Abortions - Right or Wrong?
0
Humans are flawed, ergo everything humans make are flawed. Think about that ... because i didn't.
I think its up to the mother, i mean, what if the condom broke or that 1% actually happened. What if the family can't afford to raise a child. What if its a teen unwed mother that got raped (or knocked up).
Is killing wrong or is it just something that society has pounded into our heads?
If the mother is religious then chances are, she wont. If she isnt, than she probably will. Why do other people have to butt in on this?
I think its up to the mother, i mean, what if the condom broke or that 1% actually happened. What if the family can't afford to raise a child. What if its a teen unwed mother that got raped (or knocked up).
Is killing wrong or is it just something that society has pounded into our heads?
If the mother is religious then chances are, she wont. If she isnt, than she probably will. Why do other people have to butt in on this?
0
Ethil wrote...
Well, of course the baby didn't do anything BUT it is in fact not yet a human being, even if it will become one. It cannot feel pain or know that it's gonna "die", if you can call it that.A human is a human the moment it becomes a distinct organism, and this happens when the egg is fertilized. "Fetus" is a developmental stage, not a different species from human. It's been proven that fetuses can feel pain in a large portion of the period in which abortions are legal. Even when they can't feel pain they're still humans. Sleeping people can't know that they're going to die if you're about to shoot them in the head, doesn't mean it's okay to do so.
0
Sobutai wrote...
If the mother is religious then chances are, she wont. If she isnt, than she probably will. Why do other people have to butt in on this?Why do people have to butt in for any other murder?
0
Rakushun wrote...
Ethil wrote...
Well, of course the baby didn't do anything BUT it is in fact not yet a human being, even if it will become one. It cannot feel pain or know that it's gonna "die", if you can call it that.A human is a human the moment it becomes a distinct organism, and this happens when the egg is fertilized. "Fetus" is a developmental stage, not a different species from human. It's been proven that fetuses can feel pain in a large portion of the period in which abortions are legal. Even when they can't feel pain they're still humans. Sleeping people can't know that they're going to die if you're about to shoot them in the head, doesn't mean it's okay to do so.
That's the problem, there is no universal agreement on that. We do not have a set guideline stating when an infant is truly an infant. People can argue back and forth when they think it is until they are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is we have no such set point in time.
0
Tsurayu wrote...
That's the problem, there is no universal agreement on that. We do not have a set guideline stating when an infant is truly an infant. People can argue back and forth when they think it is until they are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is we have no such set point in time.Facts don't require universal agreement. People can try to set arbitrary boundaries until they're blue in the face, but a fertilized egg is a distinct biological entity and is a human at its first developmental stage. It has human DNA and its own unique genetic code. It is not a body part of the mother and it's not some other non-human animal.
If you want to really get at the heart of controversial issues like this you have to strip off the rhetoric and deal in facts. You can't have a coherent theory of ethics in which people are magically given rights at arbitrary boundaries like cognition, third trimester, birth etc. Either they're inherent in the organism, and any infringement on them is wrong regardless of the inconvenient realities surrounding pregnancy, or rights are conditional and based on the opinion, no matter how ignorant and unreasoned, of anyone who already wants to infringe them. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
0
Fine, but up until a point it is nothing more than a parasitical life form, incapable of supporting itself. To me, clearly up until that point it is not an infant and it should be well up to know the mother as to whether or not to abort such a life form.
Honestly I think any point up until the baby is born it is still nothing more that a parasite-esque lifeform, and can't be called a child. However, I know I'm one of the very few that agrees with that. I suppose people should be thankful I was born a male.
Honestly I think any point up until the baby is born it is still nothing more that a parasite-esque lifeform, and can't be called a child. However, I know I'm one of the very few that agrees with that. I suppose people should be thankful I was born a male.
0
Rakushun wrote...
Ethil wrote...
Well, of course the baby didn't do anything BUT it is in fact not yet a human being, even if it will become one. It cannot feel pain or know that it's gonna "die", if you can call it that.A human is a human the moment it becomes a distinct organism, and this happens when the egg is fertilized. "Fetus" is a developmental stage, not a different species from human. It's been proven that fetuses can feel pain in a large portion of the period in which abortions are legal. Even when they can't feel pain they're still humans. Sleeping people can't know that they're going to die if you're about to shoot them in the head, doesn't mean it's okay to do so.
When the egg is fertilized, is nothing more than a cell. One cell. Then it splits again and again. I don't think that you would call that a human if you saw it. Not even when it has evolved into a fetus.
0
Ryuu Hime wrote...
Well.It's soo wrong.
And it's a sin, I think.
Agree...
That's one of the biggest sins for some religions...
And I've seen the abortion process too... very cruel and inhuman!!
0
Tsurayu wrote...
Fine, but up until a point it is nothing more than a parasitical life form, incapable of supporting itself. To me, clearly up until that point it is not an infant and it should be well up to know the mother as to whether or not to abort such a life form. Honestly I think any point up until the baby is born it is still nothing more that a parasite-esque lifeform, and can't be called a child. However, I know I'm one of the very few that agrees with that. I suppose people should be thankful I was born a male.
Fetuses aren't parasites because they aren't a different species from their host. Even if they were parasites it wouldn't matter because they were put into that situation without their consent. The responsibility for the consequences of that must fall on the people who made the choices that resulted in the pregnancy. The fetus is an innocent bystander.
Ethil wrote...
When the egg is fertilized, is nothing more than a cell. One cell. Then it splits again and again. I don't think that you would call that a human if you saw it. Not even when it has evolved into a fetus.It's irrelevant what anyone might choose to call it. I've used the word arbitrary many times in my posts in this thread, and this is a prime example of an arbitrary distinction. Since the cell is a singular example of a class of objects, it is "a", and since it's a separate organism composed of human DNA and in its first stage of development, it is "human". These are facts. If you choose to advance the idea that it's okay to kill it because it doesn't look enough like a baby yet to suit your tastes, you should just admit you think it's okay to kill humans in certain stages of development.
0
Rakushun wrote...
Ethil wrote...
When the egg is fertilized, is nothing more than a cell. One cell. Then it splits again and again. I don't think that you would call that a human if you saw it. Not even when it has evolved into a fetus.It's irrelevant what anyone might choose to call it. I've used the word arbitrary many times in my posts in this thread, and this is a prime example of an arbitrary distinction. Since the cell is a singular example of a class of objects, it is "a", and since it's a separate organism composed of human DNA and in its first stage of development, it is "human". These are facts. If you choose to advance the idea that it's okay to kill it because it doesn't look enough like a baby yet to suit your tastes, you should just admit you think it's okay to kill humans in certain stages of development.
If you just want admittance, I admit I think it's ok to kill humans who are fully developed, depending on the circumstances. But that is a different story.
And I don't have "it doesn't look like a human" as my main argument either, I just pointed it out. I think that since many lives actually might be better if there is an abortion, it is the mothers choice to decide.
0
By your own logic, it should be okay to kill anyone as long as you have a reasonable suspicion that other people's lives would be improved (Improved in what way to be determined by whatever criteria you feel like using at the time). "Sucks that you were crippled in an accident, Dad, but since you're no longer contributing and are just a parasite I'm going to slit your throat now and we'll be better off not having to support you." It's apparent to me that you don't engage in much if any rigorous self-examination of your ideals in this matter because it's so easy to come up with a situation in which applying your logic results in something practically anyone would find abhorrent.
0
To a degree, that is precisely how I feel.
What about someone who is in a coma, or on a ventilator in a vegetative state? What's the point of keeping someone like that alive? So you can waste thousands of dollars keeping someone alive who isn't even there? What so you can satisfy your own personal demons or religious morals? I'm sorry, but to me that is the dumbest thing.
If one of my family members were like that I wouldn't hesitate to "pull the plug."
What about someone who is in a coma, or on a ventilator in a vegetative state? What's the point of keeping someone like that alive? So you can waste thousands of dollars keeping someone alive who isn't even there? What so you can satisfy your own personal demons or religious morals? I'm sorry, but to me that is the dumbest thing.
If one of my family members were like that I wouldn't hesitate to "pull the plug."
0
Rakushun wrote...
By your own logic, it should be okay to kill anyone as long as you have a reasonable suspicion that other people's lives would be improved (Improved in what way to be determined by whatever criteria you feel like using at the time). "Sucks that you were crippled in an accident, Dad, but since you're no longer contributing and are just a parasite I'm going to slit your throat now and we'll be better off not having to support you." It's apparent to me that you don't engage in much if any rigorous self-examination of your ideals in this matter because it's so easy to come up with a situation in which applying your logic results in something practically anyone would find abhorrent.As I stated before, I said it depends on the circumstances. What you're talking about right now is... genocide of people who can't contribute because of their unfortune.
What I'm talking about is more like... things like revenge. Things that would give Me a reason to kill another. This has nothing to do with abortions.
Besides, you're twisting my words in a way that you think will make me a villain.
Rakushun wrote...
By your own logic, it should be okay to kill anyone as long as you have a reasonable suspicion that other people's lives would be improved (Improved in what way to be determined by whatever criteria you feel like using at the time)First of all, stay on the subject. What I am talking about is abortion. This has nothing to do with your dad, weither he contributes to the society or not. What is all comes down to is weither you see a fetus as a human being or not. Right now, your compairing that to a person with a disability. As I said, don't twist words, stay on the subject.
0
I feel the subject is a bit too touchy to have an opinion on it, but on one thing I have an opinion: if one is against abortion, one should seek to prevent the cause that leads to abortions (i.e. rape, accidental pregnancies, etc.) through campaigns and educations, rather than just preventing abortion itself.
If I have to form an opinion on the matter, I'd say that I'm pro the choice to choose between pro-choice and pro-life.
If I have to form an opinion on the matter, I'd say that I'm pro the choice to choose between pro-choice and pro-life.
0
First of all, no meaningful debate can occur without "twisting" words. You have a point of view and my objective is to prove it wrong. I obviously can't do that if I'm not allowed to address what you say. If you feel I'm misinterpreting you you need to make your points clearer and avoid using subjective weasel language like "seems human". Secondly, you're basing your argument on the idea that it's debatable whether or not a fetus is homo sapien or not and that's not a debatable point, unless you can tell me what genus and species it is?
Pro-choice is a dishonest name. It's transparently designed to score maturity points in the debate by graciously acknowledging that people who don't want to abort their babies don't have to. Oh, thanks, pro-choicers.
Pro-choice is a dishonest name. It's transparently designed to score maturity points in the debate by graciously acknowledging that people who don't want to abort their babies don't have to. Oh, thanks, pro-choicers.
0
Rakushun wrote...
First of all, no meaningful debate can occur without "twisting" words. You have a point of view and my objective is to prove it wrong. I obviously can't do that if I'm not allowed to address what you say. If you feel I'm misinterpreting you you need to make your points clearer and avoid using subjective weasel language like "seems human". Secondly, you're basing your argument on the idea that it's debatable whether or not a fetus is homo sapien or not and that's not a debatable point, unless you can tell me what genus and species it is?Pro-choice is a dishonest name. It's transparently designed to score maturity points in the debate by graciously acknowledging that people who don't want to abort their babies don't have to. Oh, thanks, pro-choicers.
Dude, twisting words means that you try to change the meaning of what I say into something that fits you. That's not how you debate.
0
This is just a miscommunication stemming from several posts back. I'm not trying to change the meaning of your words, but I did misinterpret some which isn't helped when I have to deal with fuzzy language and idioms. Let's get back to the topic.
I've repeatedly pointed out the fact that embryos etc. are homo sapien. You've stated that the central issue is whether they are human or not. If you can't provide the scientific name for their genus and species other than homo sapien (because it doesn't exist), you must concede the point that they are human and move on to a better argument. If you just ignore it, I'll consider it conceded anyway since you refuse to substantively contest it.
I've repeatedly pointed out the fact that embryos etc. are homo sapien. You've stated that the central issue is whether they are human or not. If you can't provide the scientific name for their genus and species other than homo sapien (because it doesn't exist), you must concede the point that they are human and move on to a better argument. If you just ignore it, I'll consider it conceded anyway since you refuse to substantively contest it.
0
I apologize for speaking english as a second language if that's what you want. Then again, I feel that if that's what you want, then you're a douchbag.
And if you say so, then we have another problem; are we speaking scientificly or moraly? The fact that the embryo and future child belongs to the homo sapiens is not the issue here either.
I'll just make a blunt statement of what I belive then, so that you can't 'missintrepet' it then:
I do not think that a fetus before the age of 20 weeks should be considered a human being yet. And yes, I approve of abortion because of future problems which might be avoided if the child is not born. If the parents know that they will not be able to take care of the child, abortion is an option. I believe that if you know that the child will be born with a permanent disease or disability, abortion is not the wrong choice to make. I believe that it is the mothers choice to make, since it is her body.
I do NOT believe that you should use abortion as a contraceptive alternative, no. To make an abortion 10 times just beacuse you was to lazy to use a condom, or just because the time isn't right, then that is wrong. Ofc, this is nothing you can inforce law about, this is more a question of moral aswell.
Kapish?
And if you say so, then we have another problem; are we speaking scientificly or moraly? The fact that the embryo and future child belongs to the homo sapiens is not the issue here either.
I'll just make a blunt statement of what I belive then, so that you can't 'missintrepet' it then:
I do not think that a fetus before the age of 20 weeks should be considered a human being yet. And yes, I approve of abortion because of future problems which might be avoided if the child is not born. If the parents know that they will not be able to take care of the child, abortion is an option. I believe that if you know that the child will be born with a permanent disease or disability, abortion is not the wrong choice to make. I believe that it is the mothers choice to make, since it is her body.
I do NOT believe that you should use abortion as a contraceptive alternative, no. To make an abortion 10 times just beacuse you was to lazy to use a condom, or just because the time isn't right, then that is wrong. Ofc, this is nothing you can inforce law about, this is more a question of moral aswell.
Kapish?
0
Rakushun wrote...
Sobutai wrote...
If the mother is religious then chances are, she wont. If she isnt, than she probably will. Why do other people have to butt in on this?Why do people have to butt in for any other murder?
Becuase the government has to ruin all my fun Because if everyone went around killing people they didn't like then we wouldn't have much of a world .... i guess overpopulation wouldnt be an issue.
It isn't murder unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is in fact a living human being. And as far as i know, it isn't until it gets a heartbeat, but by then you can only get back alley abortions, yanno ... the clothes hanger ..... "professionally"
