Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? (v3)

The very notion of abortion is grotesque to me: punching a vacuum esq. tube into the baby's cranium then sucking the brains out, or melting all the skin of and throwing the carcass in a dumpster outside the clinic.

There is no cranium or skin developed in a first trimester abortion.

What about someone who practices birth control? What about someone who doesn't want kids, ever? Or shouldn't have kids for health reasons-some women are told they should never have a child.

 

And I'm sorry I don't buy the women's own body argument, their child is a separate being.

Excuse me, but nobody's arguing that a child is a separate being. I think everybody here agrees about that, but a fetus isn't necessarily a child.

A fetus is a fetus is a fetus.

-Aunecah

 

Guinastasia: Irrevlevant. It all boils down to the ethcical issue of extreminating the life. If Planned Parenthood devoted their energies to aiding mothers under those circumstances and making adoption more acessiable, than we wouldn't have the problem.

Aunecah: We'll all find out if a fetus is a life or not when the Lacie Peterson murder trial is decided and if Scott Peterson is charged with a double homocide.

That could tip the issue upside down.

Whether or not it is a being that relies on its mother while in the womb is a life is a matter of personal preference.

Frankly it turns my stomach to know they that as early as 3 months they scream and recoil while the procedure is being performed on them.

So no, not everybody agrees with your statements.

In my situation, I would would have to drop out of school if I were to get someone pregnant. and even then, I have no job and no means of providing for a family. That's not a matter of conveniance, that's a matter of necessity.

Oh yeah, because everybody knows that prevention methods don't exist. *rolls eyes* If the deed is done you can't just shun responsibility by destruction.

That's partial birth abortion. Read up on what the rest of abortion is like, your ignorance is showing.

So (excluding morning after pills) you're saying the women isn't operated on and the child isn't killed manually?

Except a child outside the womb isn't leeching... er, I mean, living off of the body of another human being.

Yeah, because we all know a innocent life relying on its mother for protection and nurturment is just disgraceful, right? Besides you just admitted it is a human being.

<[-]> Saber

 

Frankly it turns my stomach to know they that as early as 3 months they scream and recoil while the procedure is being performed on them.

May I ask if you are a vegetarian? And - if you're not - why animals shouldn't be given the same rights as fetuses?

The whole argument of "screaming and recoiling", "feeling pain", etc., is ridiculous. Animals can feel the exact same things, yet most people who argue for fetus-rights don't care what happens to animals.

I think it's better if you stick to "fetus is a human and therefore has rights" argument.

And - just to reiterate the point - I think that laws should be uniform. If fetus isn't a human until point of viability, then a murderer who kills a pregnant woman shouldn't be charged with double homicide.



-Aunecah

 

Irrevlevant. It all boils down to the ethcical issue of extreminating the life. If Planned Parenthood devoted their energies to aiding mothers under those circumstances and making adoption more acessiable, than we wouldn't have the problem.

I would say that it is your argument that is irrelevant. Your viewpoint is not universally accepted, on top of which abortion has remained legal for over 30 years. Clearly, the "ethics" of this situation are not so cut-and-dried. If they were, then abortion wouldn't even be an issue. However, the issue is not just when life begins, but when is it "equal". To delve into that requires quite a bit more than the blanket insistence that life begins and is equal at conception, and this is where we run into the dilemma.

More later.

Peace,

V-03

 

Personally, pro-life.

Legally:

I believe the government should be able to define what is recognized as a protected human life under the law. I also think that definition should be consistent with whatever criteria we use to determine life in those who have already been born.

Since that usually centers around higher brain function, I believe that should be used to determine legally recognized human life in a fetus.

Once a fetus has met that criteria, no one has a right to kill it except in self-defense.

If a woman has a right to control what is in her own body to the extent that she has a right to remove a fetus, even though she probably had the ability to refrain from sex or use contraceptives, and also had a few months of pregnancy before the fetus was legally alive, the most she would be able to do is evict the fetus from her body and leave it to die; there would be no right to terminate its life within her womb.

The legal ramifications of this would be that, for most purposes, elective abortion would be restricted to the first trimester.

 

JFT:
WHAT THE **** ARE YOU ON?! ***** ******* ******!

Im on ethics You should try it sometime.

You are saying that if you aren't ready to have a child, you shouldn't have sex.

Danm straight.

That's just so ****ing ludicrous. I feel dumber having heard this argument time and time again!
Why?

I am a college student, I have not had sex,
Same
but I want to have sex.I am more than ready for the psychological and emotional effects of having sex.

How the HELL do you know you are? Ask anybody whos had it, there ARE psychological and emotional effects of sex that will alter your very being. How in the HELL do you know you are ready? Because...

HOWEVER, I am not yet ready to father a child. I love kids, I want to have kids...some day. I have no job, no money, and if I were to have a kid right now, I'd have to drop out of school.
EXACTLY MY POINT. You SHOULDNT have sex until you are ready for it AND a child. You know why? Because...

GOD/EVOLUTION/WHATEVER DID NOT CREAT SEX FOR PLEASURE. HE CREATED IT FOR HAVING A FRIKKN CHILD. PLEASURE IS A FRIKKEN BYPRODUCT, NOT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SEX. WHY CAN PEOPLE NOT GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEADS??????????

So you see, just because I am ready to have sex does not mean that I am ready to have a kid.
Then, pardon my judgment, you are NOT ready for Sex. Sex comes with the kid, there is NO WAY around that. And when you get your girl pregnent don't come crying to me about your job because considered yourself warned.
Sex = Kid = Taking Care of the Kid. Thats the way its always been. You should be used to it by now.


Aunecha:
why animals shouldn't be given the same rights as fetuses?
Because Animals Arn't Human. They are not humans, they will not become humans, they will never be humans. That is why.

The whole argument of "screaming and recoiling", "feeling pain", etc., is ridiculous. Animals can feel the exact same things, yet most people who argue for fetus-rights don't care what happens to animals.
I care. But I also acknowledge that God gave us animals to eat. He did not create pregnancy so we could kill the unborn. I beleive in the ethical treatment of animals, but we still have the God-given right to eat them. We DONT have the God-given right to kill an unborn human child.

And - just to reiterate the point - I think that laws should be uniform. If fetus isn't a human until point of viability, then a murderer who kills a pregnant woman shouldn't be charged with double homicide.
You make a very good point, although unwittingly. If a woman wants to have a baby, is pregnent, and someone causes the death of the fetus, he just killed her child. If the pro-abortion people had their way, the worst the guy could be charged with is assault.

DO WE REALLY WANT THAT?

 

Could we please stop the yelling?

Sex comes with the kid, there is NO WAY around that.

Sex comes with the risk of pregnancy, which can be substantially be reduced. However, that risk can never be completely eliminated.


The whole argument of "screaming and recoiling", "feeling pain", etc., is ridiculous. Animals can feel the exact same things, yet most people who argue for fetus-rights don't care what happens to animals.

That is because our laws do not govern animals. Animals have no representation in government; they do not vote; they do not pay taxes; they are not bound by our laws.

If an animal kills someone, we cannot try it for murder. It does not understand our laws, so it will not be bound by them and it is reasonable that it will not necessarily benefit from them, either.

EDIT:
And I realize a fetus (and for that matter, any child) does not vote or pay taxes, but as human beings, they are governed and protected by the law.

Our law is human law, and it governs human beings.

 

GOD/EVOLUTION/WHATEVER DID NOT CREAT SEX FOR PLEASURE. HE CREATED IT FOR HAVING A FRIKKN CHILD. PLEASURE IS A FRIKKEN BYPRODUCT, NOT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SEX. WHY CAN PEOPLE NOT GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEADS??????????


I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with you there.

Well...you know...I always thought putting your thingy in a woman always felt good, not that a baby resulted from it. If I remember correctly I do believe ejaculating came last, not first. Oooohhh! The horror!



Oh by the way, pro-choice.

I personally find abortion distasteful, but I also don't like making anyone's choices for them. Which is what (most) pro-lifers want to do.

 

If you are defining human life as a human cell with 23 chromosomes, then is each and every cell in my body an individual human life? Why not?

I will say it again. I cannot understand how people can define human life as just a body. A dead person has a body, and their body may still be growing in many ways even though they are overall dead. The defining factor of human life I feel cannot be based on anything with the physical body; anyone can make up some situation where that kind of definition fails (the physical body is a part of the definition, but there must be other more important factors involved).

Really, the thing that separates us from (nearly all) animals, from lifeless objects is that we think. We are aware of ourselves and our surroundings in various degrees. We think and our minds process information and we know that they are. Babies do this, but clearly a fertilized egg cannot.

As for someone being asleep, they are still aware of their surroundings to a point. Alarm clocks wake people up, and their minds are thinking about things (dreams). As for a coma, it depends on how bad it is. If the person is brain dead, then they are dead, but for the rest it depends on how badly they are in the coma.

If you say that it will be a full human life, so what is it now, the answer is not a human life. Yes it is literally alive like a cell is alive, yet human life is a heck of a lot more than that.

Is the fact that it will be a human life enough to ban abortions? Maybe, but I feel no one has seriously argued these facts yet.

Also, if you believe life begins at conception, why don't we force women to do whatever it takes (develop a pill or something) that will encourage the fertilized egg to attach and grow? Why are you not crying and demanding action that has caused the deaths of uncounted billions of fertilized eggs over the lifetime of the human race?

EDIT: Actually why is sex not for pleasure? Think of the dozens or hundreds of times you can have sex in your life and how many children will be the result of it? It is like saying the purpose of a car is for the one time you drove your wife to the hospital and not for the thousands of times you drove it to work?

 

Here's how I see it: When (human) ilfe begins is a tricky and impossible-to-answer question. Just defining what constitutes life is hard enough, without getting into when it really begins.

Moreover, many people have sex without intending to produce a child. Even after taking precautions (such as using contraceptives) the woman still ends up pregnant. It is unfair to punish these people.

Then again, at some point pro-lifers have a point: There is something in that uterus, and at some point the lines between fetus and baby are blurred.

Therefore, I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed a woman's right to abortion during the first two semesters. I also support the right for states or the federal government to ban third trimester abortions (except for the life and possibly health of the mother); six months seems plenty of time to get it done.

 

So in my scenario, the only option I have is to go through months of crippling depression again? Thanks.



How the hell can a three-month old fetus SCREAM? I don't think it even has vocal cords, for crissakes!

When you can prove that a fetus has higher brain functioning at 6 weeks, then we'll talk.

Until then, keep your laws out of my uterus.

 

Moreover, many people have sex without intending to produce a child. Even after taking precautions (such as using contraceptives) the woman still ends up pregnant. It is unfair to punish these people.

It is also unfair to punish the child. In that sense, the adults involved are more responsible for its existence, so if someone is to suffer because of an unintended pregnancy, shouldn't it be the people whose choices brought it about?


How the hell can a three-month old fetus SCREAM? I don't think it even has vocal cords, for crissakes!

Well, you might not think that a rabbit could scream, either, but as it turns out...

Anyway, I suppose the point was that the bodily reaction shows pain, or at least a very negative reaction to what is happening. Some people point to the muscle spasms suffered by prisoners given lethal injection and call it cruel and unusual, even though the person cannot feel what the body is experiencing.

The evidence is probably that the fetal body responds to saline in a way that would translate to pain. Whether the fetal brain registers it as pain is a different matter.


When you can prove that a fetus has higher brain functioning at 6 weeks, then we'll talk.

If it has higher brain functioning at 12 weeks, would you support a ban on abortion from that point forward?


I also support the right for states or the federal government to ban third trimester abortions (except for the life and possibly health of the mother); six months seems plenty of time to get it done.

Is three months long enough to make that decision?

 

It is also unfair to punish the child. In that sense, the adults involved are more responsible for its existence, so if someone is to suffer because of an unintended pregnancy, shouldn't it be the people whose choices brought it about?

No. Let's look at an analogy. It's wet-snowing really badly. When you're driving on road, you're accepting the possibility that you may go hit the car in front of you. But you take every possible precaution against hitting the car in front of you - you're going at 5 miles per hour, you have as much space between yourself and the car as traffic permits (say 2 or 3 car lengths), but you still lose control of your car and go hit the car in front of you. Should you be charged with homocide if the person dies? Or should you be paying all the hospital bills for this person?

Sometimes things that we don't want happen even though we take every possible precaution. It isn't right to say that the couple should have chosen abstinence if they really didn't want to have a kid, just like it isn't right to say the guy who lost control of his car should have stayed home if he really didn't want to hit the car in front of him.

-Aunecah

 

Pro-choice.

Women should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

They had the right to choose when they had sex.

 

you're going at 5 miles per hour, you have as much space between yourself and the car as traffic permits (say 2 or 3 car lengths), but you still lose control of your car and go hit the car in front of you. Should you be charged with homocide if the person dies? Or should you be paying all the hospital bills for this person?

There are some differences.

First of all, I would have a hard time believing that you could kill anyone in another car if you're only traveling 5 mph, unless they're coming toward you at a higher speed.

Second, if you injure someone in an accident, you try to fix it by getting them medical assistance. In the case of pregnancy, you're trying to say someone should be able to "fix" the result of an "accident" by taking a life. It's not the same situation.

If you want to compare driving a car to having sex, then maybe companies should offer pregnancy insurance, and pay the costs of prenatal care should your actions result in a pregnancy.


It isn't right to say that the couple should have chosen abstinence if they really didn't want to have a kid, just like it isn't right to say the guy who lost control of his car should have stayed home if he really didn't want to hit the car in front of him.

If you want to be 100% sure you won't hit anyone while driving, don't drive.

That's a simple fact; you can never be 100% sure you will not hit someone if you are driving. If you can't accept the risk, however small, you might as well stay home.

 

Pro Life.

YODA: And well you should not. For my ally in the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. It's energy
surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we...(Yoda pinches
Luke's shoulder)...not this crude matter. (a sweeping gesture) You must
feel the Force around you. (gesturing) Here, between you...me...the
tree...the rock...everywhere! Yes, even between this land and that
ship!

I firmly believe if there was the Force in our galaxy, that abortion is nothing less then the death of life, and as such, is a disturbance in the Force everytime it is performed.

 

No, lets look at another analogy.

You go out to a casino and lose a ton of money, so much that you are in debt. You took every precaution, even cheating, to prevent that from happening, but it didn't work and you're way in the red.

You cant pay your debts to Big Joe, and he gets mad, and decides your meat if you don't pay your debts. To get out of paying debts, you murder and innocent bistander for his money.

Is this anology a bit of a stretch? Perhaps, but lets look at it this way.

1: Gambling is having sex. Being in debt is being pregnant. Big Joe is childbirth and the cost of raising the child, and the innocent bistander is the fetus.

2: When you gamble (have sex) it's fun and you could get money out of it (the pleasure of having sex), however you run the risk of being in debt (having a child). If you do get in debt, you have to face the consequences. If you dont want to face Big Joe (childbirth & cost of raising you have to murder (have an abortion) an innocent bistander to get out of it (the fetus). Now, are the other ways to avoid Big Joe? Yes. You could get a loan (put the child up for adoption), or just face him (raise the child).

Harsh? Yes I am. But it looks accurate to me.

 

TripleB, them I hope you are a vegetarian...or wait, even plants have life force...well I hope you can survive on your own sense of righteosness then!

Sex is gambling, sure. Life is gambling. But pregnancy should be a choice, we aren't beholden to randommes, a woman has the right to determine whether or not she would like to bear a child, case closed.

I had sex later than most, and believe me, I sure wish I hadn't waited as long as I did. When I finally did I was like "damn, I could have been having sex for years. What the hell is wrong with me?"

 

Obi_Wan said

TripleB, them I hope you are a vegetarian...or wait, even plants have life force...well I hope you can survive on your own sense of righteosness then!

True, but at the same time, it is the role of plants to provide substinence to those that eat them. Although I suppose if a rain forest is wiped out, the Rain Forest concievably would 'cry out' and be sensed via the force.

 

Sex is gambling, sure. Life is gambling. But pregnancy should be a choice

Tell that to nature.


we aren't beholden to randommes, a woman has the right to determine whether or not she would like to bear a child

I don't think choice is an absolute right. The right to life should be paramount.

 

In the end, all we can really do is decide how we want to live OUR lives. As such, I'm pro-life. I don't condone abortion. However, I can't control anybody, and wouldn't want to. For the time being, I agree with the idea of not having sex unless you can handle what may result, which is a child. Which at the moment, I can most certainly NOT do, or would want to do. Therefore, you can see my position. As for everyone else, its their life, they have to live it as they see fit. If someone asks for my opinion or advice, I'll give it readily, but in the end, its still up to them.

 

I reiterate from the previous thread:

Life does indeed begin at conception as a singular cell with distinct DNA and ends up in the deterioriation of old age (same DNA) if given a full life span.

Any other supposed beginning of life besides initial conception is completely based upon arbitrary opinion, because human life begins with that single cell - it doesn't start anywhere else. The implanted fetus came from the zygote before it (same DNA), the initial conception (single cell) contains the same DNA as the implanted fetus. The sperm and egg separated obviously do not.

It is a ludicrous argument (and basically burying your head in the sand to justify your position) that human life begins anywhere else but with conception.

So essentially, it isn't the woman's body, but a new life form within the woman's body.

So, stop confusing the two.

The discussion isn't about the right to have sex or do anything like that, but what is inherently right or wrong after actual conception takes place.

 

TripleB, then I hope you are a vegetarian...or wait, even plants have life force...well I hope you can survive on your own sense of righteosness then!

Since when did plants become sentient lifeforms? The blatent purpose of plants and animals is for human consumption.

We don't starve ourselves for fear of inflicting harm on animals with much less intelligance then us.

And to certain extent it is in fact the right of the mother to a bear a child... That choice should be made prior to when that child is conceived.

Novel concept, huh?

<[-]> Saber

 

DM

You really are not doing anything to argue my specific points. We both are just repeating what we have said time and time before.

Life does begin with a cell, but if you want to say a single cell is human life, then why is ever cell in my body not a human life? You said distinct DNA, yet there are many variations within the cells, not to mention cancer. Yes these are extreme and somewhat dumb examples, but one your definition would say is human life.

And don't you believe that there is more to human life than just our bodies? Are we nothing more than a bag of flesh and bone and other bio mass? Or is there more that separates humans from animals or dead stuff? A personality, an individual?

I feel that you are treating life and human life as the same thing. You use the two terms interchangeably. Should you? (And yes, I was doing it in this response as well) I feel that overall they are diffrent things and should be treated as diffrent things.

SaberGiiett7

Since when did plants become sentient lifeforms?

When do fetuses?

EDIT: Being a bit more clear.