheless. That's why I'm against any experimentation on primates that causes them physical harm.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
What?!?!?!??!?!?!? Are you alive enough to be considered human?? What kind of statements are these?? What if I told you I was against all killing of animals?? Would that suddenly make my point valid?? How exactly are you comparing killing a cow and killing a human again??


Mistled, you be civil with Arshune too. I think the idea of what distinguishes a human from an animal is very pertinent here. If an alien race arived on earth, would they be justified in killing us for food, just because we will never be part of their species.

What if we evolve and visit a planet with a creature that is very similar to humans today which could talk to us and have a fully funtioning society. Would we be morally correct in killing these people? Would you feel confortable killing these creatures. They have different genetic material. Would you lobby against killing these creatures? If you would, then you should recognise that the way we value some life over others does not have anything to do with DNA.

I suggest that the value we place on life extends beyond pure genetic material. The reason we feel it is wrong to kill certain thing and not others is not based on pure genetic material.

If it is not pure genetic material, we can ask ourselves two questions. What does the fertilized embryo posess? And does it posses that "thing" that we decide makes a creature deserving of the right to life.

[Nohimn]

the baby is not me, therefore, I can kill it and live on with my life.....

it's the :love:less thing to do

[diluted]

i havent read all the others posts yet - just the first page. but yea im completely pro-abortion.

[Destroyeron]

well, I'm am for abortion. If a condum breaks its not their fault.

[diluted]

yea it annoys me that you all think just because an organism has different dna then it is not justified to kill them. well stop jacking off because youre killing organisms different than you. yes your sperm has different dna than you so dont ever have sex period, nor women should never have periods because they are killing organisms with different dna than them and comes from their body. =\


btw the word infant means literally "cannot speak"

[Nohimn]

when you sneeze, you kill germs. When you jack off, you kill sperm. I demand you stop sneezing and jacking off!

[diluted]

lmao stop killing babies by jacking it.

[Nohimn]

stop it! you're killing babies! don't make love! you kill thousands of babies to make one!

[diluted]

when you put it into this perspective, killing is 100 percent natural.

[Hamma]

I believe a woman should be allowed to do whatever the hell she wants, some church, or government, should not be able to decide a womans choice.

[SandTrout]

I'm just geting frustrated now. We are not talking about animals here, we are talking about human life! I could care less about any other species, but humans are one species.

The only reason there are politicians that are pro-abortion is so they can twist the words of "pro-choice" to seem like they are protecting freedom, when they are realy just rationalizeing murder to get votes.

Here is my point in the simplest terms: If it has a compleat set of human genes(not counting disfunctions like downs-syndrome), it is alive(a fetus is alive), and it is not threatening the life of another human, then it should be protected.

Given time, these fetuses will develop into sentient human beings with thoughts, emotions, and (posibly) souls. Killing them before they become sentient does not negate the fact that you are still killing them. You want to be pro-choice, then suport an indevidual's choice on weather or not they should live, this is not a choice that should be placed in someone elses hands to decide.

The morals of western civilization are becomeing eroded to the point that there may be no return if we haven't already pasted that point. The idea of abortion makes me ill, you people are as evil as the NAZIs in my eyes. The NAZIs didn't think they were evil, and actualy thought they were helping the world. You should realy look at what you are saying. "Fetuses are not human, they are less valuable than animals. We have laws protection animals from cruel treatment".

If you see human life on the same level as animal life, you are evil in my eyes.

[Tobias]

As long as it is in her body, it should be her choice. Thats my opinion.


As for expermentation on animals: Its Wrong.

Heres a question: Which is crueler, to give birth to a baby which will be seriously deformed, will live less then twenty years if it survives birth at all, and for its entire life be in a world of pain and suffering, or to murder that baby (for it is murder) before it is born?

Is a horrble painful life better then no life at all? I dont think any of us can answer that question.

[SandTrout]

That's why I support suiside if the person has thought it through. It is their choice. They weren't able to choose whos womb they got stuck in. You risk the condom breaking when you have sex, and you should learn to live with the consiquences.

Be resposible for your actions.

My point still remains that it seems like animals are more protected than a fetus is at times, especialy with liberal activists protesting corperate action threatening some random lizard, but who also suport abortion of human life.

please, look at what you are saying objectively, a lot of it doesn't make sense in refernce to this subject Ashune.

This arguement is going nowhere, as I said it would.

[Tobias]

:stupid:


I personaly think that sucide is stupid for anyone one but the terminaly ill. But the people who do it are usally not in their right mind and are depressed, they do not fully understand what they are doing.

[Derfud]

Simple views on abortion, if you can support the child, but you don't really want to have it, then DON'T ABORT but if you cannot support the child, or it will not be in a good living condition then i say have the abortion. Better not to bring it into this world if it will have a miserable life.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
I'm just geting frustrated now. We are not talking about animals here, we are talking about human life! I could care less about any other species, but humans are one species.

You seem to be missing the point of the whole animal v human argument.

Try to answer both of these questions for me:

2)What trait/characteristic/feature does a human posess that give it the right to life that an animal does not posess?

3)At the moment of conception does the fetilized egg posess that trait/characteristic/feature?

Obviously we value human life over animal life; Why? Society feels that there is something that humans posess that animals do not. This is how we justify killing other animals. I don't see a wad of spunk and some menstral leavings possesing that "special" quality.

[SandTrout]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
You seem to be missing the point of the whole animal v human argument.

Try to answer both of these questions for me:

2)What trait/characteristic/feature does a human posess that give it the right to life that an animal does not posess?

3)At the moment of conception does the fetilized egg posess that trait/characteristic/feature?

Obviously we value human life over animal life; Why? Society feels that there is something that humans posess that animals do not. This is how we justify killing other animals. I don't see a wad of spunk and some menstral leavings possesing that "special" quality.

We don't have to have a special quality to be above other species. We can kill them to keep ourselves alive so we do. This hapens in just about every part of nature. We should not be killing our own species for convienence. Necessity, yes, convience, no.

I see the world from a naturalistic point of view. The most basic nature of animals is to ensure the continuation of their genetic make-up. However, most species do not alow this 100% and because of natural mutations, we have natural-selection.

We are the dominant species on earth because we have increased the survival rate of our off-spring to the point that natural selction no longer occurs. You must understand that our genetic make-up is what separates us from the rest of the animals.

Killing fetuses is the same as trying to kill the human race in my eyes, because those organisms are of the same species and have no chance to make their own choices about what they want to do with their life.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
We don't have to have a special quality to be above other species. We can kill them to keep ourselves alive so we do. This hapens in just about every part of nature. We should not be killing our own species for convienence. Necessity, yes, convience, no.

So humans have a right to live just becuase they have the name human attached to them? Why does this give humans rights over other species?

I am white, does that give me the right to murder all non whites becuase they have different genetic make up. Killing all non-whites would help ensure that my genetic make up will survive. If my genetic makeup separates me from animal does my genetic make up separate me between other races? This is essentially what you are arguing. Your line of thinking says that I can justify any kind of murder based on genetic makeup.

What if some humans evolve and there are evolved "mutants" living among us. Can we kill them because they have a different genetic makeup?

Genetic makeup arguments simply fall flat.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
I see the world from a naturalistic point of view. The most basic nature of animals is to ensure the continuation of their genetic make-up. However, most species do not alow this 100% and because of natural mutations, we have natural-selection.

You do know, that in nature, many animals kill their own species. So if you are looking at this from, a following natures example standpoint, there is nothing wrong with killing other humans. Do you really believe that is ok for humans to kill eachother over recources?

[Lexington_Steele]

double post

[diluted]

triple post O_O.


look, abortion IS a choice. you are killing a fetus, yes, but you kill everything all the time. have you taken biology? when you scratch your skin you're "killing" yourself based on cell laws. look up the cell theorie's laws and then think about how you say killing some stuff is ok but others is not. it is the womans choice to have an abortion, convienent or not. i dont think it is a form of birth control but i do think no matter the circumstances, as long as it is developed in the woman's body then she has the right to destroy it. besides if you even fathom "its ok to do it in certain circumstances" then you ARE pro choice!


side note: hitler's mother was thinking very heavily of aborting him but her doctor talked her out of it.

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
So humans have a right to live just becuase they have the name human attached to them? Why does this give humans rights over other species?

I am white, does that give me the right to murder all non whites becuase they have different genetic make up. Killing all non-whites would help ensure that my genetic make up will survive. If my genetic makeup separates me from animal does my genetic make up separate me between other races? This is essentially what you are arguing. Your line of thinking says that I can justify any kind of murder based on genetic makeup.

What if some humans evolve and there are evolved "mutants" living among us. Can we kill them because they have a different genetic makeup?

Genetic makeup arguments simply fall flat.


For those of us who know alot about human DNA, the DNA of say two white males and a black male, one of the white males and the black male might be more closely related DNA wise then the two white folks.
We Humans are a rather large group of advanced monkeys who can kill anything we want now. And if it suits us (and it usally does) we can eat it too, good digestive system. Other then Bacteria we have no natural pretors, and Bacteria does not count (or so say us Humans, the Bacteria have other ideas MWHAHAHA)

We will most likely wipe ourselves out unless we find out how to colonize other worlds pretty soon, but until then we shall continue to kill anything we want, not because its right, its not, but because we CAN. Should we go and slaughter millions of animals every year for fun? No, but we will.

I personaly think we take to many things to hard.
180,000 humans die evey day.
65,700,000 every year, yet if something like a nuke kills an extra 20,000 in one day, well dear god what a cost to the race. Death is tragic, and that extra 20,000 is 20,000 that should not be dead, but if it happens it does not really hurt now does it.

Back the thread: Is abortion wrong? In my opinion hell yes it is, in most cases that is. But I am pro choice.

[diluted]

define "wrong"

define "right"

define "good"

define "evil"

and justify your definitions. i assure you, it is impossible.

why?
these things do not exist.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Tobias
For those of us who know alot about human DNA, the DNA of say two white males and a black male, one of the white males and the black male might be more closely related DNA wise then the two white folks.

Yes, but you could pinpoint what has power over skin pigmentation skin pigmentation. So you could make life or death decisions based on that. Would it be ok to decide whether someone has the right to live based on that genetic difference.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by diluted
define "wrong"

define "right"

define "good"

define "evil"

and justify your definitions. i assure you, it is impossible.

why?
these things do not exist.

right: Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality.
good: Being positive or desirable in nature
evil: The quality of being morally bad or wrong
Justification: I looked them up in the dictionary :p

But seriously, right, good and evil do exist. When you hear these word or hear them used to describe something, certain feeling and images are conjured up in your head. Usually these images and feelings are reliant on the context in which they are used. They are usually in reference to some understood point of neutrality. We have each formed our own moral compass and have determined what we believe to be right or wrong. Application of the words right, wrong and evil are often in reference to this moral compass. If these words really had no meaning, then they would not conjure up feeling and images.

If you see someone drop their wallet, you can either tell them they dropped their wallet or keep the wallet for yourself. Is there a "right" thing to do in this situation?

Would you call Hitler "evil"?

Would you say that A Rod is a "good" baseball player. ;)

[SandTrout]

Originally posted by Tobias
We Humans are a rather large group of advanced monkeys who can kill anything we want now. And if it suits us (and it usally does) we can eat it too, good digestive system. Other then Bacteria we have no natural pretors, and Bacteria does not count (or so say us Humans, the Bacteria have other ideas MWHAHAHA)

:stupid:

Yes, animals kill eachother all the time, but almost exclusively out of neccecity. Lions fight each other so that they can control hunting area, and food is good if you want to survive. Needless death is a waste to me, and intentional killing for no other reason than convience is evil to me.

The definitions of "good", "evil", "right", and "wrong" are dependant on a person's moral standing. Most of us have different moral standings(if you haven't noticed allready), and as I have previousely stated, the NAZIs thought that they were doing good. No one thinks of themselves as evil.

Tobias, I mostly agree with you, except that I'm pro-life because there can be exceptions made when abortion is required to save a mother's life. That is the only exception I will accept personaly.

We've all seen the other's viewpoints by now, so may I sudgest that we let this thread die

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
We've all seen the other's viewpoints by now, so may I sudgest that we let this thread die

Why? I am willing to think some more about this issue.

Here is where we have come to an impass: You believe that an egg becomes human at the moment of conception. I believe the the condition that is know as being human does not necessarily occur at that point. I don't see something that is less developed than an insect has the same rights as a human.

Since I don't know exactly when that point the human condition occurs, I am am pro-life. However, I would not feel right about forcing my opinion on someone else so I vote pro-choice. I do believe that somewhere between the end of the first trimester and birth is a very good guess at when the fetus aquires the human condition.

How do you feel about things like the morning after pill?

[Bighoss]

I think there is a time period about 3 months before I consider it to be a human. Once its there abortion seems like killing.