having a baby

[doesn't matter]

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.

*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.

You evil little---- UGGGGGGGHHH!! NO CUSS WORDS ON THE ThREADS!!

You shouldn't let yourself get so agitated, it doesn't help anyone.

*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 :)

 

[jwexler]

if youre not ready abortion is the way to go

 

[Åzurε]

^Amachi's post: That's going in my "common counterpoints repertoire". =/

But yeah. Even the sunflower seeds are still sunflowers, simply immature as an organism.

If we are indeed more than the sum of our parts, how does one know if that abortion released that "something" (Soul or consciousness in layman's terms, I'd guess)?

 

[Murkat]

seeing as im 13 years old.....i obviously find the idea of intercourse revolting.....no offence to anyone who might take offence. but i do want a child. so i think i would adopt. if i ever DID get pregnant....if i was young i would abort, and if i was older and i wanted it then i would have it anyway. btw im hetero-sexual (straight)
oh yeah and another reason i don't want to have s** is cos it hurts to give birth.
oh well.....i'll think about it another time....maybe....not....pffft.

btw that was not a fart.

 

[Mitchman]

Keep it and follow through. I am responsible for this and as so its only right I follow through. Not to mention abortion is worse then pregnancy here and all.

 

[poopnoodle]

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?

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.

But yeah. Even the sunflower seeds are still sunflowers, simply immature as an organism.

If we are indeed more than the sum of our parts, how does one know if that abortion released that "something" (Soul or consciousness in layman's terms, I'd guess)?

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.

 

[1KewlDude]

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 =]

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.

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.

You shouldn't let yourself get so agitated, it doesn't help anyone.


"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 :)

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

 

[twocows]

Here was my take on the abortion debate in a conversation I had with some YouTuber about half a year ago. He argued the typical "it grows into a human" line, and I then asked if castration would be murder, since sperm has the potential to grow into a human. He responded that sperm were simply cells (which, I might note, is what many pro-choice advocates argue a fetus is). I wrote a page or two in response, and my final conclusion was that since we have no way of knowing specifically when a fetus develops a level of consciousness (which I feel should be the primary factor in defining what is or is not a human), we should focus instead on the well-being of the mother over the well-being of the (what may or may not be a) baby. Specifically, I argued that the circumstances should be considered before allowing an abortion. I may not have said it in the attachment, but I do believe that if adoption is viable (though there are many cases in which it is not), then abortion should be disallowed.

The discussion is attached; his initial reply to my castration line is listed first, followed by my reply.

 

[kevcrash]

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.

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?

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..

 

[Nick]

You're.... arguing over one's belief in a thread that's just asking for mixed beliefs and then saying how wrong it is for one to believe such a thing? What?

 

[poopnoodle]

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?

You seem to have completely ignored the rest of the sentence after "I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest."
Re-read it, comprehend it, then respond.

 

[Nick]

Despite the fact that I would find it incredibly difficult to have an abortion if I were the mother due to having a connection with the child only mothers can have, if your life just isn't what you want it to be, you don't have the money, you live day to day struggling, and then suddenly you're pregnant, I can honestly see why someone would abort. I don't know about everyone else, but I would not want to have my child suffer life. There's a chance that in such a living situation, that the baby wouldn't be raised the way you would like it, or something could go wrong and the baby's life could be in danger or actually end due to such problems since you don't have the money to send it to a doctor and get rightful medical treatment. I would never want my child to have to go through problems like that, so I think in the minds of others, they feel that it would be a lot easier for them and everyone else to cope with if the child itself was never brought into the world living. You know?

Now, a few posts back, I shared my beliefs on what I would do if I was having a child, and said something completely different along the lines of never aborting, but within reasonable situations, I don't find it at all to be "absolutely disgusting" for abortion to come to mind, but then again, there's always adoption. If you could find a good family for your child who is willing to allow you to see him or her, then that would solve many of the problems that are going on with your life. So abortion to me would seem to be a last resort if you can't find a family willing to respect your rights (not legal rights) to the child as the biological mother.

 

[kevcrash]

You seem to have completely ignored the rest of the sentence after "I think that sometimes the child never having lived a life is in its best interest."
Re-read it, comprehend it, then respond.

Oh, I read it, I agree with the few exceptions, okay? I did lose my cool a couple times now, and I know this is about opinions, but I stick with the base of my decision with what this thread is all about. So I'll make this very simple. Adoption (if the circumstance is a healthy baby), though I'd probably keep it anyway.

 

[Luck]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[poopnoodle]

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.

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.

 

[aurevesque]

hmm... interesting topic. As for me, i'd have it adopted, cause being raised by a 16 mother or whatever maybe be worse than abortion(maybe). Cause the kid would be more likely to keep that sad cycle going. Yeah, i'd go wiht adoption. I'm an adoptee so i can definitely vouch for it.

 

[Åzurε]

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.

Well, I can't say anything conclusively for your particular case, of course, but If you had a chance and a conscious decision to live, knowing everything you know now, would you take it?

And why wouldn't you classify the child as alive? If you'll give me a definitive reason for the basis of your opinion, It can work from there.

 

[Zeta Sukuna]

Albeit it is rare, there is someone who doesn't hav an overpowering urge for sex. (Me.) Not interested, the sad thing is, that I'm 15, in a place where 11 year olds are having sex. And I wouldn't be able to conceive a child, seeing as I'm male. However, if I did get someone knocked up, then I would consider the following.

Chances of survival for both the baby and mother.
Willingness on the mother's part.
And... well, coupled with a few other things that I won't mention. I am against abortion, I really am. But, if my wife could possibly die, then... I would allow her to get the abortion, if she wanted to. Sure, I would feel bad for the rest of my life, but... losing someone that I would love would hurt me even more. But, her opinion counts just as much as mine, if not more so since she's carrying the baby.

(And I'm not kidding about the sex thing. I just don't want any right now. Especially since I am underaged.)

 

[poopnoodle]

And why wouldn't you classify the child as alive? If you'll give me a definitive reason for the basis of your opinion, It can work from there.

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.

 

[Luck]

Well, I can't say anything conclusively for your particular case, of course, but If you had a chance and a conscious decision to live, knowing everything you know now, would you take it?

And why wouldn't you classify the child as alive? If you'll give me a definitive reason for the basis of your opinion, It can work from there.

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 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.

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 >:(