Poll: Is abortion murder?

[Humble85]

A female friend of mine once said that, until a certain time, a fetus is not more than a tumor. So I say abortion is ok, though I would have a hard time if my girlfriend (and me) would decide to abort our baby. It wouldnt be an easy decision.

 

[GooBeyond]

people rarely care about actual people being killed in today's world, do you expect them to care about "a bunch of cells" ?

personally, i say it depends on the situation, not the period after conception.

rape, very fucking poor family (that doesn't mean they should do it frequently) -- ok

"accidental" -- go fuck yourself

I have a very good sexually active friend who constantly uses birth control and condoms both, and she accidentally got pregnant anyway. Are you telling me that she should have to carry the child to term solely because you think 'accidental' pregnancies should be exempted from abortions? I certainly hope that you also oppose bankruptcy law, because that's a similar attitude.

she should be more careful next time i suppose.
also, resisting the urges from time to time doesn't hurt.

How much more careful would one have to be? Double condoms? Also, again, I'd love to hear how you feel about bankruptcy law. Also, what sort of compensation should victims of accidents be awarded? Your attitude is unbelievably unforgiving and callous.

if all the precautions you mentioned (not double condom, of course) are applied properly, the chances of conception become really low. the example you are providing is a very rare and extreme case, in which i advise adoption. its the mother's (or fathers) fault in that "accident", so they must take responsibility.

and please inform me of the "Bankruptcy Law" because im pretty sure we live in different countries.

 

[SilverApple]

Eh, the way I see it is that once something would naturally develop into a human, it's a human. I'm against abortion.

To expand on the "conscious thought" thing, the ability to think is by no means a characteristic of life. Plants are alive, as are bacteria. I think that it's immoral when we kill something that's alive and is a (future) human just because we don't feel like dealing with it.

Sperm. The male body produces more of it than what could ever conceivably be needed, and all the billions of little sperm cells (per person) that don't enter an egg die. You don't even have to masturbate for it to happen.

Every man alive is a mass murderer, because that's how we were "designed".

Note the part that I bolded in my post. A sperm cell will not develop into a human naturally, if left alone. A fertilized egg will. If something will naturally develop into a human, then it is still, to me, a human.

"Left alone"?

Let's consider a fertilised chicken egg. If "left alone", which means no mummy chicken sitting on it to keep it warm, no artificial incubator, will it hatch? No, it will not.

A mammalian fertilised egg, such as a human one, requires even more intensive care. Even with such care provided by the mother's body, many fertilised eggs never make it. Perhaps they don't implant, or perhaps they implant, and then a miscarriage [http://pregnancyandbaby.sheknows.com/pregnancy/baby/How-common-are-miscarriages-and-why-do-they-happen-208.htm] occurs.

Not only this, but as many women with high-risk pregnancies (and their doctors) can attest, technological, artificial help from outside is sometimes needed to nurture a fertilised egg. Otherwise, a human being would never result. Even being left alone INSIDE a human, WITH that human's body working to support it, it can die.

 

[Keava]

if all the precautions you mentioned (not double condom, of course) are applied properly, the chances of conception become really low. the example you are providing is a very rare and extreme case, in which i advise adoption. its the mother's (or fathers) fault in that "accident", so they must take responsibility.

and please inform me of the "Bankruptcy Law" because im pretty sure we live in different countries.

You know. The chances are even lower when you don't ever make sex. Yet it is again against the idea of society for those pro-life activists vouching to ban abortion. The thing is, no one forces them to abort, no one forces them to do anything, why the heck for whatever reasons they believe in, they want to force them on everyone else?

Just like any other 'morally gray' issues, its always one group trying to force their point of view on others, not even caring about different approaches to certain matters. What are they afraid of? That oen day their wife will tell them "Sorry honey, i don't think i want to be a mother, i don't think i want this kid so i decided to abort" and then what? They will force someone to give a birth because they think it's okay?

For a supposedly pro-life ideology they are more of pro-egocentric because any belief different to theirs is automatically deemed as wrong. Homosexuality is a disease, in-vitro is satan's doing, abortion is murder, euthanasia is against god's will, sex before marriage means you are a slut, and pretty much woman should just sit quietly in kitchen and never disagree with man. It is all the same.

 

[GooBeyond]

if all the precautions you mentioned (not double condom, of course) are applied properly, the chances of conception become really low. the example you are providing is a very rare and extreme case, in which i advise adoption. its the mother's (or fathers) fault in that "accident", so they must take responsibility.

and please inform me of the "Bankruptcy Law" because im pretty sure we live in different countries.

You know. The chances are even lower when you don't ever make sex. Yet it is again against the idea of society for those pro-life activists vouching to ban abortion. The thing is, no one forces them to abort, no one forces them to do anything, why the heck for whatever reasons they believe in, they want to force them on everyone else?

Just like any other 'morally gray' issues, its always one group trying to force their point of view on others, not even caring about different approaches to certain matters. What are they afraid of? That oen day their wife will tell them "Sorry honey, i don't think i want to be a mother, i don't think i want this kid so i decided to abort" and then what? They will force someone to give a birth because they think it's okay?

For a supposedly pro-life ideology they are more of pro-egocentric because any belief different to theirs is automatically deemed as wrong. Homosexuality is a disease, in-vitro is satan's doing, abortion is murder, euthanasia is against god's will, sex before marriage means you are a slut, and pretty much woman should just sit quietly in kitchen and never disagree with man. It is all the same.

i don't recall forcing my will unto someone else. my opinion was asked and i gave it. if someone else asks me i will say the same, but that doesn't mean i will deny someone from their choice.
no man, religious or not, is allowed to deny another from their will. but every man is entitled to their opinion.
in other words i should say that im pro-life personally, but who am i to decide for someone else ? its not like im going to get pregnant.

Spoiler

i will take responsibility if my mate decides to keep the baby though, if this ever happens to me

 

[Timbydude]

Eh, the way I see it is that once something would naturally develop into a human, it's a human. I'm against abortion.

To expand on the "conscious thought" thing, the ability to think is by no means a characteristic of life. Plants are alive, as are bacteria. I think that it's immoral when we kill something that's alive and is a (future) human just because we don't feel like dealing with it.

Sperm. The male body produces more of it than what could ever conceivably be needed, and all the billions of little sperm cells (per person) that don't enter an egg die. You don't even have to masturbate for it to happen.

Every man alive is a mass murderer, because that's how we were "designed".

Note the part that I bolded in my post. A sperm cell will not develop into a human naturally, if left alone. A fertilized egg will. If something will naturally develop into a human, then it is still, to me, a human.

"Left alone"?

Let's consider a fertilised chicken egg. If "left alone", which means no mummy chicken sitting on it to keep it warm, no artificial incubator, will it hatch? No, it will not.

A mammalian fertilised egg, such as a human one, requires even more intensive care. Even with such care provided by the mother's body, many fertilised eggs never make it. Perhaps they don't implant, or perhaps they implant, and then a miscarriage [http://pregnancyandbaby.sheknows.com/pregnancy/baby/How-common-are-miscarriages-and-why-do-they-happen-208.htm] occurs.

Not only this, but as many women with high-risk pregnancies (and their doctors) can attest, technological, artificial help from outside is sometimes needed to nurture a fertilised egg. Otherwise, a human being would never result. Even being left alone INSIDE a human, WITH that human's body working to support it, it can die.

First of all, the chicken comparison is irrelevant to this discussion. They develop outside of the mother, while humans don't.

And artifical care is not a requirement for a baby to be born (we would have become extinct before inventing medicine). Are there high-risk pregnancies that do require extra care? Certainly. Butis anyone going to just stop caring for a fetus the minute it requires outside help.

I should probably rephrase what I mean. Just as a human is naturally intended to complete a natural life cycle of old age / death, so too is a fetus naturally intended to become a human. Just as we encounter problems midway through our life (before reproductive age, even) that require medical care, so too do certain pregnancies encounter trouble that requires medical help. In any case, thelogic behind helping one can most certainly be applied to the other.

And to tell you the truth, I'm not supposed to be alive right now. I was born from a high-risk pregnancy; my mother was told I had an incredibly low chance of survival. But you know what? I'm glad she had the decency to at least give me a shot.

 

[Kair]

Calling an embryo a human is like calling a drop of sperm a megacity.

Human embryo's are most definitely a member of the species Homo sapiens.

You misunderstood. I was not talking about the biological definition of human.

 

[Maze1125]

Calling an embryo a human is like calling a drop of sperm a megacity.

Human embryo's are most definitely a member of the species Homo sapiens.

You misunderstood. I was not talking about the biological definition of human.

Well Biology is the only place there is a consistent definition of human. As such, if you use any other definition you should probably give that definition at the time to avoid confusion.

 

[BGH122]

It's a circular definition, since you claim that sex invariably results in a child, then say that the only reason to have sex is to have a child in the first place. If that's not a circulat definition, I don't know what is. "What is sex? The way to have a child. How do you conceive a child? By having sex!"

That's not circularity. Circular reasoning presents a logical fallacy because both steps of an entailment are required to already to have occurred for the other step to occur, which is impossible:

Jack gets fat because he eats, jack eats because he is fat

I'm strong because I work out, I work out because I'm strong

I murder people because I'm a murderer, I'm a murderer because I murder people

All of these arguments are circular. None explain which step comes first, since both are required to simultaneously be the start point of the entailment. If I must already be a murderer to murder people then how does one become a murderer? If I must already be strong to work out, then how does one become strong if the thing which makes people strong requires one to be strong already?

I'm failing to see how I've run into a circular dependency error. Please show how I've made the above mistake.

But the man made a decision, too- he decided to have sex without using a condom or any other means of contraception. So that makes it equally his decision to have that child- by having procreative sex in the first place. As they say, it takes two to tango. Now, you are saying that his decision to have that procreative sex and make that baby is less of a decision than hers is. If she gets pregnant and has that child, he doesn't have to support it- even though, according to you, it's her fault for choosing to have sex that could result in a baby. Why do men get a cop out? If the man wants the baby- according to you, the woman should be forced to have it just to make him feel better- but if he doesn't want it, despite choosing to have unprotected procreative sex- a choice he made as well... he shouldn't be obligated to support it.

Uh, it's the same the other way around too: if the woman doesn't want the child then as soon as it's born she's rid of it. That's exactly what's going on with the man too, he has to stick around throughout the pregnancy if the woman wants the child and he doesn't and then leave when it's born. I'm not sure where the supposed sexism is here: if one partner wants the child then the other must stick around until birth to facilitate the birth and then leave, regardless of gender. Where's the sexism?

Well, now I sure wish I could be a man in your world- all the power, none of the responsibilities! He has the right to force her to bear the child even if she doesn't want to- because she chose to have procreative non-contraceptive sex, but even though he made the same choice, she has to bear the responsibility of bearing and raising it if he decides he doesn't want it.

That's not my point. That's never been my point. Clearly I've misrepresented my point. If neither partner wants the child and both want it aborted then it's aborted. The actual emotional and physical well-being of living humans trumps the potential emotional and physical well-being of the foetus. My point isn't, and has never been, 'the woman has to have the child even if neither person wants it'. My point is that if either partner wants the child and the other doesn't then both have to stick around until the birth in order to see it born and then they must part ways.

You say, "I'm not arguing in favour of sexists who want to blame women for having a child accidentally, regardless of whose fault it is, please don't cast me into roles for which I haven't argued"- but you also said this- "I don't agree that a man should support the child if it's the woman's desire to keep it, because he's declared no interest in it". But he made that choice to have sex where it was possible to have that child he doesn't want to support- and like it's said- it takes two to tango. Basically, you just invalidated your own words.

No, I haven't. It's your point that sexist. You want to demand more from the man in this situation than the woman. You also want to fix the man into the gender role of 'the provider', why shouldn't the woman continue to provide for the child after it's born, too, if the man says he wants it?

My way of doing it means that the parent who says they want the child has to think seriously about all the difficulties that rearing a child brings. They get support through to birth, because that's necessary in order for the birth to occur (which the other parent agreed to with unsafe sex), but no support after birth. There's no reason why only the man should have to continue supporting the child after birth if he's the parent who doesn't want it, since the woman only has to support the child up to birth. Furthermore, this would completely invalidate my entire argument. The immediate consequence of unprotected sex is a child, which both consent to by partaking in the act, not wage slavery for the rest of your life. That's an added bonus you've thrown in to tip the scales towards benefiting the mother.

If you'd rather we end this here, or take it PMs, then that's fine and I'll respect that decision. I appreciate that not everyone enjoys debating so much as to justify the negative emotions brought about by debating something personal.

 

[alinos]

snip

She knew the risk when she had sex. If she didn't want to risk having a child then she shouldn't have had sex. She doesn't have the right to put a man through the emotional trauma of losing his child just because it'd be physically burdensome. Slaves don't make their own bed and lie in it, slaves are arbitrarily forced to commit to an action to which they don't want to commit through no fault of their own: your analogy is false.

snip

Interesting point, perhaps we should modify this so that when a parent declares they desire an abortion they rescind all rights to interact with the child. This would prevent this as she couldn't simultaneously not interact with the child and live with the man who's legally bound to raise it due to his objection of the abortion.

Ok first up regardless of all the precautions a woman can undertake to avoid having a child a man can easily sabotage them( i know someone who put a pin through the tip of his condom to attempt to prevent his GF from going to school in another city. and i think youd find some women who feel they have to have sex with there partner at some points because they still love there guy which doesnt always stick

as for the emotional trauma harden the fuck up mate. most guys would be a little upset but its nothing compared to what the woman is going to go through in deciding whether or not to keep it in the first place

maybe thered be a little more justification in your view on the husband deciding he wanted the kid if a pregnancy only lasted 5 days

while slavery may have been a little drastic im pretty sure some basic human rights would be violated to ensure what you want to do. i mean first up your telling the woman she cant play and contact sports/activies she does,she cant drink for 9 months cant smoke, cant really go on holiday, has to suffer through morning sickness, back pain, weight gain. And some would even say that they end up with there body stretched out so they dont maintain the body/looks they had before the forced pregnancy which would make subsequent relationships slightly more challenging to them

then theres complications like Caesarean sections, then theres the effects on there bladder, as well as being seperated from there baby can lead to a depression

i assume that like me your a guy (and maybe had a similar situation with a GF/wife/hookup)

i just think that what youd want enforced is a double standard i mean the other option would be that if everyguy had a vaesectomy and only had it undone when a woman wanted to have a child with them then if something happened shed already agreed to it and then maybe maybe something like what you want could occur

but in my opinion its her body its her choice and any guy who thinks he has the right to block that is wrong and im sure that you wouldnt go without drink smoke and anything else that isnt positive for the baby for a someone else whos gonna take the kid because you didnt want to have it

 

[SilverApple]

Eh, the way I see it is that once something would naturally develop into a human, it's a human. I'm against abortion.

To expand on the "conscious thought" thing, the ability to think is by no means a characteristic of life. Plants are alive, as are bacteria. I think that it's immoral when we kill something that's alive and is a (future) human just because we don't feel like dealing with it.

Sperm. The male body produces more of it than what could ever conceivably be needed, and all the billions of little sperm cells (per person) that don't enter an egg die. You don't even have to masturbate for it to happen.

Every man alive is a mass murderer, because that's how we were "designed".

Note the part that I bolded in my post. A sperm cell will not develop into a human naturally, if left alone. A fertilized egg will. If something will naturally develop into a human, then it is still, to me, a human.

"Left alone"?

Let's consider a fertilised chicken egg. If "left alone", which means no mummy chicken sitting on it to keep it warm, no artificial incubator, will it hatch? No, it will not.

A mammalian fertilised egg, such as a human one, requires even more intensive care. Even with such care provided by the mother's body, many fertilised eggs never make it. Perhaps they don't implant, or perhaps they implant, and then a miscarriage [http://pregnancyandbaby.sheknows.com/pregnancy/baby/How-common-are-miscarriages-and-why-do-they-happen-208.htm] occurs.

Not only this, but as many women with high-risk pregnancies (and their doctors) can attest, technological, artificial help from outside is sometimes needed to nurture a fertilised egg. Otherwise, a human being would never result. Even being left alone INSIDE a human, WITH that human's body working to support it, it can die.

First of all, the chicken comparison is irrelevant to this discussion. They develop outside of the mother, while humans don't.

That is kind of the point. Not even a chicken egg, that is so low maintenance, comparatively so, that it can develop outside of the mother, can be left alone.

By extension, human pregnancy, where the egg--> zygote --> embryo --> fetus requires such intensive care from the female's body doesn't really fall into your criteria for humanity: "If something will naturally develop into a human, then it is still, to me, a human." I really don't see it as greatly distinguishable from situation of the sperm.

If you don't accept that, there is also the issue that such phrasing can be taken to understate the demands of pregnancy, and can thence make pro-choice advocates/women who have previously had rough pregnancies/know someone who's miscarried/women who've miscarried themselves want to toilet paper your house. Which is undesirable for the neighbourhood, and brings down house prices.

And artifical care is not a requirement for a baby to be born (we would have become extinct before inventing medicine). Are there high-risk pregnancies that do require extra care? Certainly. Butis anyone going to just stop caring for a fetus the minute it requires outside help.

I should probably rephrase what I mean. Just as a human is naturally intended to complete a natural life cycle of old age / death, so too is a fetus naturally intended to become a human. Just as we encounter problems midway through our life (before reproductive age, even) that require medical care, so too do certain pregnancies encounter trouble that requires medical help. In any case, thelogic behind helping one can most certainly be applied to the other.

And to tell you the truth, I'm not supposed to be alive right now. I was born from a high-risk pregnancy; my mother was told I had an incredibly low chance of survival. But you know what? I'm glad she had the decency to at least give me a shot.

I was trying to
a) illustrate the precariousness and uncertainty of human pregnancy;
b) point out that if you define human gestation as a stage where the organism is a human because it will naturally become so, on its own (a view I disagree with, as I've already ranted covered), that means that in a more medical pregnancy, the fetus is less human, than if the medical treatment weren't needed.

Although I can appreciate it's almost certainly not what you meant, it's a nasty fact that people do have that attitude towards adult, disabled people. So any reasoning that can result in a similar attitude... It's a flaw.(Yeah, I have a thing about discrimination.)

 

[BGH122]

Ok first up regardless of all the precautions a woman can undertake to avoid having a child a man can easily sabotage them( i know someone who put a pin through the tip of his condom to attempt to prevent his GF from going to school in another city. and i think youd find some women who feel they have to have sex with there partner at some points because they still love there guy which doesnt always stick

Then this'd obviously invalidate the entire arrangement. If any contraception was used then, regardless of whether or not it fails and the reasons for its failure, the man forgoes all right to decide to keep the child and the woman forgoes all right to rely upon the man during pregnancy. If one partner deliberately breaks the contraception then this doesn't change the fact that the apparent consequence of contraceptive sex for the partner who's unaware of the broken condom etc is still not a child, the use of contraception is proof that neither person wanted a child.

By your logic I should get rid of murder as a crime because someone could be set up.

as for the emotional trauma harden the fuck up mate. most guys would be a little upset but its nothing compared to what the woman is going to go through in deciding whether or not to keep it in the first place

maybe thered be a little more justification in your view on the husband deciding he wanted the kid if a pregnancy only lasted 5 days

Oh, I'm so comfortable with my gender role back here in the 1950's. Some men care deeply about their children, you're not one of them. Fine. That doesn't invalidate those who are.

It's also not valid to go 'oh pregnancy's long!' because both parties knew what they were getting into when they had unsafe sex. Contraception is readily available.

while slavery may have been a little drastic im pretty sure some basic human rights would be violated to ensure what you want to do. i mean first up your telling the woman she cant play and contact sports/activies she does,she cant drink for 9 months cant smoke, cant really go on holiday, has to suffer through morning sickness, back pain, weight gain. And some would even say that they end up with there body stretched out so they dont maintain the body/looks they had before the forced pregnancy which would make subsequent relationships slightly more challenging to them

then theres complications like Caesarean sections, then theres the effects on there bladder, as well as being seperated from there baby can lead to a depression

Again, she knew all of this going into it. I'm presuming here that volition is used, if the person was drunk/drugged/deprived of their right to say no etc then both parties lose the right to have the partner help birth the child. It is necessary for my argument that both partners chose to have unprotected sex and hence chose everything that goes with it.

The man would also be in pseudo-slavery for nine months if the woman decided she wanted the child. He'd have to do everything for her that is too troublesome for her to do, e.g. go to work for her, go to the shops for her, make her feel emotionally and physically comfortable. Both partners are hamstrung by their own actions. They should have made better choices.

i assume that like me your a guy (and maybe had a similar situation with a GF/wife/hookup)

Nope, never had one and don't intend to (I am a guy though, that's irrelevant though since, were it men who were capable of pregnancy, I'd still be in favour of this). I don't argue things because I'm emotionally attached to them, that way lies bad logic, I argue things in order to clarify moral rules. I like the world to make sense.

but in my opinion its her body its her choice and any guy who thinks he has the right to block that is wrong and im sure that you wouldnt go without drink smoke and anything else that isnt positive for the baby for a someone else whos gonna take the kid because you didnt want to have it

I'd have to. The man in this situation couldn't drink because he'd have to be able to fulfil the pregnant woman's needs. He couldn't smoke since that could harm the mother and the child. He's going through everything she's going through bar the physical changes since that's impossible.

 

[alinos]

Well, now I sure wish I could be a man in your world- all the power, none of the responsibilities! He has the right to force her to bear the child even if she doesn't want to- because she chose to have procreative non-contraceptive sex, but even though he made the same choice, she has to bear the responsibility of bearing and raising it if he decides he doesn't want it.

That's not my point. That's never been my point. Clearly I've misrepresented my point. If neither partner wants the child and both want it aborted then it's aborted. The actual emotional and physical well-being of living humans trumps the potential emotional and physical well-being of the foetus. My point isn't, and has never been, 'the woman has to have the child even if neither person wants it'. My point is that if either partner wants the child and the other doesn't then both have to stick around until the birth in order to see it born and then they must leave.

The actual emotional and physical well-being of living humans trumps the potential emotional and physical well-being of the foetus.

im just putting the full quote and the bit im gonna rip into

THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE SAID AT ALL
if the woman doesnt want the child. and the man forces her to have it how is this putting the emotional and physical well being of the woman before the fetus. her body wont be the same. and trust me forcing someone to do something for an extended period of time will lead them to try to find ways out of it (which most likely wont be either emotionally of physically beneficial for the woman

You say, "I'm not arguing in favour of sexists who want to blame women for having a child accidentally, regardless of whose fault it is, please don't cast me into roles for which I haven't argued"- but you also said this- "I don't agree that a man should support the child if it's the woman's desire to keep it, because he's declared no interest in it". But he made that choice to have sex where it was possible to have that child he doesn't want to support- and like it's said- it takes two to tango. Basically, you just invalidated your own words.

No, I haven't. It's your point that sexist. You want to demand more from the man in this situation than the woman. You also want to fix the man into the gender role of 'the provider', why shouldn't the woman continue to provide for the child after it's born, too, if the man says he wants it?

Wait a second your saying the man(whos gonna sit around for 9 months and take the baby at the end is being demanded of more than the woman)

there is no balance in any choice in your system

A) Man wants baby
-Woman has the entire ordeal of pregnancy and any other side occurances because of it
-woman will most likely have time off due to the baby leading to a loss of income
-Woman may Die from birth
-Woman has weight gain and other associated birthing after effects(some dont go away)
-Woman cant have another relationship
-Man Has necessary expenses due to the rearing of the child after birth
-man can have relationship during the pregnancy
ALSO even after forcing the woman to have the child the man may decide its all just to hard and put the kid up for adoption(in my mind it doesnt apply to the woman because she made the choice to have the child and it has no negative repurcussions on the guy)

B)Woman wants baby
-woman stuck with the financials more likely than a father to cut back on work to view the childs life
-Man leaves most likely asap can still pursue another relationship with ease


then theres the whole argument men make more than women if you wanna bring that up but i dont wanna start WWIII

i still dont get why you must insist that it was unprotected sex, protected sex isnt sure fire gonna stop it and as ive stated before guys can willingly sabotage there side of it

Oh and im not gonna start on methods to abuse this system

 

[alinos]

Every man alive is a mass murderer, because that's how we were "designed".

Note the part that I bolded in my post. A sperm cell will not develop into a human naturally, if left alone. A fertilized egg will. If something will naturally develop into a human, then it is still, to me, a human.[/quote]

a fertilised egg is part sperm part egg and its pretty bloody natural

the thing is what people are saying is that Every fertilised egg is garunteed to be a living breathing human(which it isnt complications, still birth and other things can cause this)

so what your truely saying is every fertilised egg is a chance at a living breathing human

which by that logic a sperm or an egg are a chance given the right conditions at a living breathing human

So there fore masturbation is a murderer because each one of those sperm he just emptied into that sock/tissue/shower was a chance at life

and a woman murders once a month(and i could make a really poor joke about that to)

 

[Kair]

Calling an embryo a human is like calling a drop of sperm a megacity.

Human embryo's are most definitely a member of the species Homo sapiens.

You misunderstood. I was not talking about the biological definition of human.

Well Biology is the only place there is a consistent definition of human. As such, if you use any other definition you should probably give that definition at the time to avoid confusion.

All right. Let us keep it simple. A Homo Sapiens Sapiens with enough nerve tissue to resemble a full grown brain --> which is the requirement for sentience.

The stage at which the embryo is developed enough to be considered sentient life is discussable.

Saying that all potential sentient life is sentient life is a step we can not afford to take.
This is not "Pro-life" or "Pro-choice", this is pro-human. Early embryos, egg cells or sperm cells do not act as sentient humans.

 

[BGH122]

im just putting the full quote and the bit im gonna rip into

THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE SAID AT ALL
if the woman doesnt want the child. and the man forces her to have it how is this putting the emotional and physical well being of the woman before the fetus. her body wont be the same. and trust me forcing someone to do something for an extended period of time will lead them to try to find ways out of it (which most likely wont be either emotionally of physically beneficial for the woman

The woman =/= both parents. If both parents declare that they don't want the child then no actual living human's emotional or physical well being is harmed by aborting it. If the man declares that he wants the child and the woman says she doesn't then the man's emotional well being is harmed.

Wait a second your saying the man(whos gonna sit around for 9 months and take the baby at the end is being demanded of more than the woman)

there is no balance in any choice in your system

A) Man wants baby
-Woman has the entire ordeal of pregnancy and any other side occurances because of it
-woman will most likely have time off due to the baby leading to a loss of income
-Woman may Die from birth
-Woman has weight gain and other associated birthing after effects(some dont go away)
-Woman cant have another relationship
-Man Has necessary expenses due to the rearing of the child after birth
-man can have relationship during the pregnancy
ALSO even after forcing the woman to have the child the man may decide its all just to hard and put the kid up for adoption(in my mind it doesnt apply to the woman because she made the choice to have the child and it has no negative repurcussions on the guy)

B)Woman wants baby
-woman stuck with the financials more likely than a father to cut back on work to view the childs life
-Man leaves most likely asap can still pursue another relationship with ease


then theres the whole argument men make more than women if you wanna bring that up but i dont wanna start WWIII

i still dont get why you must insist that it was unprotected sex, protected sex isnt sure fire gonna stop it and as ive stated before guys can willingly sabotage there side of it

Oh and im not gonna start on methods to abuse this system

Yes women have a physical effect that guys don't have, but the chances of complications in pregnancy are low, and afaik, there's plenty of warning signs. This has been a very long thread, so I'll repeat what I said earlier, if there's any sign that the bearing the child will result in permanent damage to the mother then the child should be aborted. The mother's long-term physical well being is more important than emotions. Having stretch marks (which bio-oil can get rid of) or a caesarean scar (which can be lessened significantly, if the woman requests the surgeon take care to avoid scarring) isn't a valid reason to abort the pregnancy, since these things are part and parcel of being pregnant which was already consented to implicitly by having unprotected sex.

The concept that there's no negative repercussions for the guy is just wrong. The guy has to give up nine months of his life to care for the mother. He's not going to do that if he just wants to put the baby up for adoption. But let's take a harder line, if you wish, let's say whichever parent wants the child has to raise it cannot put it up for adoption unless they're rendered incapable of caring for it.

Both guys and girls can sabotage protected sex "I'm on the pill (no I'm not)", the fact of the matter is that steps were taken to protect the sex so there's clearly an indication that neither parent wished for the 'child' consequence of sex as they've taken measure to prevent it. If both partners willingly engage in unprotected sex, knowing that this is far likelier to produce a child, then it is implicit that they are fine with that consequence. Obviously, if either partner has explicitly stated that this isn't the case then that overrides the implicit acceptance and, in that case, neither partner may force the other to help birth the child.

Also, furthermore, the man doesn't pay child support if he's said he doesn't want the child, just like the woman doesn't if she's said she doesn't want the child. The man can't have a relationship whilst the woman is pregnant since he cannot fulfil his duties to both his girlfriend and the woman. The very vague 'some stuff might happen because of the pregnancy' is applicable to both parties. The mother losing earning potential because of the pregnancy forcing her out of work isn't a problem these days, it's illegal (certainly in the UK) to discriminate against women who've taken time off work for maternity leave and I could just as easily argue that the man's looking after the woman could disrupt his work and prevent him from achieving on that front. Lastly, why can't the woman have a relationship after the pregnancy? Because men don't want to be saddled with someone else's child? Nonsense, four of my friends have step-fathers. You seem to have a very 1950's view of gender, no offence.

The only thing which is left is the mother's potential death during child birth which is an uncommon occurrence since modern obstetrics is far superior to unassisted birth. But this risk still exists, however it's part and parcel of pregnancy, which the mother consented to by having unprotected sex.

If I drink and then get into a car it isn't 100% certain that I'll kill someone, but I can still be arrested and morally abhorred for doing so since it increases the likelihood that I'll kill someone. Furthermore, if I do kill someone whilst drunk, I can't say "Hey! It's not my fault, I didn't set out to kill anyone!" I have to take responsibility for my actions. I increased the likelihood that I'd kill someone and I must bear the negative repercussions.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

I'm pretty sure in places where abortion is legal, there are laws as to how far developed a foetus is allowed to be in order to be aborted.
I'm not 100% sure the baby is kicking that early in the pregnancy, however even if it is, it almost certainly has no degree of conscious thought, it simply reacts to stimulus.

Scientifically, reaction to stimulus is the first requirement for something to be considered life. So from what you said it is life. And not just flesh.

 

[BGH122]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

I'm pretty sure in places where abortion is legal, there are laws as to how far developed a foetus is allowed to be in order to be aborted.
I'm not 100% sure the baby is kicking that early in the pregnancy, however even if it is, it almost certainly has no degree of conscious thought, it simply reacts to stimulus.

Scientifically, reaction to stimulus is the first requirement for something to be considered life. So from what you said it is life. And not just flesh.

Not really, there's seven scientific conditions to life all of which must be fulfilled. The baby doesn't fulfil any except movement.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

Fetuses don't have conscious thought until a certain stage. When that stage kicks in though, that's where I put my foot down.

Technically, it's not alive, so no.

How is it now alive? Did you know that by week 4 the baby already has a heart and a circulatory system?

Yes, but it's not "complete." Also, some could probably get an abortion before week 4.

But that's not the point, the point is that it is a person in development. As for the argument made before about putting animals down. They're animals. Not people. There is a HUGE difference. A fetus is a person in the making.

Oh, so you think it's justified to slaughter and kill animals? To skin them while still alive? To flush them down the toilet? Never mind that they are fully developed creatures with the ability to feel pain, no, let's focus on a thing that can barely form the thought of feeling pain, who will be raised poorly anyways. Bollocks to that.

Everything in this battle screams of subjectivity, because we all can't get along on when it's considered murder. I say it's the minute the baby can think about the pain it's in, which is way ahead. Other's think it's murder the minute it gets into the womb, and other say that the sperm is alive, in which case, I've committed infanticide several times.

But think about this: Do you think the baby wants to be raised in a poor environment, or without a father, or being neglected, or being an overall burden to it's family? And doesn't the mother have a say? She's the one who must raise it, she's the one who must go through the pain of giving birth it, and she's the one who must sacrifice every second of her life to it.

To sum up: Until it can properly feel pain, it's not about the baby, it's about the parents. When the fetus counts as a sentient person, meaning when it actually can feel pain and form thoughts on it, then the parents aren't allowed to back out.

I had over 15 quotes in my inbox this morning, and you're one of the two that I'm replying to because you typed more than a sentence as a counter argument.

I see yoru point, but can you even IMAGINE the fallout if people started aborting fetus puppies? You would have politicians, religions, and organizations up in arms trying to stop you. This is the double standard I hate. That and: If a pregnant woman gets killed, BAM double-murder charge. But abortions don't count? Weather you support abortion or not that's a ridiculous double standard.

 

[BGH122]

Oh, so you think it's justified to slaughter and kill animals? To skin them while still alive? To flush them down the toilet? Never mind that they are fully developed creatures with the ability to feel pain, no, let's focus on a thing that can barely form the thought of feeling pain, who will be raised poorly anyways. Bollocks to that.

See, here's the problem, I can find no non-axiomatic (e.g. pain is bad) argument for any form of animal rights. This leads me to the conclusion that the actual act of skinning animals or zoosadism is morally permissible but we should be deeply suspicious of those who engage in such acts.

Like it or not, human empathy (which is necessary for pro-social tendency) isn't particularly selective because it works on pareidolia: it picks 'human-ish' features and applies empathy to it. That means that animals are subject to misapplied human empathy. So if someone's a zoosadist then this suggests that their empathy is malfunctioning and this suggests they're likely to harm humans. It's this that we should abhor, not moral abhorrence of animal cruelty, that's just our brain misapplying a drive.

Note here that I am saying that, were it the case that human empathy for other humans is unlinked to their empathy for animals, killing animals would be fine. Animals have no right to life nor freedom from suffering, rights entail duties and animals can't take on duties. The only place in human society which rights don't entail duties is with children and pets and that's because the owner/parent takes on the duties vestigially. Parents, not children, are charged for crimes committed by children. Owners, not pets, are charged for crimes committed by pets.

Arguments for animal rights are a red-herring, the real argument here is that zoosadism is a good predictor of human oriented sadism.