Abortion

[Kameken]

Believe it or not, there exist people who aren't entirely into the idea of offing living creatures just because we don't share a species.

 

[Altairis]

Believe it or not, there exist people who aren't entirely into the idea of offing living creatures just because we don't share a species.

That wasn't my point. I was asking why people use whether a fetus has a heartbeat to define whether it's alive or not when the lungs and brain have the same importance in the human body. I realize that I kind of jumped in the middle of another issue, I was mostly referring to those who had posted earlier.

 

[maccrash]

"imagine if MLK were aborted. wouldn't that suck?"
"yeah, but what if Hitler was aborted?"
"Hitler wasn't THAT bad shut up"

 

[Kameken]

"imagine if MLK were aborted. wouldn't that suck?"
"yeah, but what if Hitler was aborted?"
"Hitler wasn't THAT bad shut up"

Yeah, I hear you.
Reading is too hard, bypassing it was a smart decision.

 

[£]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Dammit guys, if we'd just have aborted Hitler, this thing wouldn't be triggering all the time.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

You know, Kameken, you're doing little by insulting other people. Some of your posts are pretty irrelevant too, such as

Believe it or not, there exist people who aren't entirely into the idea of offing living creatures just because we don't share a species.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I think it says quite a bit that people on this thread seem to be actively avoiding context.

Namely you? I read through the last page and I still don't understand what the hell you're trying to get at. Be a little less vague.

Anyways, most people who are pro-choice here do not

• believe that babies are worthless
• believe that abortions should be used as opposed to contraception
• believe that the mother is more important than the child

And most people who are pro-choice here do believe that

• Abortion should be a final alternative, not a first choice
• Safe sex practices should be practices as a precaution to avoid abortions
• There are huge issues regarding education of sex and procreation outside of abortions, which lead to more unwanted pregnancies

So strawmanning your opposition is not helping in the slightest.

Personally, I can understand the non-religious pro-life argument, but unfortunately it seems too far nested in a positive fantasy than the reality that we live in. Like I said before, women would still be getting abortions, just in shady-as-♥♥♥♥ areas where they can get many more complications. If anything abolishing it will only make complications worse. Again, it doesn't help that education ♥♥♥♥ing sucks in a lot of the country because people are too worried about teaching the kiddies about peens and ginas, but this ultimately is leading to unsafe practices that lead to unwanted pregnancies. And at the end, if the child isn't aborted, how is it going to be taken care of for the next 20 years when it was completely unplanned and in many times the mother is still growing herself?

If we lived in a society that helps parents raise their children and actually gave a ♥♥♥♥ about them when they were alive, instead of cramming them into ♥♥♥♥♥♥ foster homes where many times a kid can't be adopted because they're too old, then maybe abolishing them would be an option, because then parents would be more inclined to say, "well at least society will help me raise them". But we don't. Pro life only ends up going as far as a fetus, and the child and the mother, well, I guess life is a little less important then for some reason.

 

[Kameken]

I think it says quite a bit that people on this thread seem to be actively avoiding context.

 

[Redingard]

Abortion shouldn't be a legal issue. That's an idiotic argument that shouldn't even be a question. It's a health issue. I don't think we need people telling women-and most of those people are old, rich white men who don't know what kind of crap they're spewing-what to do with their bodies. I'm not up for the idea of something that could potentially be my son. Nor do I want my son growing up in poverty, not knowing the true joys of life, and I certainly don't want to stick him in an orphanage.

Now someone's gonna be like "Oh my gawsh you murder because you don't want him to go up for adoption?!" Hardly the case. Adoption/orphanages are awful, awful alternatives. The living conditions are ridiculously medicore and adoption rates have been on the decline for years (except for China). That kid could grow up not knowing what it's like to have a mother or father, and while I know life is a beautiful thing, his life isn't going to be easy or kind in any sense. While it may sound messed up, I don't want to send a baby off into the pure unknown with no guidance.

Hell, going back to the legal issue, it's about as dumb as the vaccine "debate." I don't really want a person aborting for convenience, but that doesn't exactly happen too often (I'd like to believe). Outlawing it would have catastrophic effects on teen pregnanices and those living in poverty. And a mere thought-outlawing abortion wouldn't stop abortions. It would stop safe abortions. Similar to the 18th amendment, desperate people do desperate things. Leave it up to the women. Her potential child and life style isn't our business.

Also, those saying "life begins when the heart starts beating": https://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm. At six weeks, the "human life" is only composed of cells, has a couple of levels of different organization, grows, reproduces, and uses energy. That doesn't make it a human life. It doesn't react to external stimuli, can't think or make its own decisions, and can't even support itself. It's a mere parasite at this level.

 

[BadPokemon]

Yes I agree it can also hurt her in other ways in the future, but in the present it's going to do a lot more damage to her mentally and emotionally, especially if she is being forced to have the child against her will, because abortions aren't an option. It's my opinion that conception is not when life begins, a heartbeat isn't life it's survival, and if other women also agree with this then they should have the option to abort the baby and have a normal and mentally positive life, if they are forced to have the baby then this normal life is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve.

If it's survival, then it must be alive. Otherwise there is no life and no survival.

 

[twocows]

Believe it or not, there exist people who aren't entirely into the idea of offing living creatures just because we don't share a species.

What? Who said anything like that? I assume you were responding to the person above you (post below), who said nothing of the sort. What was said was that important distinction for humans is, roughly speaking, our intelligence. That's not suggesting we start "offing living creatures just because we don't share a species." It does suggest that a fetus doesn't deserve the same protections as a more developed human deserves. Now, if you continue that logic, it does suggest that animals that lack our level of intelligence also do not deserve the same protections as humans, which is something I agree with. It says nothing about the level of protections those animals do deserve, though, and certainly doesn't suggest that we start going around killing them for no reason.

As for the topic of abortion, the reason for aborting a fetus would be to prevent a massive reduction in quality of life for the mother, lasting a minimum of several months, potentially much longer. If an animal was doing the same thing to an unwilling human host, we'd attempt to stop it from doing that harm. If that wasn't possible to do without killing the animal, the animal would die. Human life is usually valued over animal life, as I believe it should be in most cases.

What is with humans and heartbeats? You can't live without lungs or a brain, but according to my Internet research, those don't normally develop until everything else has, unlike the heartbeat which develops much sooner. Why are we saying that we can't abort the fetus because it has a heartbeat and therefore is a alive? If anything, shouldn't we be using a developed brain as the basis for our definition of "alive" since it's what sets humans apart from other animals? (I know other animals have brains but obviously ours are a lot more advanced, while our lungs and hearts function mostly the same as other animals')

This is what i assume you were responding to.

 

[Universe]

I've always thought, since I was a very small child, that there is way too much value held in a human life.

At what point do we as humans think that it's okay to jeopardize our lives and everyone else's lives by allowing every single pregnancy to go through. There are 7 billion human beings populating this planet and counting. We're bound to run out of room eventually, especially considering our global birth rates are higher than our death rates. Humans are living longer and longer lives. To try to guilt trip other humans into keeping their fetuses is complete idiocy, and not to mention sheer ignorance. Not only are you making someone feel bad for wanting to abort their pregnancy, you are practically forcing a child into this world that probably shouldn't be in it otherwise. An unborn baby, to me, is the bottom of the pit in regards to a valuable human life. It hasn't made an impact in this world, it's literally a suspended mass within another living being. Even if it is considered alive and human at the fetus point, I still don't think abortion comes across as 'cruelty' or 'murder'.

It's their uterus, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it without some stupid guilt trip coming into play. That you're 'killing' or 'murdering a baby'.

Honestly, why do these activists even care?

We are definitely in no dire need of humans at this point in time. Let the woman choose whether she wants the thing or not.

 

[Logical Cabbage]

Abortion is a pretty hard topic to talk about if you ask one's opinion. Maybe it's family, religion, or one's morality that leads them to say yes or now. I'm in a seesaw in this but my opinion is not important. Who are we to judge the innocent or the guilty women that are pregnant and want abortion? They may not all have your family customs or morality or religion but we should let them be. If it's a sin to abort, then let them fall in their sinful was. What happens to those women and the future babies is on them and not on you.

Plus, how would you feel if someone who you don't even know tells you what's best for you? You'd be like who are you to tell me about my future? Plus, everybody sins sooner or later, so if you people know so much about the bible, then do this: look at yourself before looking at others. Remember, we make choices to our own path so will you let these women be instead of acting like them rip off experts?

 

[Dakotah]

According to some religions, you sin just by being born. An innocent in the womb, but a sinner once born.

 

[Oryx]

Abortion is a pretty hard topic to talk about if you ask one's opinion. Maybe it's family, religion, or one's morality that leads them to say yes or now. I'm in a seesaw in this but my opinion is not important. Who are we to judge the innocent or the guilty women that are pregnant and want abortion? They may not all have your family customs or morality or religion but we should let them be. If it's a sin to abort, then let them fall in their sinful was. What happens to those women and the future babies is on them and not on you.

Plus, how would you feel if someone who you don't even know tells you what's best for you? You'd be like who are you to tell me about my future? Plus, everybody sins sooner or later, so if you people know so much about the bible, then do this: look at yourself before looking at others. Remember, we make choices to our own path so will you let these women be instead of acting like them rip off experts?

While I am pro-choice myself, this argument does not hold water - we as a culture are anti-murder. Although you can make these same arguments about murder, that culturally maybe the murderer was told that they had to do it for some reason, and therefore we can't judge them - and yet we do, and rightfully so. Treating it as just a matter of "religious people are silly for caring" is disingenuous and oversimplifies their position - they care because they see it as murder, which we should and do care about.

 

[Universe]

While I am pro-choice myself, this argument does not hold water - we as a culture are anti-murder. Although you can make these same arguments about murder, that culturally maybe the murderer was told that they had to do it for some reason, and therefore we can't judge them - and yet we do, and rightfully so. Treating it as just a matter of "religious people are silly for caring" is disingenuous and oversimplifies their position - they care because they see it as murder, which we should and do care about.

What I'm having trouble understanding is the claim that abortion is murder to begin with. If it were a life that had made its impact in the world in some way or another, big or small, I could understand. But people are saying that the life of a fetus matters as much as the life of someone who's earned their keep, so to speak. Even if you are consciously taking the would-be life of a fetus, well, that's just it. 'Would-be life', as in it hasn't truly lived. It's dependent on another creature for survival, and clearly said individual doesn't desire this would-be life.

How can it be murder when it doesn't even have a life to take? It's barely alive, let alone living.

Some aborted fetuses aren't even alive whatsoever.

It's hard for me to understand that sort of argument.

 

[Logical Cabbage]

MilkFlavored is scientifically right guys. It hasn't even taken it's first breath yet. But like I said before, we cannot judge just because we have power to do so. That's just greedy and selfish of us to do so. Nobody is innocent so basically everyone (including me because let's be real, no one is innocent) is a hypocrite. Plus who would you prefer making choices for your child: you or some overpowering one minded person?

 

[Oryx]

What I'm having trouble understanding is the claim that abortion is murder to begin with. If it were a life that had made its impact in the world in some way or another, big or small, I could understand. But people are saying that the life of a fetus matters as much as the life of someone who's earned their keep, so to speak. Even if you are consciously taking the would-be life of a fetus, well, that's just it. 'Would-be life', as in it hasn't truly lived. It's dependent on another creature for survival, and clearly said individual doesn't desire this would-be life.

How can it be murder when it doesn't even have a life to take? It's barely alive, let alone living.

Some aborted fetuses aren't even alive whatsoever.

It's hard for me to understand that sort of argument.

The argument of where human life begins is often where the argument revolves around. However, the only claim I'm trying to make is arguing against the idea that no one should judge ever even if they truly believe that it's murder - I feel completely comfortable judging someone who I know fatally shot someone, and our legal system is the same way. Whether or not the fetus is human life is one thing, but claiming that regardless of that argument people shouldn't judge is another. People judge because they disagree with the basic premise that a fetus is not a full human life, and therefore abortion to them is murder. Anyone who says they don't judge murderers because it's greedy and selfish is either lying or a bad member of society, honestly.

In my opinion the point of life is irrelevant though; just like I'm not obligated legally to save the life of my (hypothetical) fully-formed child by giving up rights to my body, I shouldn't be obligated legally to save the life of a fetus, human life or not, by giving up rights to my body. Simple as that.

 

[Kanzler]

In my opinion the point of life is irrelevant though; just like I'm not obligated legally to save the life of my (hypothetical) fully-formed child by giving up rights to my body, I shouldn't be obligated legally to save the life of a fetus, human life or not, by giving up rights to my body. Simple as that.

A fetus exists after its embryonic stage and before birth. By your logic, as long as the fetus is within your body it's fair game to abort. After all, so long as it has not yet crowned, it is in your body yes? But I don't think it's acceptable to many to take the "her body, her right" argument to that extreme. There's more to abortion than just a woman's right to her body - it's not as simple as that.

 

[Oryx]

A fetus exists after its embryonic stage and before birth. By your logic, as long as the fetus is within your body it's fair game to abort. After all, so long as it has not yet crowned, it is in your body yes? But I don't think it's acceptable to many to take the "her body, her right" argument to that extreme. There's more to abortion than just a woman's right to her body - it's not as simple as that.

It's fair game to remove from a woman's body, yes. This does not imply abortion in all cases, and as science progresses it will mean sooner and sooner the woman will be able to remove the child from her body without it dying. A child that is very late term that the woman decides she does not want in her body anymore can be removed via C-section or induced labor and put in the premature birth ward.

 

[Dakotah]

I offer the following link to demonstrate where anti-abortionists would like to take the country (Canada and the U.S., and likely elsewhere).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges