Abortion!

[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.

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.

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.