• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Abortion

Pokemon Game Fan

The Batman
569
Posts
12
Years
  • Well let's compare it to something legal shall we?
    You choose to drink, you do damage to your liver. Do you get to kill the person who served you?

    You don't have the right to end a life simply because you don't want to be a parent, put the child up for adoption. You don't want to run the risk of experiencing pregnancy and birth, don't have sex.

    So would you be against abortion legally? Do you think abortion should be illegal? Or are you just saying morally it's wrong?

    I think morally it's completely fine. I don't think it's very moral to force someone to have a kid they don't want just because they followed a natural urge to have sex. Sex is a natural urge, anyone can have sex with whoever they want. It's... once again, natural. I think it's a crappy thing to tell someone they're not allowed to fulfill a natural urge (sex) because if they get pregnant, they HAVE to carry a parasite in their stomach for 9 months that will weaken them and give them a lot of problems, and then give it away.

    Plus, we have a LOT of adoption centers that are overflowing with kids right now. Why would you want to do that to another person?

    "You don't want to run the risk of experiencing pregnancy and birth, don't have sex."

    Why do you assume you can force people to not fulfill a natural urge with the threat of having to take care of a parasite they don't want? And I don't mean a baby, a fetus is a parasite that leeches off the life support of a living person. Once it's born, it's a baby, yes. Before that, it's just a clump of cells. Why should people choose to not do something that is 100% natural, and in every way imaginable - not a bad thing, because they're threatened with having to carry around something like that?

    You keep comparing having intercourse to dumb things. Drinking? No one is naturally attracted to drinking, that is developed. Stealing? People aren't attracted to stealing by nature. Sex? Sex is completely natural. We need to move out of this society that thinks that sex is a bad thing. Sex is not a bad thing, it's completely natural. And the fact that we have things like the morning after-pill and abortion centers just makes it easier to fulfill our natural feelings.
     
    5,983
    Posts
    15
    Years
  • I really don't buy the characterization of sex as "a natural urge". To me, it serves to remove the agency behind sex and implies that it's something we can't control. I think that's a one-sided and untruthful presentation of sex.
     
    25,545
    Posts
    12
    Years
  • So would you be against abortion legally? Do you think abortion should be illegal? Or are you just saying morally it's wrong?

    I'm saying that outside of the situations I've already outlined about a hundred times it should be illegal. Outside of those situations it is also morally wrong. Killing things without a good reason tends to be.

    I think morally it's completely fine. I don't think it's very moral to force someone to have a kid they don't want just because they followed a natural urge to have sex. Sex is a natural urge, anyone can have sex with whoever they want. It's... once again, natural. I think it's a crappy thing to tell someone they're not allowed to fulfill a natural urge (sex) because if they get pregnant, they HAVE to carry a parasite in their stomach for 9 months that will weaken them and give them a lot of problems, and then give it away.

    Yes sex is natural. So? I resist the natural urge to punch people I dislike all the damn time.
    On top of that, people are very creative. There is lots of other ways you can get those orgasms your craving without having sex if you don't want to run the risk of pregnancy. "It's a natural urge" does not change the fact that you're making a choice and that sometimes choices have consequences.

    It's not a parasite, it's a human being and it has the same rights that any other human being does. To suggest a human child is equatable to a parasite is appalling.

    Plus, we have a LOT of adoption centers that are overflowing with kids right now. Why would you want to do that to another person?

    The US government could quite easily provide each child in the country with a comfortable middle class life through a cut to government funding that would still have them as the number one military spender in the world. We might currently live in a world where we can't look after those kids but we don't have to.

    "You don't want to run the risk of experiencing pregnancy and birth, don't have sex."

    Why do you assume you can force people to not fulfill a natural urge with the threat of having to take care of a parasite they don't want? And I don't mean a baby, a fetus is a parasite that leeches off the life support of a living person. Once it's born, it's a baby, yes. Before that, it's just a clump of cells. Why should people choose to not do something that is 100% natural, and in every way imaginable - not a bad thing, because they're threatened with having to carry around something like that?

    Yes we have established that the urge to have sex is natural. This does not change the fact that it is also a choice to partake in it and that choices have consequences. I will say it again, that "clump of cells" is not a parasite like some sort of tapeworm it is a human life and has the same right to life that you or I do. Please refrain from referring to foetuses as such because quite frankly it's appalling behaviour and sensationalism that poisons the debate.

    You keep comparing having intercourse to dumb things. Drinking? No one is naturally attracted to drinking, that is developed. Stealing? People aren't attracted to stealing by nature. Sex? Sex is completely natural. We need to move out of this society that thinks that sex is a bad thing. Sex is not a bad thing, it's completely natural. And the fact that we have things like the morning after-pill and abortion centers just makes it easier to fulfill our natural feelings.

    I'm comparing it do dumb things? No, I'm comparing them to other choices. You call my comparisons dumb because they refute your worldview and you don't like it. Many people are attracted to stealing by nature by the way.

    I have not once said sex is bad. I don't recall ever saying as such and you shouldn't put words in my mouth. Drinking isn't inherently bad either, but choosing to do so can still result in unwanted consequences and the same is true of sex and many other actions. Sex being natural changes nothing at all. You make the choice, then deal with consequences.
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
    4,494
    Posts
    8
    Years
  • I believe abortion is an initiation of force and a violation of self-ownership, but I do not believe it should be illegal. I think it should be legal with no government interference, subsidization, or government-run abortion clinics.
     

    Pokemon Game Fan

    The Batman
    569
    Posts
    12
    Years
  • I'm saying that outside of the situations I've already outlined about a hundred times it should be illegal. Outside of those situations it is also morally wrong. Killing things without a good reason tends to be.



    Yes sex is natural. So? I resist the natural urge to punch people I dislike all the damn time.
    On top of that, people are very creative. There is lots of other ways you can get those orgasms your craving without having sex if you don't want to run the risk of pregnancy. "It's a natural urge" does not change the fact that you're making a choice and that sometimes choices have consequences.

    It's not a parasite, it's a human being and it has the same rights that any other human being does. To suggest a human child is equatable to a parasite is appalling.



    The US government could quite easily provide each child in the country with a comfortable middle class life through a cut to government funding that would still have them as the number one military spender in the world. We might currently live in a world where we can't look after those kids but we don't have to.

    "You don't want to run the risk of experiencing pregnancy and birth, don't have sex."



    Yes we have established that the urge to have sex is natural. This does not change the fact that it is also a choice to partake in it and that choices have consequences. I will say it again, that "clump of cells" is not a parasite like some sort of tapeworm it is a human life and has the same right to life that you or I do. Please refrain from referring to foetuses as such because quite frankly it's appalling behaviour and sensationalism that poisons the debate.



    I'm comparing it do dumb things? No, I'm comparing them to other choices. You call my comparisons dumb because they refute your worldview and you don't like it. Many people are attracted to stealing by nature by the way.

    I have not once said sex is bad. I don't recall ever saying as such and you shouldn't put words in my mouth. Drinking isn't inherently bad either, but choosing to do so can still result in unwanted consequences and the same is true of sex and many other actions. Sex being natural changes nothing at all. You make the choice, then deal with consequences.

    How are you going to enforce that? Are you going to force rape victims to prove they were raped? And what are you going to do about those people who get abortions outside of the legal way? Banning abortions isn't going to make people get less abortions, it'll just make it more difficult for people to do so.

    Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. You can naturally feel the need to punch someone but we have laws against that for a reason. There are no laws against having sex. Don't even try to compare the two, that's asinine.

    Yes, a fetus is a parasite by the very definition of parasite:

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

    A fetus lives in another organism (the mother) and benefits from her nutrients (which is why pregnant women tend to eat certain things) and it is at the expense of the host, as the host has to suffer through it all. It's not a human, so quit calling it that. It's not a human any more than any other clump of cells is a human, no matter how hard you want to believe that.

    There are a lot of things the US government can do that it won't. You know what would benefit more from government spending? Taking care of things that are actually here and alive, not things that haven't been born yet. Let's take care of the kids that ARE born, let's make college free so we can have more people with a good education, let's use the money to help people that are alive and not those you want to be alive in the next few years.

    How is calling something by its name appalling? If you can't handle literal definitions that make you feel queasy, then I apologize for using the words, but maybe you shouldn't be in a debate forum. The real world isn't pretty. Calling a fetus a parasite is completely fine, whether it upsets you or not. I do apologize for it, but I will not insult the facts by not doing so. It's relevant to this conversation.

    No, because once again; stealing isn't a natural urge that we are all (for the most part) born with. Sex is. Sex is something almost everyone is born with an urge for. It's ridiculous to say that we need to punish people for doing it. We live in a society where you don't NEED to suffer the consequences for doing something that is a completely natural urge, that is a great thing. People can satisfy their sexual needs and then if they want to choose to have a family and not carry something that will leech off them and make them feel horrible for 9 months, they have that choice. They can CHOOSE when to have kids and when not to have kids.

    According to science, a fetus is not a person. According to the law, a fetus is not a person. You might have an opinion that it is, but none of the data and evidence seems to agree with you on that. So maybe it's your world view which isn't correct? Don't insult mine, look at your own.

    You might not have said it directly, but the way you compare sex to alcoholism and robbery shows that you don't see sex as a good thing. Which means you likely see it as a bad thing. You don't need to say things to imply them. Yes, some people may feel the natural urge to steal. That's called a mental illness. We take care of those people so they can fit into society.
     
    25,545
    Posts
    12
    Years

  • Firstly, whether or not the urge to have sex is natural or not is completely irrelevant.

    Secondly, there's a lot of debate as to what constitutes a person and both science and the law are fluid and can change. The law based on perceived morality and science based on perceived facts. For example, there's already been evidence given of an infants early nerve activity earlier in the thread.

    Thirdly, you're still putting words in my mouth. I could compare it to any number of things but it will not be enough satisfy you because you're completely opposed to the idea of making people live with the consequences of their actions simply because sex is "natural". Which is a pretty poor argument since it has precisely zero to do with the thread.

    Fourth, you can apply that definition of parasite to foetuses to suit your means if you want but I'm pretty confident no self-respecting biologist is going to apply it to reproduction. Symbiont maybe.

    Fifth, I never said that your world view was wrong. I respect you're opinion, although I certainly do not agree with it, and I would appreciate it if you would return that respect instead of telling me I shouldn't be apart of the section I help run and telling me world view is simply false. Opinion cannot be false. It can be disagreed with, but it can't be false. Even if my view is the minority it still doesn't make it false, it was originally a minority that thought it was perfectly okay to enslave people based on the colour of their skin.

    I disapprove of a society in which it is okay to kill a living being to cover for you inability to deal with consequences. You're right that there's a lot of things that money could go towards but ending lives to make things a bit easier who can't cope with the consequences of their actions is not one of them.
     
    10,078
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • UK
    • Seen Oct 17, 2023
    As a biologist I find it perfectly fine to refer to a fetus as a parasite :c.

    @"product of sex so your responsibility"
    Does that mean that someone who catches a disease due to sex should not be given treatment - they knew the risks when they had sex? It follows a similar train of thought, especially if we're talking about morning after pill / immediate action abortions, where there isn't even a fetus just a bundle of cells.

    You've spoken a lot on how the woman needs to suck it up and not have sex if she doesn't want a child - what of the man? There is no moral or legal way to force a man into this situation. You man suffers none of the physical and very few of the psychological (and potentially none of the financial) impacts of being pregnant. So why are you insisting a woman must do this?

    In my opinion, a fetus is a living thing once it is feasibly able to grow outside of its mothers womb. That's when its an independent being. During that time abortion is, in fact, illegal so I'm guessing I'm following some kind of legal/scientific standard here.

    I won't go in to facts and figures again, but pregnancy takes a huge financial strain on the parent/s, as well as an emotional strain. Ask any pregnant woman, it's not an enjoyable thing unless you're actually looking forward to the baby. Now suggest someone has to go through that ordeal where the baby is either going to be put up for adoption, or going to be kept and ruin their lives. That is psychological strain I would not wish on anyone.

    Short of banning sex for purposes other than reproduction, your argument is at a complete dead end.
     
    25,545
    Posts
    12
    Years

  • Did I not say in my very first post, that a man as every bit as involve as the woman? I mean, after the last thread we both know we have opposing ideas here but let's not put words in my mouth. I think if you get a woman pregnant you don't just have a right to be a part of the process you have a responsibility to be.

    I also gave my answer about STI/D thing a while ago, you should be treated yes. If you have a child you don't want, you can "treat" that problem without taking a life.

    I don't really want to keep making the same arguments over and over because I don't think it really adds to the discussion :/
     
    10,078
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • UK
    • Seen Oct 17, 2023
    It's all well and good saying a man is also responsible, when they bear next to none of the sacrifices the mother does. If you think abortion should be illegal, do you also think that it should be illegal for a man to walk away from a child? Illegal to have a one-night stand (as they wouldn't be able to raise the child if they don't know them). Illegal to sleep with someone abroad, as you'd only be able to support them financially?

    Honestly I struggle to understand people going against abortion in this day and age. I'm all for adding constraints to abortion, add counselling support, provide protection and give information on alternative contraception, but to deny the right for people to have them unless they can prove rape is just... incredibly out of sync with the world.


    To add to this discussion some more, lets look at what the situation in the UK is for abortions, taken from the NHS's website.

    The NHS already provides some great suggestions to why an abortion might take place, even avoiding rape, etc.
    Why an abortion may be needed
    - There are many reasons why a woman might decide to have an abortion, including:
    personal circumstances – including risk to the wellbeing of existing children
    - a health risk to the mother
    - a high chance the baby will have a serious abnormality – either genetic or physical

    There are also significant restrictions in place:
    The Abortion Act 1967 covers England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland, and states:
    - abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
    - two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

    There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:
    - if it's necessary to save the woman's life
    - to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
    - if there is substantial risk that the child would be born with serious physical or mental disabilities

    So these sound adequate to you? You've conceded a few times (unless I maybe imagined it) that abortion is unlikely to be outright illegal. So let's find the middle ground instead of arguing the absolutes.
     
    Last edited:

    Pokemon Game Fan

    The Batman
    569
    Posts
    12
    Years

  • Well, considering that it seems you've made sex to look like a bad thing, it is completely relevant. Should we also not provide medicine to AIDS victims or victims of other STDs? I mean, they knew the consequences when they had sex and they did it anyway, they should live with the consequences right? If only we lived in a world where we had technological advances in place to help you in case you get an unwanted side-effect of a particularly good night out.

    There are debates, but the facts just don't add up. The same people that debate harshly against abortion tend to believe that a child is present immediately after sex. To quote Bill Maher, "They believe that before the man can light a cigarette, there is a third person in the room." I'm sorry, but a clump of cells is not a person. If you want to ban abortion, you must also want to ban the morning after pill, correct? It's essentially the same thing. If you're arguing against very late-term abortions, I completely agree. The general consensus seems to be that a fetus is a person anywhere after 4-6 months.

    I'm not putting words in your mouth... did you not compare drinking to sex? Or stealing to sex? You used both of those examples when arguing why sex has consequences. I didn't say anything you didn't say. I'm not saying sex being natural is the only thing as to why sex is good. I'm saying that it's a natural urge that doesn't hurt any living person to do, and it's shown to be more positive than negative, and we live in a society where we have the technology to get rid of or help cure any problems that we may get from that. I think that's a great thing.

    Mana's point made your point about this... well, moot - for lack of a better word. So I wont address that.

    Now you're putting words into my mouth. I only said that you shouldn't be here if the idea of someone calling a fetus a parasite offends you. Because it's true. This is a debate forum where people talk about facts, you were upset I called a parasite a fetus. Not only did I respectfully apologize for offending you, but I also recommended nicely that if you didn't like hearing things like that, maybe you shouldn't be in this sub-forum. If you help run it, you should know that some debates can use professional language and that you shouldn't get offended by said language. You should also know not to take any of this personally, which it honestly seems like you're doing. I didn't say you weren't allowed to have an opinion, but you were getting upset over me calling a fetus a parasite, I don't know what I'm supposed to do in that case. If you get offended, that's your own problem. At least I apologized for using terms that offend you, most people in real world debates won't. I completely respect your opinion, and I would never think to tell you to believe something else outside of here. But this is a debate forum, that's what this is for.

    Once again, you'd have to define 'living being' - cause by that inferred definition, you could also be calling plants living beings, should we kill those for any reason? I don't consider a fetus a living being in the same sense that I'd consider a person a living being. If they were actually babies getting murdered, I'd be inclined to agree. But in this case, I have yet to see any evidence that a fetus is a baby and not a clump of cells.

    I don't think it's morally fine to abort just because you were having sex for fun and not to have kids.

    If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

    You're just twisting the definition to suit your mod cons.

    So you're saying people should only have sex to procreate? That's silly. I'd say that I wonder how you feel about infertile couples or homosexual couples, but you don't seem to be against them (rightfully so), so I'm surprised you feel this way.

    Sex is a crime?

    No I'm not. I literally found that exact definition when I googled the literal definition of it.
     
    Last edited:
    22
    Posts
    8
    Years
    • SC
    • Seen Sep 4, 2017
    :

    Is abortion murder if the baby's in the womb?
    I don't believe abortion is murder when the fetus is not able to live on its own outside of the womb.

    If pro choice, in what circumstances do you feel abortion should be allowed?
    N/A

    Why are you pro choice or pro life?
    I am pro choice because what a woman decides to do with her body is her choice, not mine.

    However, I am of the belief that abortion should only be legal up until a certain stage in pregnancy, when the fetus is viable outside of the womb. I am in favor of a cutoff between 22-26 weeks.

    Some states have no cutoff, and that does bother me. I do not believe a woman should be able to walk in to an abortion clinic at 35 weeks pregnant and say "I want to have an abortion". Not that that happens often, if at all. But, it is technically legal to do so in 9 states and D.C.


    Anyway, as a general rule, I am not in favor of third term/trimester abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. But as I've said before, up until the point that a fetus is viable outside of the womb, I think it should be totally up to the potential mother.
     
    Last edited:
    1,225
    Posts
    18
    Years
    • Age 29
    • he/him/his
    • Seen Feb 8, 2024
    Doesn't it come off as more than a bit vindictive to force a pregnancy and possibly a child on someone for something as fleeting as sex? You can most certainly believe the fetus is alive, but your beliefs shouldn't restrict someone from making a choice based on their own beliefs.

    I used to be extremely pro-choice but I have definitely had a huge change of heart on the issue. It is not vindictive to "force" someone to carry a baby to term because unless they were raped, no one is forcing anything on them. I definitely agree with exceptions in cases that the woman was raped or in cases where carrying the baby to term may cause death or permanent damage to the mother. But if no one forces the woman to have sex, then the pregnancy is not forced upon her. It is not a "belief" that the fetus is alive. That is a fact. Some people see abortion rights as an integral part of the women's liberation movement. I do not see it as liberating. I see continually high rates of abortion as one of many signs of a society in decline towards complete dissociation from human compassion. I also think women have been encouraged to ignore their biological urges to protect their offspring. People need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. That is liberating, not a solution which disregards life and precludes the adults in the situation from the consequences of their actions.
     
    10,078
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • UK
    • Seen Oct 17, 2023
    Fun fact: everyone against abortion in this thread has their gender labelled as "male".

    I think that says a lot ><.
     
    1,225
    Posts
    18
    Years
    • Age 29
    • he/him/his
    • Seen Feb 8, 2024
    Fun fact: everyone against abortion in this thread has their gender labelled as "male".

    I think that says a lot ><.

    Yes but does that say something about those who support abortion rights or those who don't? It's just the supposed "dominant" group that is biased; so can be the supposed "oppressed" group. What one group sees as liberation for their group may in fact be a flagrant violation of the rights of others. In this case, I don't see a compelling reason why we should ignore the rights of an unborn child, which is undeniably a human life. While people you disagree with are biased, don't forget that so too are those who agree with you.
     

    Nah

    15,953
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Age 31
    • she/her, they/them
    • Seen yesterday
    In this case, I don't see a compelling reason why we should ignore the rights of an unborn child, which is undeniably a human life.
    How is it undeniably a human life?

    Beeeeefore anyone thinks that I'm asking this only as a rhetorical question and a roundabout way to say that I think the answer is only no, I'm not. If it really was that obvious, I kiiiiiiiiinda don't think that abortion would be a recurring hot button issue. As far as I can remember no one's given a terribly compelling answer either way to that particular question in this thread.
     
    1,225
    Posts
    18
    Years
    • Age 29
    • he/him/his
    • Seen Feb 8, 2024
    How is it undeniably a human life?

    Beeeeefore anyone thinks that I'm asking this only as a rhetorical question and a roundabout way to say that I think the answer is only no, I'm not. If it really was that obvious, I kiiiiiiiiinda don't think that abortion would be a recurring hot button issue. As far as I can remember no one's given a terribly compelling answer either way to that particular question in this thread.
    Check out this link.

    "[A] human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual."

    "As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a 'potential' or a 'possible' human being. It's an actual human being, with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities."

    The idea that a zygote, embryo or fetus is not a human life is absolutely ridiculous and indefensible. I am not making a religious argument at all.
     

    Her

    11,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen yesterday
    I used to be extremely pro-choice but I have definitely had a huge change of heart on the issue. It is not vindictive to "force" someone to carry a baby to term because unless they were raped, no one is forcing anything on them. I definitely agree with exceptions in cases that the woman was raped or in cases where carrying the baby to term may cause death or permanent damage to the mother. But if no one forces the woman to have sex, then the pregnancy is not forced upon her. It is not a "belief" that the fetus is alive. That is a fact. Some people see abortion rights as an integral part of the women's liberation movement. I do not see it as liberating. I see continually high rates of abortion as one of many signs of a society in decline towards complete dissociation from human compassion. I also think women have been encouraged to ignore their biological urges to protect their offspring. People need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. That is liberating, not a solution which disregards life and precludes the adults in the situation from the consequences of their actions.

    Re: belief. I'll admit I used that term without proper explanation. It may be alive, but to what extent it is human and/or worth saving is entirely up to each person to decide.

    Total abstinence for women or have a child unless you can prove were raped/it's an extreme health risk. Oh dear. Don't think I'm going to make much progress here.
    If you don't consider it 'force' to make a woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want/need to have, and to have a child she doesn't want/need to have, to put it in an extremely underfunded & overcrowded adoption system which doesn't need any further strain, based solely on your own ideology, then I just don't think we're going to get anywhere. Seems much less compassionate for all concerned than allowing a woman to have a child when she chooses and can provide for it, financially and emotionally. A woman should be allowed to have sex without having to consider having a child every single time she does so. It seems much more liberating to be allowed a choice of when to have a child based on her own desires, not when a biological reaction says so.

    Increasing abortion rates are due to a cultural failure to educate people on the possible consequences of sex, to allow for modern sexual attitudes and how to avoid pregnancy in the first place without considering the final safety net of abortion. It's what happens when steadfast ideologies restrict and shame those involved. That's much less compassionate than allowing a person sexual freedom and the option to rectify a mistake should they want to do so. Abortion isn't some soulless act where the mother casually throws aside cultural & biological attitudes in the name of selfishness. It's a procedure that no one enters lightly and no one feels better afterwards. It's gritty and often emotionally scarring, if not physical. Some people need therapy afterwards, possibly for their whole lives. Some people may even regret it. But it's there so that people can have a choice. And that's the whole crux of my beliefs - have your own ideas about if abortion is a stain upon the human condition, or a total disregard for life. I understand how people can feel that way, I'm not saying that your concern for what you consider a full human being is unwarranted. Some people who have abortions feel that way. But we have to make sure it's available for those who do not feel the same way and do not want to go through the trials that an unwanted pregnancy, adopted or not, can & most often will bring. I am genuinely sorry if you believe that your views outweigh any woman's decision in that regard.
     
    25,545
    Posts
    12
    Years
  • Well, considering that it seems you've made sex to look like a bad thing, it is completely relevant. Should we also not provide medicine to AIDS victims or victims of other STDs? I mean, they knew the consequences when they had sex and they did it anyway, they should live with the consequences right? If only we lived in a world where we had technological advances in place to help you in case you get an unwanted side-effect of a particularly good night out.

    Okay, you are still putting words in my mouth and I'm over it. I have never said sex is bad, I have never painted sex in a negative light and even if I had, sex being natural would still not be even remotely relevant to the conversation (natural doesn't = good). I have simply stated, repeatedly at this point, that sex is a choice that we make and that sometimes choice have consequences.

    I'm not even responding to the AIDS thing again. I have responded to that same point over and over and over, several times from you. Enough.

    There are debates, but the facts just don't add up. The same people that debate harshly against abortion tend to believe that a child is present immediately after sex. To quote Bill Maher, "They believe that before the man can light a cigarette, there is a third person in the room." I'm sorry, but a clump of cells is not a person. If you want to ban abortion, you must also want to ban the morning after pill, correct? It's essentially the same thing. If you're arguing against very late-term abortions, I completely agree. The general consensus seems to be that a fetus is a person anywhere after 4-6 months.

    "The facts don't add up". You disagree, therefore they don't add up. Don't lump me in with stupid religious zealots and conservative nut jobs just because I don't think abortion should be used as a means of contraception. No, I don't want to ban the morning after pill, I'm not an idiot. The literal morning after there has been stuff all time for anything to develop. I don't however agree with anything involving taking a life that actually has nervous activity etc because I belief that it when we can call it a living being. As Johnny has already showed you, that nervous activity begins much earlier than people seem to think.

    As to late term abortion, that I equate to murder. Late term you're not just carrying what will become human, that is a human being and if you take that life you should have your sorry ass locked up.

    I'm not putting words in your mouth... did you not compare drinking to sex? Or stealing to sex? You used both of those examples when arguing why sex has consequences. I didn't say anything you didn't say. I'm not saying sex being natural is the only thing as to why sex is good. I'm saying that it's a natural urge that doesn't hurt any living person to do, and it's shown to be more positive than negative, and we live in a society where we have the technology to get rid of or help cure any problems that we may get from that. I think that's a great thing.

    You have consistently put words in both mine and Johnny's mouths ever since you joined this debate. Once again, natural does not equal good - irrelevant argument. On top of that, drinking is not inherently bad. I could compare it to any legal thing that most people don't bat an eyelid at that might carry consequences but you'll still criticise me for "saying sex is bad" (which I haven't) because it disagrees with your worldview.

    Now you're putting words into my mouth. I only said that you shouldn't be here if the idea of someone calling a fetus a parasite offends you. Because it's true. This is a debate forum where people talk about facts, you were upset I called a parasite a fetus. Not only did I respectfully apologize for offending you, but I also recommended nicely that if you didn't like hearing things like that, maybe you shouldn't be in this sub-forum. If you help run it, you should know that some debates can use professional language and that you shouldn't get offended by said language. You should also know not to take any of this personally, which it honestly seems like you're doing. I didn't say you weren't allowed to have an opinion, but you were getting upset over me calling a fetus a parasite, I don't know what I'm supposed to do in that case. If you get offended, that's your own problem. At least I apologized for using terms that offend you, most people in real world debates won't. I completely respect your opinion, and I would never think to tell you to believe something else outside of here. But this is a debate forum, that's what this is for.

    I do not like being talked down to. I appreciate the apology, obviously you can apply the definition to a foetus, it works logically. Honestly what bothers me is that you're still talking down to me. You don't get to decide where I should or shouldn't be and it's that condescension I want out of your arguments because it has even less place in this forum that emotions responses do.

    Once again, you'd have to define 'living being' - cause by that inferred definition, you could also be calling plants living beings, should we kill those for any reason? I don't consider a fetus a living being in the same sense that I'd consider a person a living being. If they were actually babies getting murdered, I'd be inclined to agree. But in this case, I have yet to see any evidence that a fetus is a baby and not a clump of cells.

    Plants are living beings, I don't agree with killing them without good reason either. But there's a big difference between taking the life of even a cow, so that I might eat it and as a result live, and abortion. I have said it elsewhere (much more eloquently) and I'll find a link to what I said there elsewhere later, but the gist is trading a life for a life is okay. Taking a life because you don't want to live with the consequences of your actions is not.

    Also, the definition of a foetus

    an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

    You seem to confuse foetus with embryo.
     

    Elysieum

    Requiescat en pace.
    258
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Also, before a woman comments that a man has no right to discuss abortion, yes we do. Men are just as responsible for the creation of a child as the woman, and whilst ultimately you decide what you do with your body, our thoughts on the matter should not be discounted because we're as much a part of the issue as you are.

    I would want to amend this to men should be as responsible for the creation of a child as the woman, because in the real world I think there is a tendency for men to assume less of a responsible role in the matter. I don't think anyone wants to exclude males from the discussion of abortion (that anyone is talking about it is a good thing, I believe), but to me at least, the fact that females carry the embryo to term does skew the balance completely. The voice of the woman simply has to carry more weight since it is her life and body that is affected in so much more of a profound way than that of the male.

    As a macro comment, there is something wholly sickening about the fact that legislation is being written by politicians (that is overwhelmingly male) about something that is completely outside of their own experience (the female reproductive organs).

    I faintly remember a line from comic Sarah Silverman. She made a hard distinction between the Democratic and Republican parties of America, citing her immediate loyalty to the former because "Democrats aren't trying to legislate my p***y."

    Crass, but it stuck with me.
     
    Back
    Top