The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

Stage of formation seems irrelevant, especially from an orthodox biology perspective, if it has its own unique human DNA and isn't dead,

Well that's a difference of opinion. It is a part of the human species for sure, but it's still developing much of what is needed to be a complete human being.

A 9 month old newborn is no less a person in real terms than an 8 month 29 day baby in the womb, and you could roll that date back day by day,

I agree with the first example, but I don't agree that you could roll it back. I think at the very least in the first trimester in "real terms" it's very much not a complete human being and thus has no rights.

I don't like abortion though Bshoc. I think there are things which we could do to mitigate the need for it that we'd both support and that's all that I think it's worthwhile for politicians to focus on.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If you kill a foetus, it's murder. It's the only correct line of thought.

I somewhat agree, but I don't think it's the same level of murder (i.e. while it is murder, it is murder on a yet to be developed, unconscious being) and because of that I feel it's justifiable but not something we should be happy about.

 

[AlleyCat]

Ok, so a foetus is a living being, something that most people acknowledge. The killing of one is something that isn't to be taken lightly, but is a necessity for certain people in certain situations.

In other news, I read yesterday that 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion before they're 45. A lot of them because the widely relayed myth about not being able to conceive while breastfeeding is not true in many cases.

If a woman has just given birth to a baby, endured 9 months of constant morning sickness followed by a traumatic birth, and she finds herself once again pregnant only weeks afterwards, I for one wouldn't judge her for wanting to abort the baby.

So I guess I believe that the intelligent portion of society understand that an unborn baby is alive, yet can also understand that there are many reasons for being unable to carry out the pregnancy, reasons OTHER THAN the often cited "rape and incest" ones.

 

[Phanatical]

If you kill a foetus, it's murder. It's the only correct line of thought.

However, I am pro-abortion. The only way to clear up this debate is to put it in law that a foetus up to a certain age is not human. Then it is acceptable to abort the foetus.

Where should we draw the line? Two weeks? Three? 24 weeks? Up to Birth? I don't see how an unborn life is any more or less "living" at conception or birth, so where do we draw the line?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Abortion is murder unless you believe that the fetus is part of the mother, if that is true then you have to accept the fact that mommy can grow a penis, biology be damned, useless logic.

That’s your personal belief which you are entitled to. Whilst I wouldn’t support making abortion easier to obtain as it is still a big decision, IMO, abortion is not murder. Murder requires a human being, which I don't consider an embryo yuoung enough to be aborted is. It is 'killing' yes, but not murder. In my opinion.

 

[bshoc]

That’s your personal belief which you are entitled to. Whilst I wouldn’t support making abortion easier to obtain as it is still a big decision, IMO, abortion is not murder. Murder requires a human being, which I don't consider an embryo yuoung enough to be aborted is. It is 'killing' yes, but not murder. In my opinion.

Is this "young enough"? Or are we going to roll it back a few weeks so we can keep going down the arbitrary x weeks is worthy of life and y weeks is not bs ..

http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-...re-birth-record/2007/02/20/1171733736918.html
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/20/amilliataylor_wideweb__470x289,0.jpg

February 20, 2007 - 12:27PM


A premature baby that doctors say spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant is to be released from a Florida hospital.
Amillia Sonja Taylor was just over 23 centimetres long and weighed less than 284 grams when she was born on October 24.
She was delivered 21 weeks and six days after conception. Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks.
"We weren't too optimistic," Dr. William Smalling said. "But she proved us all wrong."
Neonatologists who cared for Amillia say she is the first baby known to survive after a gestation period of fewer than 23 weeks.
A database run by the University of Iowa's Department of Pediatrics lists seven babies born at 23 weeks between 1994 and 2003.
Amillia has experienced respiratory problems, a very mild brain hemorrhage and some digestive problems, but none of the health concerns are expected to pose long-term problems, her doctors said.
"We can deal with lungs and things like that but, of course, the brain is the most important," Dr. Paul Fassbach said Monday. "But her prognosis is excellent."
Amillia has been in an incubator since birth and has been receiving oxygen. She will continue getting a small amount of oxygen, and her breathing will be monitored once she leaves Baptist Children's Hospital.
"She's going to be in a normal crib, she's going to have normal feedings, she's taking all her feedings from a bottle," Smalling said.
Amillia is the first child for Eddie and Sonja Taylor of Homestead. She was conceived by in vitro fertilization, which made it possible to pinpoint her exact time in the womb, and was delivered by Caesarean section.
AP

 

[Not-That-Bright]

She was delivered 21 weeks and six days after conception.

I've never advocated abortion that far into pregnancy.

 

[ElGronko]

Well Bshoc, to use your own analogy, is using a condom murder? Well what if you go one day forward to when it fertilizes an egg. Is that then murder? Then you keep going forward day by day.

A fetus is not an independent organism and up till about the 6 months point could in no biological way be determined to be alive.

You can't kill something that is not alive.

 

[bshoc]

I've never advocated abortion that far into pregnancy.

Many people do however, thats the critical flaw with arbitrary dating of when abortion is "ok," including your own, theres always the chance (or more accurately, eventual guarantee) your date could be irrelevated by the next premature fetus or advance in science.

Thats why I particulary dislike baseless assertions like those ones, such as when we set arbitrary dates, what if we set 21 weeks and then find out a fetus qualifies as "human" under some new scienitific law at 19 weeks, where does that leave all the 20 and 21 week children already aborted - whooops?

On issues like these, reasonable caution is the best point of reference, in this case making abortion illegal in all but the rarest of cases. Pro-abortionists and their laws seem to have gotten through without any genuine proof or justification whatsoever. That means we've potentially been killing 100 000 people per year since the mid 70's, thats approx. 3.3 million to date. I personally find that at the very least, disturbing, as would any other person with a touch of reason.

 

[bshoc]

Well Bshoc, to use your own analogy, is using a condom murder? Well what if you go one day forward to when it fertilizes an egg. Is that then murder? Then you keep going forward day by day.

No, and I'm tired of reposting the reasons 50 times over because some people cant gather up the mental vigor to push the back button a few times.

Anyone with barebones knowledge of biology should already see why that argument is so retarded, namely because human beings have 46 chromosomes, and multiply in cells, rather than maintain a single-cell structure.

A fetus is not an independent organism and up till about the 6 months point could in no biological way be determined to be alive.

Baseless and arbitrary, ill-concieved opinion is no way relevant to scientific (and biological) fact.

You can't kill something that is not alive.

Something thats "not alive" (aka. dead) doesen't grow either ...

 

[ElGronko]

Now your the one dealing in "what if"'s.

*Edit - Referring to two posts up.

 

[ElGronko]

Something thats "not alive" (aka. dead) doesen't grow either ...

So killing bacteria is murder?

Before 3 months a fetus has no independent thought, independent movements, abilities to breath or eat.

It is not a person.

By saying that contraception is not "murder" you are admitting that your argument has nothing to do with the "potential for life" cause.

Thus you rely on a blob of cells, much the same as a blob of bacteria, as being defined as a person, which is utterly ridiculous.

You lose.

 

[bshoc]

So killing bacteria is murder?

Again this has been adressed already.

Is bacteria a seperate multiplying organism with a unique human genetic sequence?

No.

Before 3 months a fetus has no independent thought, independent movements, abilities to breath or eat.

1. Uprovable
2. Things you would consider "human" at one time or another share some, if not all those features.
3. The child sighted in the link for example did not have those abilities, neither do coma patients and a myriad of other cases.

Broken logic.

It is not a person.

And it doesen't have to be, not by your standards anyway.

By saying that contraception is not "murder" you are admitting that your argument has nothing to do with the "potential for life" cause.

A sperm is part of a human male and shares his genetic code, its is also not a unique being. Killing a sperm will not render the death of a person since a sperm left to its own natural devices will not grow into a human being. A fetus will, as well as that, a fetus does not have an identical genetic identity to anyone else, it is unique.

Killing a sperm is like cutting off your own finger, killing a fetus is killing a person, basic logic.

Thus you rely on a blob of cells, much the same as a blob of bacteria, as being defined as a person, which is utterly ridiculous.

You lose.

Funny people start declaring that as soon as they realize how stupid their own ill-concieved opinions are.

 

[ElGronko]

For one, your argument relies on the "you can't 100% prove your way is right, therefore I am right" stratagy that most Christians use. "You can't proove that the big bang came from science therefore god exists".


And shit like this is totally stupid:

A sperm is part of a human male and shares his genetic code, its is also not a unique being. Killing a sperm will not render the death of a person since a sperm left to its own natural devices will not grow into a human being. A fetus will, as well as that, a fetus does not have an identical genetic identity to anyone else, it is unique.

Killing a sperm is like cutting off your own finger, killing a fetus is killing a person, basic logic.

For one, left to it's own natural devices a fetus will die.

It needs the womb to survive.

Therefore that whole branch of your argument is redundant.

And your constant statements of "stupid question" without a legitimate answer to the so called "stupid question" reveals your whole arguments weakness.

 

[bshoc]

For one, your argument relies on the "you can't 100% prove your way is right, therefore I am right" stratagy that most Christians use. "You can't proove that the big bang came from science therefore god exists".

Who are you to say whether I am a christian or not? I know atheists who are as anti-abortion as any baptist.

A dead giveaway would be the fact that I've never used a religious argument of any form to support my position.

For one, left to it's own natural devices a fetus will die.

It needs the womb to survive.

Therefore that whole branch of your argument is redundant.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with how abortions are performed, but they always involve killing the fetus in one way or another.

It has nothing to do with the location of the fetus at the time. Because by your logic, killing that 21 week old child in the womb would be "abortion" whilst killing it after the ceasarian would be "murder" .. again think before you say something stupid.

And your constant statements of "stupid question" without a legitimate answer to the so called "stupid question" reveals your whole arguments weakness.

Stupid questions are asked by stupid people, besides that I have answered all your stupid questions, the only reason I tell you they're stupid beforehand is because a person who thought about what they were asking for a few seconds would not actually go on and ask them.

Until now I've dignified your stupid questions with answers, I can end that process so you can figure out why your questions are stupid by yourself if you so wish.

 

[ElGronko]

You are now arguing against yourself. Your reasoning that a sperm is not a potential life is because left to it's own devices it would not survive. Now you are trying to counter argue yourself.

And if you had been paying any attention, I have never advocated killing fully formed fetus', you are ignoring the whole constant thread of my argument that continuously states that abortions are before a fetus is formed, as I said, a blob of cells.

And if you are going to get finicky and personal, until now I haven't corrected your spelling (school boy errors really make it hard to be taken seriously). These are the words that need work (I ignored the "finger slipped" typos):

ceasarian
vigor
concieved
thats
theres
its
irrelevated
particulary
scienitific

 

[bshoc]

You are now arguing against yourself. Your reasoning that a sperm is not a potential life is because left to it's own devices it would not survive. Now you are trying to counter argue yourself.

How? I've already made clear that sperm does not constitute a unique human entity, as it posseses half the chromosomes and is genetically identiacal to its proprietor, nor does a sperm have the ability to grow or multiply in cell structure.

And if you had been paying any attention, I have never advocated killing fully formed fetus', you are ignoring the whole constant thread of my argument that continuously states that abortions are before a fetus is formed, as I said, a blob of cells.

One cell is already a perfectly formed human being, they key benchmark for measuring human life is called cell division, its what all unique living human beings engage in, be it before or after birth, lack of this above anything else indicates non-life or death, and that ability exists in the living from day one. Nitpicking at certain developments after that is arbitrary and baseless as I've said all along.

And by your logic, if anyone killed that 21 week old child it would not be murder by your logic since it does not posses any of the initial features required by your ignorant and twisted view to qualify "person"

And if you are going to get finicky and personal, until now I haven't corrected your spelling (school boy errors really make it hard to be taken seriously). These are the words that need work (I ignored the "finger slipped" typos):

ceasarian
vigor
concieved
thats
theres
its
irrelevated
particulary
scienitific

Ah yes picking at spelling, the last refuge of a defeated idiot. A few things:

1. All humans make spelling mistakes, at a rate of around 1%. This increases exponentially when you speed type on keyboard.

2. I am most likely aware of these things when I re-read but do not care, as shown by the fact that I choose not to use the built in spellchecker.

3. this is 73h 1Nt3RN375, not an HSC english final.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Many people do however, thats the critical flaw with arbitrary dating of when abortion is "ok," including your own, theres always the chance (or more accurately, eventual guarantee) your date could be irrelevated by the next premature fetus or advance in science.

It's not the age of the fetus that bothers me so much as the overall pain. I feel our society is much better off allowing abortions to occur in the first trimester, the creature never faces existance, experiences no suffering and for the most part is uncared for by the majority of the population. If however the majority of the population decided aborting fetus's was too much for them to handle, I would change my opinion.

Thats why I particulary dislike baseless assertions like those ones, such as when we set arbitrary dates, what if we set 21 weeks and then find out a fetus qualifies as "human" under some new scienitific law at 19 weeks, where does that leave all the 20 and 21 week children already aborted - whooops?

I look at pain, perhaps our understanding of pain will change in the future, but the best we can do is go by the current science... from what I understand there is no plausible way a 1st trimester child will experience pain.

 

[han-]

I dont see what makes bshocs definition of a human being correct, and any other definition "twisted".

 

[bshoc]

It's not the age of the fetus that bothers me so much as the overall pain. I feel our society is much better off allowing abortions to occur in the first trimester, the creature never faces existance, experiences no suffering and for the most part is uncared for by the majority of the population. If however the majority of the population decided aborting fetus's was too much for them to handle, I would change my opinion.

I look at pain, perhaps our understanding of pain will change in the future, but the best we can do is go by the current science... from what I understand there is no plausible way a 1st trimester child will experience pain.

So if somebody pumped you full of pain nerve disabling drugs, you would have no problem if they killed you, or a one year old etc.?

I cannot think of a greater pain for any healthy indavidual as death.