having a baby

[kevcrash]

Please, call it the fetus next time.
I consider it alive when it passes the "life test", which means it must pass these 7 terms in biology.
I don't remember the fetus having homeostasis, as I have never heard a baby that sweats. I also classify it as living if it has a working brain and heart. And it doesn't adapt to it's environment, most likely because it would die in an environment outside of the womb. Please name one animal that has none of these, because that would surely break my hypothesis. However, do remember that "life" does not have a solid meaning. It is different in biophysics and many other areas of science. This is merely an opinion for the most part from me.

No! No matter what your stupid "science" tells you, it's human life, and should be treated as such, not roadkill.

 

[Luck]

No! No matter what your stupid "science" tells you, it's human life, and should be treated as such, not roadkill.

You just don't get it. First you say that science and morals agree that it is wrong to kill babies, and now you decide to call science stupid? Are you even aware that science supported the information for the computer that you are typing on? How about the fact that science offers you proper plumbing? Science doesn't demand you worship it, and neither do I, but I'd prefer that you do not be so ignorant of the fact that you are using creations of science. But I guess our stupid science only improved our understanding of the universe, and that's not anything major, right?/sarcasm

Now you are just getting into emotional fits and subjective thoughts. And you are doing nothing to refute my points, you are just calling my personal opinion evil and leaving it at that. Do you really think that you'll make people think otherwise by throwing insults?
Please answer me this then. When does the fetus get rights? Is it as soon as it forms? If so, then why are you not going against the morning after pill? And even then, why doesn't the sperm and egg have the same right? After all, they do form the fetus. Does it get rights when it gets a beating heart? Or about during conception? Where do we draw the line?
And don't give me that emotional flailing again, because that is just another way for you to ignore the question and think you are answering the question.

 

[poopnoodle]

I want to classify it as a human, because it has the DNA that a human has, but that alone is a flawed argument. Not all humans have the same genetic code, and most of them are different. And the chimpanzee has more than 95% DNA similarity to us, yet the chimpanzee isn't classified as a human. Would a human with less than 90% DNA similarity to the regular human not be considered a human? I hate these hypothetical threads >:(

I probably should have stated that differently. My objective was, at what point do you (again, I'm speaking to whoever is reading this) declare the beginning of human life? If you believe that humanity begins at conception, why? Let me point out that conception is not instantaneous, it is a process, not a precise moment. And what makes the zygote any different from the individual sperm or the individual egg? Like I said, they are both potentiality for human life. As Twocows argued in the attachment he posted, "arguing that anything that grows into a human is, in fact, a human, is the same as arguing that a sperm or egg is such." Arguing that the termination of any potential life form automatically declares castration and menstruation manslaughter. If a zygote should be preserved because it came from a human being, shouldn't we also preserve every single sperm and egg (in addition to skin cells because they can replace the sperm in the creation of a human being) because they can form a zygote? That is not only impractical in my opinion, but unachievable.

And as Luck said, many pro-lifers aren't out there protesting animal cruelty. What makes an unborn, unaware collection of cells more valuable than a different species?

No! No matter what your stupid "science" tells you, it's human life, and should be treated as such, not roadkill.

Well, let's try to be civil and understanding here. Like I've said before, this is a two-sided topic, and you can't expect everyone to submit to your views. There's nothing wrong with opposing ideas, there's no reason to express your opinion in a patronizing / bitter fashion. This discussion has become repetitious...I keep reading the same arguments over and over again. Your being dogmatic does not draw me to your side of the debate.

 

[doesn't matter]

Yes, I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest, if the life is to be miserable (whether that's due to health status [baby OR mother] or the condition of the environment it would be brought into) and neglected. For example, if I had unprotected sex from which I got AIDS, hell yes I would abort because there is a chance that the disease spread to the baby and that would be horribly selfish to nurture a life that can't be sustained.

That is something I simply do not believe. My disbelief and your theory are the essence of both sides of the debate, obviously, so I'm entitled to my stance, as you are to yours.

There are many, many people living today who suffer, whether it be from AIDS, a disability, or something else.

What you're saying is that it's basically better, for them, to be dead.

I mean, perhaps you should ask those who suffer about whether or not they want to live. Heck, there are people who have survived abortions - ask them if they want to live, knowing that their mother tried to kill them while they were still in the womb.

And I don't think it's selfish to want to love and care for someone, because that's all parents want really (that, and the baby bonuses :P)

In answer to the original question... being male and only sixteen I don't feel that it's my choice as to what happens to the child. I would support the mother no matter what because it would have been my fault (well it takes two to tango lol but it was partly my fault).

When the time comes and Ii'm ready to start a family with the woman I love, I would love to have children =]
In regards to this debate... again it's not my body so I would never force this choice or advise against it with anyone... but I do believe that abortion is murder and that every child has a right to life, I don't believe that we have the right to decide whether a child lives or dies.

I do understand that in these circumstances the life of the child may turn out badly... but since none of us can tell the future (as far as I know) and it isn't our life to be deciding whether or not the child dies I just don't agree with abortion. If I were in a situation where I had gotten someone pregnant, I would state my beliefs and just let her know how I feel, but I would never pressure her and I would support any and every choice she makes.

I don't think there's a point in this argument because people just have different beliefs and that's just the way it. It's nice to see some really supportive guys around though, I feel like I'm alone in the world sometimes lol

I know you're pro-life, but that "it's my body" argument just always gets me, because the child in the womb is a different person. Yes, it may depend on the mother for food and protection, but that's no different to many children up to the age of 18 anyway, hahaha.

Just thought I'd say something. The fetus doesn't have "human" DNA, but DNA from other animals. This is counting that the earth wasn't created in 7 days, but in fact billions of years through many generations. Unless you deny the blatantly obvious evidence of course.

Until it is responsible for the death of the mother of course.
And are you even aware of what pain the carrier of the fetus goes through? I can't believe I didn't say this in my original post.
Fatigue, nausea, backaches, headaches, mood swings, strees, and oh, I didn't even mention the giant baby at the point of conception.
There is also the destruction of childhood dreams that most parents have because of their expensive baby. The fact that the baby is unaware of what it is doing does no good either. At least if I punch an innocent woman constantly in the stomach for nine months, among those symptoms, I feel guilty. What makes a fetus exempt from the critique and judgment of humans? We all know that it can't be that it's unaware, because many serial killers are unaware that they are doing wrong, or even anything at all.

I never said that it changes drastically, but there are still a lot of changes that go through.
And why do we need more humans into this world? China holds almost 20% of the world's population. The only thing that can prevent it is self control, and you can see how well that works with the hormonal teenagers walking around in America.
Now please, tell me, would you let a child live if it was going to suffer its whole life? Look at Africa and you can see the effects of that, especially after the pope said that condoms increase the chance of STD's.

Maybe it's just me, but I would prefer not having lived at all then having lived a completely miserable life. It is just me, so this doesn't have much to do with it.

Just to point something out, I don't classify the fetus as alive, even though it parasites off of the host. I classify it as non-living, although it lives as soon as it takes it's first breath outside of the womb. So telling me that this supposed child murder won't work, unless you can find me a watertight definition on what is alive and what is dead. So with this being said, I don't think you can kill what isn't alive.

That's not even relevant. Our DNA may be similar, but it's not the same.

In Western countries, maternal deaths as a result of child birth have been reduced drastically. It doesn't even compare to the amount of children being killed in the womb.
Are you serious? Are we all terrible people because our mother's had to ENDURE THE PAIN of carrying us for 9 months? Are you seriously trying to justify the murder of a defenceless child? That's like saying "I killed a kid because they kicked me in the shin. It's not my fault because they hit me first." Get out.

No, the DNA doesn't change, the child just matures. Don't talk about what you don't know. Oh wow, the overpopulation argument. Why don't we just go around sterilising everyone then? Never mind that an aging population isn't really a good thing and unnaturally restricting our ability to reproduce is just insane considering that it reduces the survivability of the human race. Furthermore, if Earth were to hypothetically become overpopulated, and assuming food shortages would follow, then the female body would put a halt to the menstrual cycle when deprived of food for a long period of time, so there are already checks in place for such an occurrence.

Would you kill someone who's suffering now? Would you at least ask for their permission first or just lunge at them with a knife?

Welllllllllll, you see, the condom can't guarantee the prevention of HIV/AIDS being transmitted. It's actual prevention rate is 85%, leaving a 15% chance of getting the disease. By encouraging condom usage (instead of abstinence, which really is the only way to guarantee the prevention of STDs), you're only misleading the public into thinking that they'll be perfectly safe if they use a condom.

You must be living a pretty crappy life right now then if you think that, seriously.

You are wrong. You can't just redefine what life so it suits you and your morals. It has biological functions, a rock does not. It's alive, a rock isn't. Your turn.

That's exactly how I feel. Life isn't wasted if it was terminated before it began, it's wasted if it was lived in misery. In my opinion.

You too. Go outside and have some fun, cheer the hell up.

I don't classify the fetus as alive (fundamentally) because it doesn't have a central nervous system developed enough to make decisions or feel pain ( the necessary nerve pathways are not constructed enough for the fetus to feel pain until after at least 28 weeks. I've never heard of an abortion being done past 20 weeks, but the fetus CAN be anesthetized), it's not conscious of its existence, it has no will to live.

While I'm mentioning this, I would just like to state that the removal of the embryo is a natural, monthly occurance for most women (AKA the menstrual cycle). I'm not asking this in a condescending way, I honestly would like to hear your standpoint (you being whoever): Do you classify the embryo alone as a human? It is, after all, a potentiality for human life.

Again, redefining what life is to suit your agenda. It is alive from conception, since at that point the biological processes start occurring. It is alive throughout the entire pregnancy. It doesn't just go from being non-living to living randomly.

Dude, abortions can happen at any time throughout the pregnancy. I find the abortions that occur later on to be the most horrifying of them all.

Please watch the video in the spoiler. I know it's a long video, but it's very informative.
Note: It can be quite graphic, so if you're young or easily disturbed, maybe get someone to watch it with you, read the text beneath the video, or only watch the first part, before they actually perform an abortion.

Spoiler:

[jq]The Silent Scream - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.

Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world. [/jq]

That video, to me, shows that the foetus can feel pain and it does have a will to live. Not that such a point has any merit, since it's not like you can justify someone's murder by saying they felt no pain and didn't want to live anyway. What's wrong is still wrong.

Please, call it the fetus next time.
I consider it alive when it passes the "life test", which means it must pass these 7 terms in biology.
I don't remember the fetus having homeostasis, as I have never heard a baby that sweats. I also classify it as living if it has a working brain and heart. And it doesn't adapt to it's environment, most likely because it would die in an environment outside of the womb. Please name one animal that has none of these, because that would surely break my hypothesis. However, do remember that "life" does not have a solid meaning. It is different in biophysics and many other areas of science. This is merely an opinion for the most part from me.

I want to classify it as a human, because it has the DNA that a human has, but that alone is a flawed argument. Not all humans have the same genetic code, and most of them are different. And the chimpanzee has more than 95% DNA similarity to us, yet the chimpanzee isn't classified as a human. Would a human with less than 90% DNA similarity to the regular human not be considered a human? I hate these hypothetical threads >:(

Why should I call it that? So I can desensitise myself to the issue and make the child easier to kill? No thanks.
omg lol. You are pretty foolish, and absolutely wrong. Did you even read the link or any related links? Did you go do any further research, or even a quick Google search so as to ensure that I don't completely own you?

Glucose homeostasis in human fetuses
Plants don't have those organs, are they non-living? Besides, ave you tried looking for an animal that fits those criteria? It'll take you seconds. SECONDS.
Do you even know what "hypothesis" means? Do you even go to school?

So would you say that people which have slightly different genetic codes aren't actually "people"? Why not just exclude people of different skin colour too while we're at it :D.
Man, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're actually making stuff up as you go along, it's quite incredible and irritating at the same time.

I probably should have stated that differently. My objective was, at what point do you (again, I'm speaking to whoever is reading this) declare the beginning of human life? If you believe that humanity begins at conception, why? Let me point out that conception is not instantaneous, it is a process, not a precise moment. And what makes the zygote any different from the individual sperm or the individual egg? Like I said, they are both potentiality for human life. As Twocows argued in the attachment he posted, "arguing that anything that grows into a human is, in fact, a human, is the same as arguing that a sperm or egg is such." Arguing that the termination of any potential life form automatically declares castration and menstruation manslaughter. If a zygote should be preserved because it came from a human being, shouldn't we also preserve every single sperm and egg (in addition to skin cells because they can replace the sperm in the creation of a human being) because they can form a zygote? That is not only impractical in my opinion, but unachievable.

And as Luck said, many pro-lifers aren't out there protesting animal cruelty. What makes an unborn, unaware collection of cells more valuable than a different species?

Life starts at fertilisation. There, the life created is unique, not the mother, not the father, but the result of the union of sperm and egg. That's how it is different.

The zygote doesn't have the potential to become a human life - it is a human life.

Besides, this doesn't take away from the fact that you're killing babies.

Are we discussing animal cruelty? Why are you trying to change the topic and make moral comparisons? Animals aren't equal to humans, such a thought is absurd.

Besides, doesn't such a comparison work both ways? If we're here making broad, generalised statements, then I can say that there are many animal activists out there that don't oppose abortion.

But yeah, they are more valuable. So what?

Also, you guys talk about how selfish it is to have a child that's sick or disabled when really, the most selfish ones are usually those that decide upon the abortion. Most abortions are performed because the child is an inconvenience.

 

[kevcrash]

You just don't get it. First you say that science and morals agree that it is wrong to kill babies, and now you decide to call science stupid? Are you even aware that science supported the information for the computer that you are typing on? How about the fact that science offers you proper plumbing? Science doesn't demand you worship it, and neither do I, but I'd prefer that you do not be so ignorant of the fact that you are using creations of science. But I guess our stupid science only improved our understanding of the universe, and that's not anything major, right?/sarcasm

Now you are just getting into emotional fits and subjective thoughts. And you are doing nothing to refute my points, you are just calling my personal opinion evil and leaving it at that. Do you really think that you'll make people think otherwise by throwing insults?
Please answer me this then. When does the fetus get rights? Is it as soon as it forms? If so, then why are you not going against the morning after pill? And even then, why doesn't the sperm and egg have the same right? After all, they do form the fetus. Does it get rights when it gets a beating heart? Or about during conception? Where do we draw the line?
And don't give me that emotional flailing again, because that is just another way for you to ignore the question and think you are answering the question.

Listen bud, I'm not here to insult anyone, but I'm justifying my acts and stating what I think. There is nothing here about emotional fit except my outburst at that ignorant "FTW" person.

Btw, I'm not here to be interrogated okay?
So, let's set this straight:
I believe that all human life starts at conception. All living forms inside a human is human and should have the rights like a normal child would. Second off, the "morning after pill" is a form of abortion, which is generally spoken in terms when I say "abortion". The sperm and egg are used to conceive, and the female is the one who gives the birth. That being said, the egg is inside the woman, and she has more the rights with an egg than men do with a sperm. Yeah, now I know you're gonna say "then why shouldn't the female have the right to choose to abort?" the answer is because, these rights have nothing to do with abortion, being that they conceive naturally and they don't kill the fetus, which I will once again return to the term child.
The child should get its rights at conception, though some circumstances would force the child to die, or if the mother is raped then it would never have rights (of course, if the abortion is planned). After it is born, it would have more rights then within the stomach of the mother. If this doesn't answer the questions, then I'm not sure how to. Anyway, no "emotional fits" this time... Happy?

Please watch the video in the spoiler. I know it's a long video, but it's very informative.
Note: It can be quite graphic, so if you're young or easily disturbed, maybe get someone to watch it with you, read the text beneath the video, or only watch the first part, before they actually perform an abortion.

Spoiler:

[jq]The Silent Scream - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.

Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world. [/jq]

This is.... The saddest thing I've ever seen. It makes me sick and made me start to cry.... It's...... horrible, it can't be put into words. So, this is what abortion really is? And I never thought that they'd actually scream! It's..... horrible................

 

[michele]

i'm SO against abortions, it's not even funny. i could go on for days about why people would even think about choosing it.
i'm sure my parents would support me and help me through it [my sister is pregnant atm and we're all doing the most we can to help out].
but if worse comes to worse, i'd put it up for adoption.

 

[Spinor]

This...is...madness...

And no, it is not Sparta either, this is plain stupidity, madness, senseless debating.

As a guy, I'd personally leave the choice up to the mother. For now it is in HER body and laws say it is part of HER and it's HER choice. There is not a damn thing the guy can do in the world to stop that decision (without getting imprisoned or something of course).

Besides, I am not gonna take any damn side and get fought on and scratched by the pro-choice and pro-life fighting nutheads. I don't mean ALL the people who take a side, but pretty much most who put more than 3 exclamation marks in their post, bold more than 1 word, or have a size exceeding size 3.

Spoiler:

The child's best interest..
Wow, so you think that killing it would be best, not to mention the cases that are excusable and the ones that are irresponsible. It's in the best interest of the child to get killed? Like Amachi did:

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"

"I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest"


That is disgusting! You think it not living a life would be privilege to the child? TO NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE WONDERS! THE HORRORS? TO GAIN STRENGTH THROUGH IT?! SOMETHING EVEN YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WOULD NEVER DREAM OF?





Quote:
Originally Posted by poopnoodle
That is something I simply do not believe. My disbelief and your theory are the essence of both sides of the debate, obviously, so I'm entitled to my stance, as you are to yours.


It's really no longer about what you think but what you believe and what is "right" to you. This isn't about "opinions" anymore, it's about death, and killing innocent helpless children. In a nature whereas, it's the responsibility of the parent to, whether or not intended, take care of the child no matter what the mother goes through. Death, despite what people think, IS worse than harm or injury. We only have one life, and once you take it away, there's no replacing it..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf
Not too logical, but too simplistic. I've said a human being is more than the sum of its genetic material. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Please don't change the definition of what is human to suit your agenda.

"It's a fetus"
"It's a clump of cells"
"It's not human"

Arguments like that are often given in an attempt to desensitise oneself and others on the issue, and it works. But that's not a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck


*Facepalm*
Morals are subjective, and the fetus isn't classified as a human, just as the sunflower seed isn't classified as a sunflower. And I don't see you going to your local meat farm and protesting for the cows, chickens, lamb, and pigs. I mean, they kill animals that are unaware of their existence. Strangely enough, the same people who are pro-life are FOR capital punishment, war, and many other things that involve killing innocent people that ARE aware of their existence. This is the same capital punishment that killed people who proven innocent later.


There are many mutations that happen during the 9 months in the womb. And although your argument makes sense, it wouldn't work that much. Sunflower seeds aren't sunflowers. They may have come from sunflowers, but they aren't sunflowers.

The fetus is human. It has human DNA. Pregnant women aren't walking around with an alien inside of them that magically turns into a human when she starts pushing.

Those aren't people, what is wrong with you?

You realise that a child in the womb is probably as innocent as a human can be, right? The baby has done nothing wrong, except people seem to have some sort of problem with it's existence. Why aren't you opposed to that?

Yes they are, they just don't look like one yet. What you've just said also implies that at different stages of human development, our DNA changes drastically, which is definitely not the case. Our DNA does not change, whether it be from child to teenager, teenager to adult, and yes, even in the 9 month development stage in the womb. It is a human, stop lying to yourself. Your analogy is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weight of the World
You evil little---- UGGGGGGGHHH!! NO CUSS WORDS ON THE ThREADS!!

You shouldn't let yourself get so agitated, it doesn't help anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopnoodle
*Sigh*

Please, let's debate rationally.

Tbh, I think the culprits should have to live with what they've done in a cold cell with nothing to do. It's like being dead, only conscious. I think death is a privilege to those living in monotony.

That is an extremely ignorant, one-sided view of what defenders of the idea of abortion believe. It is not just rape that results in abortion, but health issues, or the mother's position (whether it be financial, healthwise, whatever). Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest. I don't know how many times Luck has to repeat him/herself, so let me restate. Sunflower seed does not equal sunflower.

Side note: You can get as frustrated as you want, but you cannot expect everyone to see things your way.

"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."
"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."
"Often times, abortion is in the baby's best interest."

W-What? Did I read that correctly? Did you just say that killing a baby is often in the best interests of the child? Really?

Also, thanks. I don't think I'll forget that statement for as long as I live :)

[QUOTE]You evil little---- UGGGGGGGHHH!! NO CUSS WORDS ON THE ThREADS!![/QUOTE]

Oh dear, oh my.

 

[poopnoodle]

There are many, many people living today who suffer, whether it be from AIDS, a disability, or something else.

What you're saying is that it's basically better, for them, to be dead.

Some who suffer really would rather be dead instead of living in agony. Aborting the baby for that reason is preventing it from being susceptible to a life of suffering.

I mean, perhaps you should ask those who suffer about whether or not they want to live. Heck, there are people who have survived abortions - ask them if they want to live, knowing that their mother tried to kill them while they were still in the womb.

And I don't think it's selfish to want to love and care for someone, because that's all parents want really (that, and the baby bonuses :P)

My (foster) father suffered from lung cancer, and before he died he told me, "If I live, that would be great. And if I die, that would be great." I have a friend who suffers from Bi-Polar Disorder and clinical depression, who is constantly threatening to take her own life. I know two others suffering from terminal illness who are not only in states of severe depression, but have admitted that they are ready to die.

I am a survivor of abortion. If I was aborted, I would be indifferent to my mother's decision since I wouldn't be alive.

It's only natural to want to love and care for someone, but if that means subjecting them to miserable conditions, that's what I would call selfish. (Again, my opinion.)

You too. Go outside and have some fun, cheer the hell up.

I would seriously appreciate it if you abstain from talking down to those with contrasting views. You don't know us or how we spend our time, and we have yet to disrespect your stance. I'll say it once more: You cannot expect everyone to submit to your beliefs. It's not hard to provide your argument with civility.

Again, redefining what life is to suit your agenda. It is alive from conception, since at that point the biological processes start occurring. It is alive throughout the entire pregnancy. It doesn't just go from being non-living to living randomly.

Dude, abortions can happen at any time throughout the pregnancy. I find the abortions that occur later on to be the most horrifying of them all.

Please watch the video in the spoiler. I know it's a long video, but it's very informative.
Note: It can be quite graphic, so if you're young or easily disturbed, maybe get someone to watch it with you, read the text beneath the video, or only watch the first part, before they actually perform an abortion.


That video, to me, shows that the foetus can feel pain and it does have a will to live. Not that such a point has any merit, since it's not like you can justify someone's murder by saying they felt no pain and didn't want to live anyway. What's wrong is still wrong.

Not "redefining what life is to suit my agenda," only stating my views. I don't believe it is alive according to my interpretation of the word "living." It is growing, yes, but I don't believe that it has the capacity to feel or think. My opinion only changes when the baby is developed enough to survive outside the mother's body.

I know that abortion can happen whenevs, I only said I've never heard of it happening past 20 weeks. (And like I said, the baby CAN be anesthetized.)

Now, I cannot defend the intentions of every abortion clinic. Many care more about the money than the women.

Life starts at fertilisation. There, the life created is unique, not the mother, not the father, but the result of the union of sperm and egg. That's how it is different.

The zygote doesn't have the potential to become a human life - it is a human life.

Besides, this doesn't take away from the fact that you're killing babies.

I accept and agree with your belief that the zygote = human life, but I won't classify it as a person, because to me the difference between a human and a person is consciousness. I now recognize your belief that abortion is murder by definition, and I must agree, but I don't believe murder is always wrong. I think the world is too complex and circumstances are often too extensive to label conclusions to a moral dilemma simply right or wrong.

Are we discussing animal cruelty? Why are you trying to change the topic and make moral comparisons? Animals aren't equal to humans, such a thought is absurd.

Besides, doesn't such a comparison work both ways? If we're here making broad, generalised statements, then I can say that there are many animal activists out there that don't oppose abortion.

But yeah, they are more valuable. So what?

I said "many," not "all."

That is your opinion. I personally don't place myself above animals (since we are classified as animals), a zebra fetus is as important to me as a human fetus.

 

[kevcrash]

Some who suffer really would rather be dead instead of living in agony. Aborting the baby for that reason is preventing it from being susceptible to suffering.

Okay, So, you didn't watch the vid? Then, I should tell you:
The abortionist uses a tube to destroy and suck out all the baby's body except the head. The head is then crushed and sucked into a jar. The abortion is complete by then and the baby IS in fact, killed.
The abortionist that did the abortion for the documentary and quit his job right then and there. The woman who did the abortion saw this and never spoke a word about abortion ever again. In fact, the women don't even know that this is the method used. Once they find out, it's distressing. To know you're baby was just crushed and sucked through a tube, how would you feel? This is murder, plain and simple. And it is not even always the mother's fault, cuz under the circumstances knowing what they were about to do to the human, yes it is as explained by 2 doctors in this video, they probably wouldn't go through with it. There's the truth..

 

[poopnoodle]

Okay, So, you didn't watch the vid? Then, I should tell you:
The abortionist uses a tube to destroy and suck out all the baby's body except the head. The head is then crushed and sucked into a jar. The abortion is complete by then and the baby IS in fact, killed.
The abortionist that did the abortion for the documentary and quit his job right then and there. The woman who did the abortion saw this and never spoke a word about abortion ever again. In fact, the women don't even know that this is the method used. Once they find out, it's distressing. To know you're baby was just crushed and sucked through a tube, how would you feel? This is murder, plain and simple. And it is not even always the mother's fault, cuz under the circumstances knowing what they were about to do to the human, yes it is as explained by 2 doctors in this video, they probably wouldn't go through with it. There's the truth..

You did not read my entire post.

*sigh*

I will no longer be responding to contemptuous or dense comments, if you want to speak to me sensibly and openly, I'd be happy to exchange views privately.

 

[kevcrash]

You did not read my entire post.

I most certainly did... I don't know why you want to tell me this, because nothing in your last post supports what I said.

 

[twocows]

Okay, So, you didn't watch the vid? Then, I should tell you:
The abortionist uses a tube to destroy and suck out all the baby's body except the head. The head is then crushed and sucked into a jar. The abortion is complete by then and the baby IS in fact, killed.
The abortionist that did the abortion for the documentary and quit his job right then and there. The woman who did the abortion saw this and never spoke a word about abortion ever again. In fact, the women don't even know that this is the method used. Once they find out, it's distressing. To know you're baby was just crushed and sucked through a tube, how would you feel? This is murder, plain and simple. And it is not even always the mother's fault, cuz under the circumstances knowing what they were about to do to the human, yes it is as explained by 2 doctors in this video, they probably wouldn't go through with it. There's the truth..
[/COLOR][/FONT]

So because it's disgusting, it should be disallowed? Surgery is messy, especially surgery in or around the intestines. Should people with colon cancer be forced to die because the procedure to solve the problem is revolting?

Also, have you ever watched an animal get neutered? I job shadowed a vet in junior high, and watched a cat get neutered. It was absolutely horrifying, yet I don't deny that the animal was far better off having the procedure done.

Ignoratio elenchi. The method is irrelevant and has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. Yes, it's gruesome; so are a lot of things. Just because it's not something I'd want to watch over dinner doesn't mean it might not be necessary or preferred.

 

[kevcrash]

So because it's disgusting, it should be disallowed? Surgery is messy, especially surgery in or around the intestines. Should people with colon cancer be forced to die because the procedure to solve the problem is revolting?

Also, have you ever watched an animal get neutered? I job shadowed a vet in junior high, and watched a cat get neutered. It was absolutely horrifying, yet I don't deny that the animal was far better off having the procedure done.

Ignoratio elenchi. The method is irrelevant and has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. Yes, it's gruesome; so are a lot of things. Just because it's not something I'd want to watch over dinner doesn't mean it might not be necessary or preferred.

I don't feel like arguing over a small, not thought out enough comment like this, okay? Got any problems with it PM me, and we'll have a real discussion.

 

[twocows]

There are many, many people living today who suffer, whether it be from AIDS, a disability, or something else.

What you're saying is that it's basically better, for them, to be dead.

I disagree with him on that. It is not tolerable to abort a fetus solely because it may experience some degree of suffering; quality of life is not objective, and as you said, most would prefer to live regardless of that particular metric. Instead, I believe that it is tolerable to abort a fetus because it has not yet had any meaningful experiences, and because it has no reasonable level of intelligence. No person should have any real attachments to it besides the mother (and possibly the father); thus, the decision should be theirs to make.

I don't feel like arguing over a small, not thought out enough comment like this, okay? Got any problems with it PM me, and we'll have a real discussion.

I'm not sure if you're saying your comment was not well-thought out (in which case, I have no opinion, for or against; I'm not a judge), or if mine was not well-thought out (in which case, I take offense, as it clearly was meant to be).

In the end, I honestly don't care what other people think, so long as they don't force their opinions on others. If you wish to think of those who have abortions as "murderers," I'm not going to stop you. However, if I was in the situation, and both my partner and I decided to abort, and you tried to force your morals down our throat; that is when I would take issue with you. Morality is not clearly defined in every instance, and if we were to feel that abortion was the correct decision, you've no right to interfere.

 

[Åzurε]

I'm honestly kind of saddened at the lack of sense being made on "my side". It's all being replaced by anger and a closed-minded mentality. I feel even I could have made better points, which is what usually happens to my a day or so after I post.

On the subject of abortion being moral, I hold firmly to abortion being immoral, but having sex before both people involved are ready is what causes all this drama in the first place. As for impressing one's beliefs upon others, force is not the way to do it for either side of ANY discussion. If you are to convince someone else of what you believe, you need to use a gentler method than insults. Generally, finding a logical flaw accepted by the person is vastly more effective, but if someone is truly closed-minded, there may be nothing you can do. Try your hardest, but know when the other man's head is harder.

A bit of a tangent, but take this into consideration.

 

[Esper]

Argh. I couldn't stay away from this thread after all.

Would you kill someone who's suffering now? Would you at least ask for their permission first or just lunge at them with a knife?

If I had their permission I would kill someone who is suffering (and I mean real suffering, not "I just got dumped and I can't take the pain of living anymore"), or not try to stop them from killing themselves. Obviously I wouldn't use a knife. There are painless ways to die.

Welllllllllll, you see, the condom can't guarantee the prevention of HIV/AIDS being transmitted. It's actual prevention rate is 85%, leaving a 15% chance of getting the disease. By encouraging condom usage (instead of abstinence, which really is the only way to guarantee the prevention of STDs), you're only misleading the public into thinking that they'll be perfectly safe if they use a condom.

Everyone who has sex without insisting their partner gets tested beforehand is engaging in risky behavior. Most people who have HIV/AIDS will tell you if you're already at that stage of your relationship. Knowing who you are having sex with and taking necessary precautions (not just a condom, but a combination of this and other contraceptives such as the pill for women [still waiting for the men's pill] and spermicide) is what it takes to have safe sex. So safe sex is possible.

Dude, abortions can happen at any time throughout the pregnancy. I find the abortions that occur later on to be the most horrifying of them all.

I am similarly horrified, but mostly by the thought that the woman could have been trying to get an abortion much earlier and been prevented (by family, laws, etc.) from doing so. Or, much worse, trying to use protection in the first place but being misinformed (deliberately or otherwise) about safe sex practices.

The zygote doesn't have the potential to become a human life - it is a human life.

Human (by nature of its genetic code), yes. Life (having cells, etc.), yes. Person (having self-awareness), not in my opinion.

Sperm is alive. An egg is alive. Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, newborns, adults - all made of cells, all alive. Not all of them have personhood, however. I think we all agree that sperm and eggs don't and that newborns and adults do. Whether zygotes, embryos and fetuses do is the point of contention, yes?

Are we discussing animal cruelty? Why are you trying to change the topic and make moral comparisons? Animals aren't equal to humans, such a thought is absurd.

Not the exact same thing, no, but there are several very intelligent species such as gorillas and dolphins so a comparison isn't absurd, since cruelty to animals could also be (this is quite iffy territory and I'm not going to make a definitive statement here as there is a lack of information) cruelty to self-aware species. I am a vegetarian in part because of the cruelty many animals suffer and hope that I can reduce, if only in a small way, the total suffering in the world. For this reason I would like to see fewer abortions and more preventative education, but as abortion can also help prevent suffering in some cases I oppose any effort to ban it.

 

[kevcrash]

I disagree with him on that. It is not tolerable to abort a fetus solely because it may experience some degree of suffering; quality of life is not objective, and as you said, most would prefer to live regardless of that particular metric. Instead, I believe that it is tolerable to abort a fetus because it has not yet had any meaningful experiences, and because it has no reasonable level of intelligence. No person should have any real attachments to it besides the mother (and possibly the father); thus, the decision should be theirs to make.


I'm not sure if you're saying your comment was not well-thought out (in which case, I have no opinion, for or against; I'm not a judge), or if mine was not well-thought out (in which case, I take offense, as it clearly was meant to be).

In the end, I honestly don't care what other people think, so long as they don't force their opinions on others. If you wish to think of those who have abortions as "murderers," I'm not going to stop you. However, if I was in the situation, and both my partner and I decided to abort, and you tried to force your morals down our throat; that is when I would take issue with you. Morality is not clearly defined in every instance, and if we were to feel that abortion was the correct decision, you've no right to interfere.

I can't consider the women "murderers" because they don't know how the abortionist is gonna kill the baby, in which case the abortionist doesn't know the severity of his actions. The baby does in fact, know what's going to happen to it. And yes, that was actually intended for my comment and yours.

 

[twocows]

I can't consider the women "murderers" because they don't know how the abortionist is gonna kill the baby, in which case the abortionist doesn't know the severity of his actions.

As I have said, the method of the abortion does not affect whether it would be considered murder or not.

murder (plural murders)
# (countable) An act of deliberate killing of another human being.

There have been ten unsolved murders this year alone.

# (uncountable) (law) The crime of deliberate killing.

The defendant was charged with murder.

Poisoning someone is as much murder as the most gruesome ways of killing someone.

The baby does in fact, know what's going to happen to it. And yes, that was actually intended for my comment and yours.

The baby does not know what is going to happen to it. It lacks self-recognition until some point after birth; it doesn't even know it exists (though I suppose I could get existential here and ask who does know that). However, I won't argue that this knowledge (or lack thereof) is, in itself, relevant. Someone who has been hit with a shovel and knocked unconscious would not know if they were killed, either. The point I make is that the fetus lacks any human-like intelligence at all (and for most of the pregnancy, lacks any intelligence). A study that I happened across a while back (unfortunately, I can't find it now, so feel free to deny its existence) stated that chimpanzees were more intelligent than humans during the first few years of life. It wasn't until about 2 or 3 years old where the human children progressed past the chimps in terms of intelligence. I won't use this to argue that newborns might be killed (see further down about where I draw the line), but it does support my previous statement (that the fetus lacks a human-like intelligence).

If I had to draw a line as to what point I feel that it was tolerable to abort a fetus, I would draw it at the point where the fetus could be kept alive outside of the womb. I feel that's the least arbitrary point that I could pick for such a thing; if it can live outside of the womb, its brain has probably developed enough that it can feel pain on some instinctual level.

 

[Esper]

A study that I happened across a while back (unfortunately, I can't find it now, so feel free to deny its existence) stated that chimpanzees were more intelligent than humans during the first few years of life. It wasn't until about 2 or 3 years old where the human children progressed past the chimps in terms of intelligence.

It might not be the study you're referring to, but I found this article which states that 2-year old children have equal intelligence to chimpanzees except when it comes to 'social' intelligence (which I gather from the article means learning by example), in which case they were much smarter.

 

[twocows]

It might not be the study you're referring to, but I found this article which states that 2-year old children have equal intelligence to chimpanzees except when it comes to 'social' intelligence (which I gather from the article means learning by example), in which case they were much smarter.

I believe this one was more recent (late 2008, IIRC), but thank you for looking.