Abortion - Pro life or pro choice?

[Samber]

Pro-Choice

I win.

Game over.

Well how about this; a fetus is a growing human, has human DNA, and is therefore human, just not born yet.
Now here we have a woman, pregnant and wanting to get rid of this bastard child. We could do one of the following:
Option A: Not allow the woman to abort the child, which will result in one of the following:
Effect 1: Woman will have child unwillingly and possibly give inadequate care of the child while living in a life of regret, though she may love the child, she will always wonder what could have been.
Effect 2: Woman goes into back alley with rusty coat hanger and has at it, or have some creepy guy make scrambled eggs of her vag.

Option B: Legalize Abortion, which will result in one or more of the following:
Effect 3:Woman gets abortion and lives her life carefully and fully from now on, meets the right man and eventually has a child when ready, or not.
Effect 4: Dumbasses argue about how much of a bad idea the good idea of abortion is, and debate endlessly though the obviously correct decision of abortion being legalized is obviously correct.

Which option seems best? I'd say B.

I win

 

[Hopeless]

I'm pro-life, but that is only because I would have my child if I was pregnant no matter what the circumstance. However, that doesn't mean I condemn anyone that chooses to have an abortion or even supports it. It's their choice, and their life. Arguing changes no one's opinion and I would rather respectfully disagree than start a flame war.

 

[Professor Ven]

Look, if it's just a little microscopic cluster of cells an ain't got no heartbeat, it isn't HOOMAN. It can, through mitosis, grow into a human, but it isn't one riiiiight then.

Therefore, abort it if you wish.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

There is a tremendous distinction to be made between the terms "human" and "person". I don't know how many times I'll have to say this before it sinks in. That little microbial cluster of cells is indisputably human, just like the contents of every drop of blood you've ever shed. But it isn't a person, and neither is a fetus. And to really drive this point home -- neither was Terri Schiavo. The argument that I make for abortion is nearly identical to the argument that I make for the legalization of consensual euthanasia; being clinically alive and biologically human does not make an organism a person.

 

[Professor Ven]

There is a tremendous distinction to be made between the terms "human" and "person". I don't know how many times I'll have to say this before it sinks in. That little microbial cluster of cells is indisputably human, just like the contents of every drop of blood you've ever shed. But it isn't a person, and neither is a fetus. And to really drive this point home -- neither was Terri Schiavo. The argument that I make for abortion is nearly identical to the argument that I make for the legalization of consensual euthanasia; being clinically alive and biologically human does not make an organism a person.

So it needs a consciousness or soul - personality?

 

[tangerine]

Here's a nice variant to the topic that's sure to spark a discussion.



Read a short description of what's happening in this video here: Husband Snaps On Abortion Protesters [VIDEO][/VIDEO][VIDEO][/video]

 

[The Lionheart]

There is a tremendous distinction to be made between the terms "human" and "person". I don't know how many times I'll have to say this before it sinks in. That little microbial cluster of cells is indisputably human, just like the contents of every drop of blood you've ever shed. But it isn't a person, and neither is a fetus. And to really drive this point home -- neither was Terri Schiavo. The argument that I make for abortion is nearly identical to the argument that I make for the legalization of consensual euthanasia; being clinically alive and biologically human does not make an organism a person.

As I've said before, your blood, or even Terri Schiavo (without a miracle) will never become fully functioning humans. The cells (and more importantly, the embryo) that reside inside of a mother's womb have that chance, making them much more human than that drop of blood ever would be.

Of course, "will be" arguments are highly flawed, but such is the stance of almost any pro-life supporter. There are a lot of possibilities I can't predict about those cells, I'll agree with you on that. I don't know where they're going to end up, what kind of foster care they'll have, or what kind of life they're going to lead.

But like I said, I do know (assuming the baby doesn't die before birth) that it will be human, just as I know blood will never be, and Terri Schiavo would never be again.

 

[_EX]

Look, if it's just a little microscopic cluster of cells an ain't got no heartbeat, it isn't HOOMAN. It can, through mitosis, grow into a human, but it isn't one riiiiight then.

Therefore, abort it if you wish.

Just to clear this up...

Late term abortions exist. This is where they have a heartbeat, working nervous system and can survive outside the womb if prematurely born. The term "abortion" includes late term abortions too.

When you think abortions are only done within the first few weeks, you are not on the same page as some of the other people here.

 

[krexia]

I must have missed when you proved that there the life form that is growning inside the woman only becomes human after it is born.

Human rights are only afforded to people with brain function capable of higher consciousness. It is illegal to harvest organs from a living person. But if your brain is permanently destroyed in an accident, it is acceptable to harvest your organs while your body is still alive, since without the brain no person exists.
The developing foetus brain does not develop the physical structures necessary for comprehending pain - let along higher consciousness - until the third trimester. Therefore, no person exists until at least the third trimester. Therefore, early term abortions do not kill people - they only prevent people from coming into existence. So do condoms.

Whether or not a foetus can survive outside a womb is irrelevant. Soon enough we'll be able to nurture fertilised eggs to babyhood without any womb at all; that won't make fertilised eggs into people.

Is it a fact that putting yourself at risk of rape directly leads to pregnancy?

Yes, in 2.7% of cases.

It is a fact that if you choose to follow men into the woods (or any similar situation), you are responsible for getting pregnant?

Please complete the following sentence, according to your opinion:

"If a person is responsible for a situation, that person [is/is not] responsible for all consequences of that situation."

 

[SilverJ-17]

Wasn't there a thread like this before (the start date seems to be in July of this year)? Either way, my stance has since changed. As with several other (political) issues, I take a moderate/ on the fence stance. If the pregnancy is because of rape or child molestation (especially this), the woman has every right to an abortion in my eyes. If the mother's (and possibly baby's) life is in danger due to childbirth, then I'm kind okay with an abortion in this case. However, couldn't C-section solve this problem in most cases? If they're the type that doesn't want such a thing, then I guess it's alright, but I still feel there's another way. The reason why I'm for abortion in the case of rape and especially child molestation is that I can imagine how painful (both physically and emotionally/ mentally) it can be for a woman or child to have their attacker's baby. I don't think adoption will always spare them the pain of that realization. Therefore, I find such a case as a reasonable reason to have an abortion. As for the "oops" crowd, I really don't think they deserve the right, though I'm ify on teens. Adults, on the other hand, should live up to their responsibilities.

 

[MomentoMori]

I really don't think they deserve the right, though I'm ify on teens. Adults, on the other hand, should live up to their responsibilities.

Whether or not they "deserve" the rights, you can't tell one group of women they can get an abortion but deny the same exact right to another group simply because you don't approve of the circumstances of the conception.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

As I've said before, your blood, or even Terri Schiavo (without a miracle) will never become fully functioning humans. The cells (and more importantly, the embryo) that reside inside of a mother's womb have that chance, making them much more human than that drop of blood ever would be.

Well, I hope I wasn't so poorly understood by everybody who read my post.

Of course, "will be" arguments are highly flawed, but such is the stance of almost any pro-life supporter. There are a lot of possibilities I can't predict about those cells, I'll agree with you on that. I don't know where they're going to end up, what kind of foster care they'll have, or what kind of life they're going to lead.

Excuse me? Why are you agreeing with points that I never made? Why are you talking about something that's completely irrelevant to the content of the post you're responding to? I was trying to make a point about semantics -- what the fuck are you talking about?

But like I said, I do know (assuming the baby doesn't die before birth) that it will be human, just as I know blood will never be, and Terri Schiavo would never be again.

The "baby", as you affectionately call it, is already human, and that is why I compare it to a few drops of my blood. Both are comprised of human DNA, and both contain all of the genetic information you'd ever need to create a fully developed, functional person under the right circumstances. That is all that I was trying to say. They are both human, and neither is a person. I don't know why you're rambling on about foster homes. Maybe next time you could try reading the post before you try to refute it.

Being pro-life is dumb. Really, really dumb. Being pro-human consciousness is something I can understand, and even endorse to an extent, but trying to propagate life only for life's sake is thoughtless and irresponsible.

 

[The Lionheart]

I don't know why you're rambling on about foster homes. Maybe next time you could try reading the post before you try to refute it.

My experience with this thread is that if I say "the cells will become human," I get a lot of comments telling me that the human's life in question is going to be awful, due to poor foster care, bad living conditions, etc.

I wasn't trying to make an argument out of that point. I just put it in there due to my experience in this thread. I promise I read your post, and I understand that it didn't have anything to say about foster care :<

 

[_EX]

Human rights are only afforded to people with brain function capable of higher consciousness. It is illegal to harvest organs from a living person. But if your brain is permanently destroyed in an accident, it is acceptable to harvest your organs while your body is still alive, since without the brain no person exists.

The developing foetus brain does not develop the physical structures necessary for comprehending pain - let along higher consciousness - until the third trimester. Therefore, no person exists until at least the third trimester. Therefore, early term abortions do not kill people - they only prevent people from coming into existence. So do condoms.[/quote]
Even if you believe that we only really exist as we are after the third trimester, you havnt said you dont approve of late term abortions so, to me, you are accepting them. Therefore, you are in quite a difficult position.

Whether or not a foetus can survive outside a womb is irrelevant. Soon enough we'll be able to nurture fertilised eggs to babyhood without any womb at all; that won't make fertilised eggs into people.

It is relevant. It isnt a parasite, it is a fully functional life form. If someone killed a prematurely born child, you would call it murder, would you not?

Yes, in 2.7% of cases.

Then it isnt a fact that "putting yourself at risk of rape directly leads to pregnancy" because it only happens a very small amount of times.

Otherwise it is a fact that being muslim directly leads to destroying twin towers because that has been the case for a very small percentage of muslims.

Please complete the following sentence, according to your opinion:

"If a person is responsible for a situation, that person [is/is not] responsible for all consequences of that situation."

You only have two options, none of which are ones I would like to choose. If you had the option "possibly", I would choose that because your sentence isnt very detailed and I dont believe, from that one situation you decribed, either "is" or "is not".

 

[SilverJ-17]

Whether or not they "deserve" the rights, you can't tell one group of women they can get an abortion but deny the same exact right to another group simply because you don't approve of the circumstances of the conception.

Okay, then maybe it's just better to leave it at just rape and child molestation, since they didn't really have much of choice in getting knocked up. However, I feel adults are much less likely to have their lives ruined by a child than teens. However, the point of me being ify on teens was because for them, it will most likely ruin their lives. For most adults, they probably just didn't want the child. Meh.. I'll just stick to only rapes, child molestation, and live-threatening for the mother. Really, I can see how the fetus' rights justify forcing rape victims and molested children (possibly impregnated with daddy's, Uncle Bobby's, or *insert other pedophile relative* baby) Yep, the only thing sicker than pedophiles are pedophiles who do it to their own family.

 

[MomentoMori]

You really didn't read my post, did you? It's not right to say, "Oh, these women have a right to an abortion. But these women don't because I don't approve of how the baby was conceived."

 

[Chrono Mizaki]

I personally believe that if you don't want a child in the first place, regardless of how you got pregnant, then get an abortion. You should have a kid because you want to, not because you are being punished for being reckless. And if since the mother was irresponsible, what's going to happen when she's going to be responsible for a living child?

The consequences of abortion is nothing compared to the consequences of a real child.

also, I personally don't believe in children's homes or foster care mostly because of their conditions and that children without their biological parents can stray off the wrong path or become influenced by socially negative decisions. When I look at them in that state, it makes me think that they are the virus of society that their parents should have killed ages ago when they were a bunch of cells. I believe in stability of society and abortion helps that by ridding of something that a parent won't be part of its baby's life.

In that retrospect, it's much easier killing cells than corrupted teenagers.

 

[Goldpanner]

it's much easier killing cells than corrupted teenagers.

LOL I LOVE THIS

Yep, this thread is the same. Krexia being intelligent and insightful, Superpussy telling it how it is, and _EX being a bananapeeling teabag.

I think potential to become a person =/= a person, so living women, who are persons, should have the right to make choices about their own lives and bodies.

Giving the potential for a person priority over a real person has a pretty strong implication: you don't really respect that real person very much. I think anti-choice is rather anti-women.

 

[krexia]

Even if you believe that we only really exist as we are after the third trimester, you havnt said you dont approve of late term abortions so, to me, you are accepting them.

I don't approve of late-term abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

It is relevant. It isnt a parasite, it is a fully functional life form. If someone killed a prematurely born child, you would call it murder, would you not?

Only if the prematurely born child had developed far enough to be capable of higher consciousness and survive unassisted.

Then it isnt a fact that "putting yourself at risk of rape directly leads to pregnancy" because it only happens a very small amount of times.

Then it isn't a fact that "having protected sex directly leads to pregnancy" because it only happens a very small amount of times (0.006%).

You only have two options, none of which are ones I would like to choose. If you had the option "possibly", I would choose that because your sentence isnt very detailed and I dont believe, from that one situation you decribed, either "is" or "is not".

So you admit outright that you cannot take a consistent stance on personal responsibility?

I think potential to become a person =/= a person, so living women, who are persons, should have the right to make choices about their own lives and bodies.

This, a hundred times over.

 

[_EX]

I don't approve of late-term abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

So, changing your position here?

Only if the prematurely born child had developed far enough to be capable of higher consciousness and survive unassisted.

No child can survive unassisted.
That is like saying I will spare the life of a child if it can lay golden eggs...

Then it isn't a fact that "having protected sex directly leads to pregnancy" because it only happens a very small amount of times (0.006%).

correct. Having protected sex can directly lead to pregnancy.

So you admit outright that you cannot take a consistent stance on personal responsibility?

Wait what?
I am saying you are having a loaded question. Your answers were not any of my views. Some situations wouldve been for each answer.

If I said Finish this statement:
"Judaism is the [best]/[worst] religion"
You wouldnt want to answer because I have made a vague question.