Debate: How do you feel about abortions?

[FreakyLocz14]

In one of the articles that I posted (can't recall which and don't feel like combing through, since I'm about to hit the hay) doctors said babies "response" to stimuli are most likely simple reflexes and not responses formed by an interconnected, complex, human nervous system. Also, his definition of life is not universal.

Furthermore, even if something is alive, when it is killed, it is not necessarily referred to as murder. If you scratch your arm, you are killing cells. These cells are human. Yet you aren't put on trial for murder. Bit of a doozy, isn't it?

You are put on trial for killing a fetus in many states. In order to do this, the state has to recognize the fetus' humanity under the law for it to be homicide. Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being.

 

[lx_theo]

You are put on trial for killing a fetus in many states. In order to do this, the state has to recognize the fetus' humanity under the law for it to be homicide. Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being.

Politics is wrapped up in extremist values, because they are always the loudest. Thats just an example of people taking things to a ridiculous level. So many things are based on blind opinions, and not the objective standpoint that is the most reasonable.

Though if a person could make the argument that it wasn't human, then they could get out of the charge. Just saying, the state doesn't have to recognize anything, they just have to have sufficient evidence that this may have happened.

 

[Oryx]

Also, cells do not fit stimuli response, and I don't think they move on their own either. Let me quote the definition of lite from where I cited earlier, a part I didn't quote in my first quote from that site.



The fact that a cell does not meet /all/ of the criteria casts serious doubt on whether it's alive. Cells are also not humans.

Um...cells are definitely alive.

You are put on trial for killing a fetus in many states. In order to do this, the state has to recognize the fetus' humanity under the law for it to be homicide. Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being.

In other states, it's not, an argument saying "because it's law it must be right" doesn't exactly fly when you're trying to argue that the law in other areas be changed because it's wrong.

Politics is wrapped up in extremist values, because they are always the loudest. Thats just an example of people taking things to a ridiculous level. So many things are based on blind opinions, and not the objective standpoint that is the most reasonable.

Though if a person could make the argument that it wasn't human, then they could get out of the charge. Just saying, the state doesn't have to recognize anything, they just have to have sufficient evidence that this may have happened.

You're making the same mistake Freaky did, taking a stance of "the law is right" or "the law is wrong" when the law is supporting you in some places and not in others. It's the ideal you're arguing for, not the laws.

 

[Shining Raichu]

...That would be underhanded, dastardly, and probably very much against the wishes of parents everywhere. You're saying that a kid should have the right to blatantly keep secrets and avoid taking responsibility for their actions by so much as having their parents aware of the choices they're making in life?! Am I missing something? That isn't how families work, and I don't think you have the right to be telling parents how to raise their kids, which is what you're doing.

I don't really understand your point here. I didn't address parents, or tell them how to do anything. So that's completely irrelevant to what I said.

And yes, I am saying that they should be able to keep this from their parents. If they've gotten themselves into this situation, which is very personal to them and their own body, and they don't wish to inform their parents, then they shouldn't have to. If they wish to keep the baby, then clearly the parents will notice at some point that their daughter is noticeably gaining weight and throwing up, but if she wishes to terminate the pregnancy, she should be able to judge whether or not her parents would try to stop this plan and then decide whether their knowledge of the pregnancy would cause more problems than it solves.

 

[lx_theo]

@ PkMn Trainer Yellow

Actually, no, a fetus does not consume. It's capable of processing all the nutrients it's given, but until the end of the first trimester, the mothers physical connection does that function for the fetus. It is not capable of doing it itself until after

Hense, the fetus is not alive until that point.

 

[Meinfoo]

So, basically, humans are worth nothing until born? Less than a BUG or WEED? They are still technically human. With all their genes and everything.

Ridiculous.

Do we cry when sperm cells or eggs die? Just because it has all the making to be a human doesn't mean it is one. I see a fetus as a vehicle that life will go enter when it starts consciously thinking. Like the materials to build a house. When your house is demolished you cry, but if the materials to build it BEFORE IT WAS BUILT were lost/destroyed it wouldn't matter. You can always get new ones and there was no attachment to the house and no house to begin with.

Besides, it would be a crime beyond crimes if we forced a woman to have a child she didn't want or couldn't care for. There are enough unhappy humans in the world already.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Politics is wrapped up in extremist values, because they are always the loudest. Thats just an example of people taking things to a ridiculous level. So many things are based on blind opinions, and not the objective standpoint that is the most reasonable.

Though if a person could make the argument that it wasn't human, then they could get out of the charge. Just saying, the state doesn't have to recognize anything, they just have to have sufficient evidence that this may have happened.

If it is written in the states' penal code that one can be charged with homicide for killing a fetus, it would have to be a human being in the eyes of that state's law. A defendant could not argue to the jury that the fetus is not a human being because juries only decide matters of fact, not matters of law. This would be immediate grounds for a mistrial if they were to do so. Anything written in the state's statutes are matters of law and not of fact.

 

[Melody]

Alright this is a bit ridiculous. Trotsky (technically you already did), Pkmn Trainer Yellow and Freakylocz14, instead of sitting there ignoring all other discussion and viewpoints, perhaps attempt to give a logical or scientific backing of your beliefs to back your claims. This banter back and forth is obnoxious.

Such as is debate. If that's too violent for you, you'd be well within your rights to prohibit such hot button topics in OC. Your predecessor did after some time, and I didn't blame her, regardless of the enmity that gained her.

You have to admit that all of these people have a point...which you seem to have already done by this point fortunately.

Well, that's dandy but here's an argument on the contrary.

https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm This, is a link to a website which specifically defines what is and what is not alive.



Now let's examine how this applies to babies.

Take this link, which mostly examines at what point during development babies start doing certain things.
https://www.pregnancy.org/article/first-trimester

On to the cake. Clearly, babies grow. We not need to dwell on that, yes? They start growing at conception.

Clearly, babies are provided with plenty of nutrients and use these nutrients. They do consume, and start doing so less than a week after conception.

They start moving on their own after approximately 12 weeks. This is around when the first trimester switches to the second trimester.
They also have been shown to hear things at around 16 weeks. This is not long after the first trimester.

Reproduction is a moot point, because even after birth, children still cannot reproduce until many years later, yet they are still developing that exact thing. In fact, unless you're willing to argue that children are not alive until they can reproduce, this particular conflict will help prove my argument on whether they have stimulus response.

Stimulus response... I'm going to use a different source for this particular one.

https://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/early3.html

To quote,


And to draw attention to a specific part of that quote.



So, it seems to me babies have a very primitive nervous system quite early, which would mean they respond to stimuli on some level, yes? And like with reproduction above, the fact that it only continues to grow only supports that the organism qualifies as alive.






All this being said... how is it /not/ alive?

I am in agreement with this fully. This is why I believe that the woman should only have the choice to abort before it becomes old enough to be classified as fully alive. This would be the fairest way to ensure the woman's rights are respected and the morality is respected as well.

Arguments about medical complications are moot, because I believe an outright ban on abortion is stupid. In a previous post I cited that Rape and underage pregnancy were exceptions where the woman should be given a choice of abortion or carrying to term if abortion was banned. I forgot to consider medical reasons, and if any doctor decides that the child is causing too much detriment to the mothers' health, then of course I do not oppose her having the choice to abort.

I do happen to agree, women must take responsibility for their actions, and this includes getting pregnant. I do not believe that they should be forced to care for the child if they are incapable emotionally or otherwise; but laws can be passed to make sure the child gets a caring and loving home, and the mother still pays for the mistake. Child support anyone? Both the biological mother and father can be hit up for this easily, and it doesn't always have to fall on the father only to pay for the child, at least until it's placed in a caring home and is fully adopted.

 

[Mika]

It's most definately a parasite. For 9 months it leeches off its host (in this case the mother) for food, oxygen, waste disposal, and energy. Babies are cute and adorable when they're born but in the early stages they're not cute at all. Those little ~dolls~ they hand out aren't realistic. They're not tiny little babies that look just like term babies. Fetuses are ugly as sin til around the 30th week. They don't have all their parts in order yet.

-----

At my school the labor time off was a week a WEEK after giving birth you had to be back at school. If you all intend on insisiting a woman carries her baby to term you better damn sure support her. I've said this before and I'll say it again: You can't claim to be prolife if the SECOND you find out she's going to keep it you abandon her.

-----

Now here's a question for you.

Have any of you three heard of the Violinist Experiment by Judith Thompson?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_%28thought_experiment%29

Here's a link but I'll briefly explain it.

A woman wakes up in hospital after being sedated to find out that her liver has been hooked up to a famous violinist prodigy. She is the only one in the world who can save this pillar of society and she must remain hooked up to him for 9 months. If she does not, this guy who has broken ground in music therapy and helped thousands if not millions of people through his music will die.

The music society did this while you both were sleeping and as such, both parties are innocent.

Even if you want to unhook him, he's an innocent. Wouldn't that be wrong? It's ~only~ 9 months.

Does that woman have a right to unhook him, knowing he will die? Does or does the woman not have a right to decide on how her body will be used?

 

[Melody]

No Mika. Just no. Your argument is invalid on the grounds of the definition of a parasite.

A unborn child isn't a parasite. A parasite is a different organism entirely, which is not even of the same species!

This so called "Violinist Experiment" does not strengthen your argument, it is a strawman logical fallacy that equates it to something the woman did not sign herself up for.

Pregnancy is not opt-out. It's Opt-in. When you have sex, you accept the consequence of potentially getting pregnant, especially if you do not take the proper contraceptive steps. It is the woman's responsibility to ensure she does not become pregnant if she does not wish to be pregnant or have a child.

 

[Oryx]

No Mika. Just no. Your argument is invalid on the grounds of the definition of a parasite.

A unborn child isn't a parasite. A parasite is a different organism entirely, which is not even of the same species!

According to this definition from Princeton, a parasite is "an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host". A fetus is an animal that lives in another animal, obtaining nourishment from its host without benefiting or killing her (in the average pregnancy; there are exceptions of course). It doesn't specify that it has to be of another species.

However, it being a parasite has nothing to do with the argument and is merely a ploy to de-humanize the fetus to people they're trying to convince.

This so called "Violinist Experiment" does not strengthen your argument, it is a strawman logical fallacy that equates it to something the woman did not sign herself up for.

Pregnancy is not opt-out. It's Opt-in. When you have sex, you accept the consequence of potentially getting pregnant, especially if you do not take the proper contraceptive steps. It is the woman's responsibility to ensure she does not become pregnant if she does not wish to be pregnant or have a child.

The experiment page (that I read entirely because it was interesting) acknowledges that this is in the case of rape. In rape, you have no choice, you don't choose to have sex. That thought experiment is applicable to rape only, and should be treated as a legitimate argument instead of dismissed. I would like to see how someone would argue against it, why do you think it's a strawman and a logical fallacy? How is it not similar to abortion in cases of rape?

I like reading these kinds of debates because I want to find a convincing argument either way, and when you dismiss something and try to make your post "scary" by using red, bolded text and being obviously upset by the other side's opinion, it makes your argument look bad. It should be able to logically stand on its own, regardless of emotions.

At my school the labor time off was a week a WEEK after giving birth you had to be back at school. If you all intend on insisiting a woman carries her baby to term you better damn sure support her. I've said this before and I'll say it again: You can't claim to be prolife if the SECOND you find out she's going to keep it you abandon her.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church is pro-life. I work for the University Life Initiatives on my campus. They've organized baby showers and assistance for every student that is pregnant, because they believe in the Right to Life. If your school isn't Catholic or isn't stated to be pro-life, it doesn't have the responsibility to give you months off for pregnancy, support you and your child, etc. Mine does hold that distinction and it does act on it. People who claim to be pro-life and then abandon the mother aren't true pro-lifers, they're the exception, not the norm. You shouldn't write off every pro-life supporter for the faults of your school.

 

[Mika]

No Mika. Just no. Your argument is invalid on the grounds of the definition of a parasite.

A unborn child isn't a parasite. A parasite is a different organism entirely, which is not even of the same species!

Fetuses are parasites, babies are not.

Fetuses take their nutrition straight from their mothers bodies. When your body is invaded by parasites the same thing happens to your body with the same side effects...nausea/excessive hunger/lethargy etc.

When a baby takes nutrition they do so from the breast at intervals or from a bottle. NOT from the body at all times.

This so called "Violinist Experiment" does not strengthen your argument, it is a strawman logical fallacy that equates it to something the woman did not sign herself up for.

Pregnancy is not opt-out. It's Opt-in. When you have sex, you accept the consequence of potentially getting pregnant, especially if you do not take the proper contraceptive steps. It is the woman's responsibility to ensure she does not become pregnant if she does not wish to be pregnant or have a child.

Strawman does not like your abuse. :< Poor Strawman.

A strawman would imply that this is what we present pregnancy as which is false. The violinist is a fully formed human being. A fetus is not. I posted the Violinist experiment to further ask that, fully formed human or not, does a woman have a choice over her own body? Does it make a difference?

1) It's not an Opt-In unless you have sex for the explicit purpose of having babies. You are assuming people only have sex to have babies or with the intention of becoming pregnant. Even with preventative birth control measures (several of them!) pregnancy can still happen.

I think what I dislike the most about your statement is your impication that all sex is opt'd into. Should a woman who is raped by her boyfriend or a teenager who is raped by her uncle (assuming both rapes end up in pregnancy) be forced to carry the fetus to term? That's more of a slippery slope than anything else.

'You're walking in a bad part of town? Well you're just ASKING to get mugged'

It's blatant victim blaming.

'You knew getting raped might get you pregnant. You opt'd into it. Therefore you should have to carry to term'

:| It's only ONLY Opt In if the woman is trying to get Pregnant.

----


Edit: I have a question for you all or rather gothatfunk of youtube (Yes I'm blatantly swiping a good discussion question SO SUE ME) has a question for you all!

'If a mother doesn't want to carry a baby to term and provided we had the necessary technology to make it happen, would you be willing to carry and give birth to that baby instead?'

 

[twocows]

I have no ethical problems with early term abortion whatsoever, and only a few problems with late term abortions (context plays a factor). I feel no more emotion terminating an early-term fetus than I do for the blood I lose when I get an injury; neither the blood nor the fetus has a conscience or self-awareness. As a side note, I also support embryonic stem cell research.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I have no ethical problems with early term abortion whatsoever, and only a few problems with late term abortions (context plays a factor). I feel no more emotion terminating an early-term fetus than I do for the blood I lose when I get an injury; neither the blood nor the fetus has a conscience or self-awareness. As a side note, I also support embryonic stem cell research.

I support embryonic stem cell research as long as abortion is happening anyway. I oppose abortion is most case, though.

 

[Dawn]

@ PkMn Trainer Yellow

Actually, no, a fetus does not consume. It's capable of processing all the nutrients it's given, but until the end of the first trimester, the mothers physical connection does that function for the fetus. It is not capable of doing it itself until after

Hense, the fetus is not alive until that point.

You're grasping at straws.

Does it take in nutrients
in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually
multiply?

It does in fact consume. Doing it independently and devouring through the mouth are not requirements. Processing the nutrients in some vague form is ALL that's required.

Um...cells are definitely alive.

You used a wiki that doesn't even have sources. That's the equivalent of if you didn't provide a source at all and just said it yourself. Not worth a penny. A person literally just went to that wiki and answered a question.

Not only that, you used said wiki to try and counter my earlier source, which is /way/ more reputable. Sorry, but you need to find a much better source.

I don't really understand your point here. I didn't address parents, or tell them how to do anything. So that's completely irrelevant to what I said.

Yeah, you just keep denying that you said what you said. Meanwhile, I'm not playing that game. You're telling parents how to do their job. What gives you any right to try to tell people what their kids should and should not be able to keep a secret from their parents? If you honestly think a good parent would want their underage kid to keep something as huge as a pregnancy and an abortion a secret, which could directly hinder their ability to do their job, raising and guiding said kid, you are /completely/ out of touch with reality. I don't even understand how you can possibly justify this to yourself! It makes angry fumes come out of my ears like some cheesy cartoon.

It's most definately a parasite.

Here. Have a reputable, conclusive source.
https://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

Here let me pick out the contradictions which say that fetuses and babies are not parasites.

a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

A parasite cannot be the same species as it's host. Direct contradiction to your argument.

a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

A parasite's source must be external. Once again this is a direct contradiction.

a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

Parasitic behavior dictates that a parasite generally harms it's host. Fetuses and babies only harm the mothers under specific conditions, often-times (Not always) related to already present problems in the mother and not the fetus/babies own actions.

a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

See part b. I can't explain it any better or simpler. Like the above, this is demonstrating that fetuses and babies do not act at all like parasites.

a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)

b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

For both of the above. The female body does not attempt to limit the fetuses/babies access like it would a parasite, but rather actively gives it more access. It also does not at all attempt to get rid of a fetus/parasite. Golly gosh! Who would've guessed that reproduction would be noted as clearly different from a parasitic relationship by biologists!

a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

Look! Parasites are also generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host! I can't explain this in a simpler way without sounding like a complete jerk. So I won't bother. Read the first sentence of part b.

a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

Parasites tend to require some sort of forced removal from their host. Fetuses and babies tend to not.

TL;DR

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

And here, let me quote /another/ part of that site.

When some people claim preborn children are parasites, they mean "parasite" in its pejorative, that is, in its social-ethical sense.

Now let me define pejorative.

dyslogistic: expressing disapproval; "dyslogistic terms like `nitwit' and `scalawag'"

Pejoratives are words or grammatical forms which denote a negative affect; that is, they express the contempt or distaste of the speaker. Sometimes a term may begin as a pejorative word and eventually be adopted in a non-pejorative sense. ...

A disparaging, belittling, or derogatory word or expression; Disparaging, belittling or derogatory

pejoratively - In a pejorative manner. Insultingly, disparagingly. Used in a manner to belittle or harm the reputation of another

relates to the formation "of a less favourable meaning or of unpleasant connotations of a word." [3] In this book it is used for a Na'vi infix ‹äng› that expresses negative speaker affect, not restricted to contempt, but including boredom, misery, or any negative emotion. ...

A form which has an unfavourable or disparaging meaning. Some of the affective suffixes of Spanish are pejorative.

You've got a pro-choice, reputable website telling you you're 100% wrong. They even go on to say that the term you're using is pejorative, which is a fancy way of saying that you're doing it just to be negative. Yeah they pretty much admit that people who use that term are just trying to be offensive.

Could this be any /more/ conclusive? I don't know. I think it could benefit from the lord almighty coming out of the ethereal and personally confirming it for all of us. Clearly we need that just to convince people of such simple things as biology, yes?

 

[The Trotsky]

I've pretty much said all I have to say. Scientific reasoning can only go so far against the stubborn, ignorant, and blind who are unwilling to recognize simple facts as just that, facts.

Fact: A fetus does not process pain at any time during the first or early-to-mid second trimester.

Fact: A fetus does not have consciousness at any point in that time frame either.

Fact: Women are alive, functioning, sentient humans, not an amalgamation of cells that has the potential to one day form into life.

I don't what else you need. I can't understand any way around that. Simply put, women are alive and already humans and we should protect them. Fetuses are a conglomerate of simple cells that may eventually, under the right circumstances, form to become a functioning human being.

So look at it this way: If you're playing fantasy football and have the first overall pick, who do you take, the All-Pro running back who is likely to lead the league in points or the practice squad rookie who might play if everything falls right for him and he is given months to develop and expand his talents? Easy choice

 

[Oryx]

You used a wiki that doesn't even have sources. That's the equivalent of if you didn't provide a source at all and just said it yourself. Not worth a penny. A person literally just went to that wiki and answered a question.

Not only that, you used said wiki to try and counter my earlier source, which is /way/ more reputable. Sorry, but you need to find a much better source.

https://www.cellsalive.com/aboutus.htm

CELLS alive! represents 30 years of capturing film and computer-enhanced images of living cells and organisms for education and medical research.

Living cells that aren't actually alive, I assume.

https://www.biology4kids.com/

An entire living thing can be one cell or it can be billions.

A living creature that is one cell, but that cell isn't alive according to you, so the creatures must not be alive either.

https://www.edu.pe.ca/gray/class_pages/rcfleming/cells/notes.htm

2) All cells carry out life activities ( require energy, grow, have a limited size).

https://www.historyforkids.org/scienceforkids/biology/cells/

A cell is the smallest living thing

Now let's go into some single-celled, living organisms:
Amoeba
Plankton

Finally, here's a nice children's textbook for you that explains how a single cell meets all the requirements for life:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...BSLG-i&sig=AHIEtbR2J2giTWAoIF359cZLZeixUgI6LQ

Happy now? Some of your arguments I can understand (I can see why you're saying a fetus isn't a parasite based on your sources, for example), but arguing something this obviously wrong is really making me question your opinions of everything. You have teachers, yes? In high school or college or whatever school you're in? Please do me a favor and ask a biology teacher if cells are alive instead of trying to interpret it yourself and being rude when people contradict you.

Could this be any /more/ conclusive? I don't know. I think it could benefit from the lord almighty coming out of the ethereal and personally confirming it for all of us. Clearly we need that just to convince people of such simple things as biology, yes?

After looking it up, you're right, the other definitions online specify two species. Although, just putting this out there, the way you're acting makes me not want to even associate with you enough to agree now that a fetus isn't a parasite, because you're being outright rude. Can you please tone it down a bit for a less "i mad" discussion?

Also, the biology part made me lol, because of the cell part above. That argument really doesn't have much to do with a fetus anymore, but the fact that you're arguing quite heatedly that cells aren't alive frankly worries me, because that's a very basic fact that's taught to children and if you believe otherwise, maybe there's an issue in the educational system in your area or something. I don't like thinking that people may not know something as basic as "cells are alive". It was hard to even find sources that didn't cater to children :/

 

[Melody]

Rape is indeed a special case, as is underage pregnancy and medical jeopardy of the mother. I don't believe the first two exceptions I just listed apply to a woman who's been pregnant for 3+ months though...if she's kept it that long, she's obviously chosen to keep it to term at least...and she need not be forced to care for it, there are ways to ensure someone else can care for it.

I still stand by my argument that calling a fetus a "parasite" is a strawman argument. A strawman argument is exactly what it is. It's meant to distract the opponent from the point by clouding things. In this case you cloud things by calling the fetus a parasite, which by definition has negative connotations. Emotional tactics like that have no real place in a debate...so I'll call it out whenever I see it.

 

[Dawn]

I've pretty much said all I have to say. Scientific reasoning can only go so far against the stubborn, ignorant, and blind who are unwilling to recognize simple facts as just that, facts.

Fact: A fetus does not process pain at any time during the first or early-to-mid second trimester.

Fact: A fetus does not have consciousness at any point in that time frame either.

Fact: Women are alive, functioning, sentient humans, not an amalgamation of cells that has the potential to one day form into life.

I don't what else you need. I can't understand any way around that. Simply put, women are alive and already humans and we should protect them. Fetuses are a conglomerate of simple cells that may eventually, under the right circumstances, form to become a functioning human being.

So look at it this way: If you're playing fantasy football and have the first overall pick, who do you take, the All-Pro running back who is likely to lead the league in points or the practice squad rookie who might play if everything falls right for him and he is given months to develop and expand his talents? Easy choice

What I need is evidence of some sort. You can't just... say what you believe and then expect others to see it your way. That... just doesn't work. I can say I believe dogs secretly transform into aliens when they're alone and are only so happy to see us as a ruse to get close to us so they can take over the world some day, but it doesn't mean much if I don't have any studies or evidence to back myself up.

I mean I've provided a boatload of reputable evidence and these ugly quote walls. I don't do that for fun or for my health.

Thank you Yellow, I knew I was on the right track when I said parasites couldn't be the same species.

I find it amusing that Mika did not read my previous posts which EXPLICITLY EXEMPT RAPE from an abortion ban. Rape is indeed a special case, as is underage pregnancy and medical jeopardy of the mother. I don't believe the first two exceptions I just listed apply to a woman who's been pregnant for 3+ months though...if she's kept it that long, she's obviously chosen to keep it to term at least...and she need not be forced to care for it, there are ways to ensure someone else can care for it.

You're welcome. o.O

And yeah, it's not like I believe abortion should be completely illegal either. I was convinced a long time ago that there were possible situations where it would be okay. I just think we're too liberal about it right now.

 

[The Trotsky]

Not sure, if you noticed, but I happened to be posting studies too. Studies published in the American Journal of Medicine. I have backed up my claims at every turn. If you'd like I can try to find a study that says women are indeed humans, but I believe that was understood and accepted by all parties. It's also the only part of my argument not supported by research.