Abortion, Right or Wrong?

[Crobat_Trainer]

This is where you fall short. Cellular reproduction in a multicellular organism is growth. By this logic, I am giving birth every time I grow or gain weight. (And I'm a male, so this would be kind of awkward. o.o") Reproduction in the sense of living creatures means giving birth.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that cellular reproduction is what is meant when the criteria for life are listed. If "reproduction" were restricted to having the ability to give birth (or, in the male case, to make birth possible), then one could not consider single-celled organisms living things. Bacteria, which are single-celled and reproduce just by splitting in two, are alive, hence the term "antibiotic" to describe chemicals that can kill bacteria ("biotic" referring to life). Even multicellular eukaryotes that reproduce asexually couldn't be considered alive by your definition of "reproduction," sponges and hydra being my main examples here (budding, anyone?). In fact, we can even go further. If "reproduction," as it is listed in the criteria for life, were restricted to being able to give birth, "hybrid" species such as mules (horse + donkey) would have to be considered non-living, since their odd number of chromosomes restricts them from forming viable zygotes. Mules can't give birth to other mules.
So I'd have to agree with the question marks guy in the sense that, yes, of course the fetus is alive, even when it is only a single cell. It seems almost ridiculous to argue otherwise, from my perspective. It's also human, as has been said, because it has a full set of unique, human DNA all the way from conception. In this way it's also silly to argue that it's part of the mother's body, since, although it shares some of her DNA, it's still a completely different organism.

That said, I have to go on to say that I am pro-abortion (pro-choice, if you prefer). Yes, it's human, and yes, it's alive, but I don't think it's "wrong" to kill anything that is both alive and human. There is, perhaps, an automatic repugnance to the concept of murder, but feeling bad about something doesn't mean that said thing is "wrong."
So, yeah, I think abortion ought to be legal.

 

[striker]

I dont like this topic cause people in these debates tend to be stuck up their own asses and just dont really except nor consider opposing arguments; its either "yes they have a choice, its their body" or "no god said thal shall not kill"

But their clearly is a answear to this question and its...

However before i do answear i want to ask a few things on my own.
Do any of you Pro-choice or Pro-life people even know why the abortion time limit (thing) is at when it is?

 

[??????]

I can't argue with steadfast denial.

The people here usually don't give any justification besides "ZOMG the mother has the right". I already know that the mother has the right, it is written into law. The law does not determine what is right. Legality =/= Right.

This is where you fall short. Cellular reproduction in a multicellular organism is growth. By this logic, I am giving birth every time I grow or gain weight. (And I'm a male, so this would be kind of awkward. o.o") Reproduction in the sense of living creatures means giving birth.

Wow. By your definition, anything that cannot sexually reproduce is not alive? Neutered pets, sterile people, and kids who haven't reached sexual maturity are not living? Your interpretation is wrong.

No. Of course we should fix awful living conditions, but until we can do that it would be, dare I say, merciful to painlessly end a life before it is forced into such conditions. I can also imagine being shot would cause a lot of pain to something that can feel pain.

You people act like pain and suffering is actually avoidable. If you actually want to rid the world of human suffering through killing, then destroy civilization. Suffering will always exist regardless of how many kids you can kill.

I beg to differ. The mother does not have to carry a leech for nine months, give birth to it in an extremely long, painful procedure, then go through either 18 years of providing for the unwanted child (who may well end up abused because the mother didn't want him/her) or go through the procedure to send it through what may well be an already-overcrowded adoption center.

And pain kills the mother? An abortion kills the fetus. Pregnancy does not kill the mother. The kid will always be a "leech" until adulthood. And then you go on and use pain as an excuse to kill, and use a personal assumption that the kid will have a horrible life. The child is the only one to determine his or her life is bad.

I don't care if the mother suffers, welcome to life. I don't care if the child suffers, welcome to life again. As long a a woman has the right to kill an unborn kid becuase she is suffering, she should reserve the right to kill a born child as well.

 

[phatcat203]

Draco....Do some research, PLEASE. Incredibly dangerous? I only consider things incredibly dangerous if they, you know, have a high mortality rate. The rate of obstetrical death is not high at all. In 2000, only 1% of deaths occurred in developed nations and countries. The total was 529,000. That's 5,290 deaths in that year. That truly isn't much for the entire developed world. Look things up before you spout out nonsense. Just to prove my point, the rate in the United States is 11 deaths per 100,000 births. In Iceland, it is zero, and 4 is the norm in Austria. Now, abortion is safer than childbirth for the first 16 weeks, depending on population. It has been proven, however, that women who have abortions have a much higher mortality rate afterward than those who do not. For those bumbling fools unable to understand this, here is a source. Notice how it says that the suicide rate drastically increases? Who predicted that? Oh, me? Really? What do you know. I think and research before I speak, people.

Here, I'll be kind and destroy those other fantasies you have about dangers. I posted one of them in reply to Psychic, the only one who seemed able to come up with unique and intelligent arguments. Unfortunately, it contained facts which shot down claims of "It's dangerous for the mother," and as such were ignored. Just a little hypocritical, hmm? The other was a general reply.

Here is the post I was referring to.

Here is another post. It isn't directly related, but it is on topic.

BTW, you can find the rest of those statistics on Wikipedia. Before you begin the whole "OLOLOLOL IT'S WIKIPEDIA THAT MEANS IT'S WRONG OLOOLOLOLOLOL" "argument," Wikipedia editors check frequently for incorrect information and slander in their pages. The sources are cited at the bottom of the page anyways, so the information doesn't come directly from users, contrary to what you may believe. They only repeat their sources.

Sad I had to resort to returning.

 

[J.T.]

The people here usually don't give any justification besides "ZOMG the mother has the right". I already know that the mother has the right, it is written into law. The law does not determine what is right. Legality =/= Right.

Again, I can't argue when all you do is say "I don't care what others say, it's not right".

Wow. By your definition, anything that cannot sexually reproduce is not alive? Neutered pets, sterile people, and kids who haven't reached sexual maturity are not living? Your interpretation is wrong.

Let me rephrase, then. Any organism who can reproduce under normal conditions. Neutered pets were once able to reproduce in most cases, unless they were neutered at birth or something. Sterile people have something wrong with them that causes this, so they are a special case. And children will mature and be able to reproduce once they reach adulthood.

It does not matter, though. Whether it is alive or not, as long as the fetus inhabits the mother's body, she should have the right to decide whether or not to keep it.

You people act like pain and suffering is actually avoidable. If you actually want to rid the world of human suffering through killing, then destroy civilization. Suffering will always exist regardless of how many kids you can kill.

So doing something that limits this suffering is pointless unless the solution solves all suffering in the world forever? If everyone in the world had had this mindset, we as a species would have never gotten anywhere.

And pain kills the mother? An abortion kills the fetus. Pregnancy does not kill the mother. The kid will always be a "leech" until adulthood.

Precisely. Which is why a mother should be able to choose whether or not to carry and nurture this leech. I challenge you to provide a reason a person has no right to kill a literal leech because "it's a life".

And then you go on and use pain as an excuse to kill, and use a personal assumption that the kid will have a horrible life.

For good reason. Unwanted children get abused more, and if they go to an adoption center they may not get adopted, or get adopted by a bad family.

The child is the only one to determine his or her life is bad.

And if the child can't make such a decision?

I don't care if the mother suffers, welcome to life. I don't care if the child suffers, welcome to life again.

That's a nice way to look at things. If a kid is born into a family that doesn't want them and they get abused, they should buckle down and take it because it's life? If a kid ends up rotting in an adoption center until they're 18, "so what"? If I knew that I was going to be born into such a life, I would beg to be aborted. Of course not all kids are like that, but I am willing to bet there are many kids who would say the same as me.

As long a a woman has the right to kill an unborn kid becuase she is suffering, she should reserve the right to kill a born child as well.

I could go with the whole "they're alive, they can feel pain, etc." argument, but I doubt you would listen to it, as it's been stated many times already.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that cellular reproduction is what is meant when the criteria for life are listed. If "reproduction" were restricted to having the ability to give birth (or, in the male case, to make birth possible), then one could not consider single-celled organisms living things.

My understanding of biology is a bit hazy, but I do know that when a bacteria reproduces, it clones its chromosomes (or DNA - it's been a while since I studied this, so I don't remember which) and splits them into the new organism. The new one is essentially a clone of it. The two act as separate organisms in all ways. That is enough to convince me that they are separate, living creatures. When a cell reproduces in your body and you begin to grow, this would be growth for you, and reproduction for the cells in your body, by any definition. (That's assuming cell reproduction within the body works the way I think it does - again, my knowledge of biology is somewhat unclear, since it's been a while.)

 

[Pandeji]

@ Phatcat:
The point is not that all mothers are going to die without getting an abortion. The point is that, if there is a risk of dying that is only presented unless the mother gets an abortion, the mother should get to choose if she wishes to take that risk. Frankly, I wouldn't want to risk my life on 1/100 odds if I didn't even want the thing that's causing me to risk my life.
Oh, but Phatcat, you should stay. ^_^ You bring welcome intelligence into this forum, and I enjoy having good opposition in this debate.

@ ?????:
J.T. has you pretty much covered, especially in response to your "hey, if you can't cure all suffering, why even bother curing a little of it?"
And, as J.T. pointed out, you also continually fail to respond to his "response to pain/being alive and feeling it" thing.

@ Crobat_Trainer:
I think this is an interesting point of view that I've never really heard before. "The fetus is a life but killing is not wrong in all senses" p.o.v. is refreshing. I'd like to see a good debater from the pro-life side of things try to argue against that without involving God. ^_^

 

[ChedWick]

Lol, I don't care if it's not 'right.' It's legal, which means people can do it.
It's right for the woman. You can't say anything about it.

Oh yes they can.

Maybe you didn't hear me many other times. I know the fetus is technically alive. .but that's not the point. The thing has no rights. Just accept it. If the woman feels like she can't handle having a child, then she has every freaking right to abort the thing. Don't act like you can control their lives. It's their lives. Not your's.

From a legal stand point yea I suppose you're right. But I'll twist what you said around on you a little. It's the fetu's life (if you agree the fetus is alive) and who has the right to say if it lives or dies.

Not that I'm pro-life; Just pointing out a little flaw you have exhibited in your close mindedness.

 

[Atreus]

I soppourt it. If you got pregnant, and you were, let's say 14, would you be able to take care of a baby? Maybe, but not likely. Goverments should think about the life quiality the baby would have. Also, they must decide what is better: To ruin a 14 year old's life which has lots of time living or ruin a babies life which hasn't even started yet. They should decide to ruin the babie's life. It hasn't even started. If teenagers have babies then yes, abortion is right. But when adults have "accidental babies" then no. They knew what they were getting into, they knew the consecuences and they did not care.

 

[ChedWick]

I soppourt it. If you got pregnant, and you were, let's say 14, would you be able to take care of a baby? Maybe, but not likely. Goverments should think about the life quiality the baby would have. Also, they must decide what is better: To ruin a 14 year old's life which has lots of time living or ruin a babies life which hasn't even started yet. They should decide to ruin the babie's life. It hasn't even started. If teenagers have babies then yes, abortion is right. But when adults have "accidental babies" then no. They knew what they were getting into, they knew the consecuences and they did not care.

Teenagers know the consequences and did not care. Also, the governement should never he in charge of determining who's life to take in a case like this.

 

[Pigglez]

Teenagers know the consequences and did not care. Also, the governement should never he in charge of determining who's life to take in a case like this.

Neither should religion, or you, me or anyone not involved in the individual cases. Things like abortion and gay rights do not affect you. It shouldn't be that other people, whether it be governments, religions or just people opposed to the idea, get to control the lives of others through varying opinions.

Unless you, or a friend or loved one are involved, you should have no impact on their decision. It should be legal for those who want it, and those who don't, never have to use it. Why is it that it has to go to the extremes for any issue. It has to be a definite yes or no, there can't be any middle ground for these issues for some reason? If someone you've never met is pregnant and wants an abortion, why should anyone else's opinion give a damn with letting that happen? You'll never meet them, they'll probably never meet you, but because you have a varied opinion, you get to control their life.

*btw, when I say "you" I don't mean you specifically chedwick, I'm just saying it as referring to a general population of anyone reading the post.*

 

[Crobat_Trainer]

My understanding of biology is a bit hazy, but I do know that when a bacteria reproduces, it clones its chromosomes (or DNA - it's been a while since I studied this, so I don't remember which) and splits them into the new organism. The new one is essentially a clone of it. The two act as separate organisms in all ways. That is enough to convince me that they are separate, living creatures. When a cell reproduces in your body and you begin to grow, this would be growth for you, and reproduction for the cells in your body, by any definition. (That's assuming cell reproduction within the body works the way I think it does - again, my knowledge of biology is somewhat unclear, since it's been a while.)

Chromosomes are just DNA all wound up, so you're right about this in either case. I only wanted to point out that things can undergo reproduction on the cellular level and still be considered living, that the ability to give birth isn't necessary to life. Bacterial fission, even though it produces two separate organisms (albeit ones with the same DNA), is not the same thing as giving birth, so bacteria could not have been included in your initial definition of reproduction. Though I'm glad you've clarified what you meant.

But since you've restructured your definition of "reproduction" to include children, who will mature and gain the ability to reproduce (under normal circumstances), must this definition not also include fetuses? Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are all earlier stages in the human life cycle, and all of them, when left to continue growing, will eventually reach a stage in that cycle wherein they'll be able to reproduce. Because they are a member of the human species, they will gain the ability to reproduce, just like children who've already been born.

@Pandeji: Why, thank you! I'd be thrilled to see someone give a compelling and secular argument for the moral wrongness of murder. I suppose that'd be a different thread, though.

 

[freakyboy05]

I believe abortion should not be accepted. Even though the parents are not in the right financial situation or if it was an accident, it's not the baby's fault that he is being born. If the parents can't take care of the baby, put it on adoption bout don't kill it. Who knows, maybe the baby who got aborted was destined to be a great leader in a great land.

 

[Pigglez]

I believe abortion should not be accepted. Even though the parents are not in the right financial situation or if it was an accident, it's not the baby's fault that he is being born. If the parents can't take care of the baby, put it on adoption bout don't kill it. Who knows, maybe the baby who got aborted was destined to be a great leader in a great land.

Who knows, maybe the baby who got aborted was destined to be a great tyrant in a great land.

You may not think it is right, but if it is not you or a loved one, why should you have any say in the matter?

 

[Carlisle]

I believe abortion should not be accepted. Even though the parents are not in the right financial situation or if it was an accident, it's not the baby's fault that he is being born. If the parents can't take care of the baby, put it on adoption bout don't kill it. Who knows, maybe the baby who got aborted was destined to be a great leader in a great land.

Once again, that argument is a complete and total failure. Someone can easily say that baby might be the next Hitler. Or, more probable, the baby will grow up to be just your regular everyday citizen.

More importantly, it may not be the baby's fault, but if the mother can't go through a pregnancy, why force her? Why throw the child into an adoption center? It's already crowded and a failure.

 

[Indy]

Someone thought they rip the arms off the baby while it was alive and thought it was true... They saw it from a Church site. :/

I am also pretty sure that some pro choices want to go through a process of squeezing a melon sized thing out of a tiny hole.

 

[??????]

Again, I can't argue when all you do is say "I don't care what others say, it's not right".

I didn't say that. I said that the fact the the right is available is not a justification to abort. Read plz

Let me rephrase, then. Any organism who can reproduce under normal conditions. Neutered pets were once able to reproduce in most cases, unless they were neutered at birth or something. Sterile people have something wrong with them that causes this, so they are a special case. And children will mature and be able to reproduce once they reach adulthood.

It does not matter, though. Whether it is alive or not, as long as the fetus inhabits the mother's body, she should have the right to decide whether or not to keep it.

You said it right there. A fetus will be able to sexual reproduce when it reaches adulthood. It meets all criteria for life, it is alive. It has the 46 human chromosomes, it is human. Killing a fetus is not killing a leech.

So doing something that limits this suffering is pointless unless the solution solves all suffering in the world forever? If everyone in the world had had this mindset, we as a species would have never gotten anywhere.

It is pointless, an abortion does not address the problem. Its like turning a blind eye to a problem.

Precisely. Which is why a mother should be able to choose whether or not to carry and nurture this leech. I challenge you to provide a reason a person has no right to kill a literal leech because "it's a life".

A fetus does not posses the 46 human chromosomes.

For good reason. Unwanted children get abused more, and if they go to an adoption center they may not get adopted, or get adopted by a bad family.

There is no reason to make a false/personal assumption. Your assumption does not apply to the mother or child.

And if the child can't make such a decision?

Then wait. If the kid can and decides they don't like their life, they reserve the right to commit suicide.

That's a nice way to look at things. If a kid is born into a family that doesn't want them and they get abused, they should buckle down and take it because it's life? If a kid ends up rotting in an adoption center until they're 18, "so what"? If I knew that I was going to be born into such a life, I would beg to be aborted. Of course not all kids are like that, but I am willing to bet there are many kids who would say the same as me.

Life is life. Shit happens.

I could go with the whole "they're alive, they can feel pain, etc." argument, but I doubt you would listen to it, as it's been stated many times already.

We already covered that a fetus is alive. And pain does not make a person.

 

[Fused]

It has the 46 human chromosomes, it is human.

A fetus does not posses the 46 human chromosomes.

This isn't contradictory.

Again, I feel we need to differentiate a human and a person.

HUMAN n.

-having or manifesting human form or attributes.​

PERSON n.

-a human being having legal rights and duties.​

Why throw the child into an adoption center? It's already crowded and a failure.

I want to elaborate on this. Statistics have shown that children ages 1-10 are more likely to get adopted than children ages 11 and older. Haven't you seen all the TV commercials about adopting teenaged foster children?

Age of Children Adopted - 46% were 1-5 years old, 37% were 6-10 years old, 14% were 11-15 years old, 2% were 16-18 years old and 2% were under a year old when adopted from the public welfare system.
Gender of Children Adopted - 51% are male, while 48% are female.
Race/Ethnicity of Children Adopted - 38% of the children in foster care are White, while a majority (61%) are of minority background. Of these, 46% of all children are Black, 13% are Hispanic, 1% are American Indian, and 1% are Asian/Pacific Islander.

linkage

 

[Pandeji]

I didn't say that. I said that the fact the the right is available is not a justification to abort. Read plz

I don't care if they're allowed to do anything, it doesn't make anything right.

The way you phrased it made it sound like you were referring to anything - that you didn't care what anybody said and what's allowed, that "it doesn't make anything right."
Rephrase plz.

You said it right there. A fetus will be able to sexual reproduce when it reaches adulthood. It meets all criteria for life, it is alive. It has the 46 human chromosomes, it is human. Killing a fetus is not killing a leech.

Correct. Rather, it's killing what we call a "parasite."
Here's the Marriam-Webster definition.

2. an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism.
3. something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

There's only so long that you can deny the fact that a baby is utilizing the mother's resources with no useful return. If the mother doesn't want that to happen, she has the right to preserve her own nutrients, etc.

It is pointless, an abortion does not address the problem. Its like turning a blind eye to a problem.

Life is life. Shit happens.

I loled at these both in the same post.
One could argue all things in life are "life." And they'd win.
Soooo, yeah.
Fetuses getting aborted? Eh. "Life is life. Shit happens."

A fetus does not posses the 46 human chromosomes.

I believe you meant leech, otherwise your argument is completely null.

There is no reason to make a false/personal assumption. Your assumption does not apply to the mother or child.

Assuming that mothers who are forced to have children they don't want will be upset at the thing they don't want for ruining their lives? That's not false or personal on any level at all.

Next?

 

[Ohshi]

I always wondered, instead of abortion why can't the baby be put for adoption if the parents are too young/too poor to afford it?

And is it because the baby would still have a messed up life anyways?

 

[Fused]

I always wondered, instead of abortion why can't the baby be put for adoption if the parents are too young/too poor to afford it?

And is it because the baby would still have a messed up life anyways?

Well, everyone has a messed up life to some degree. But, adoption is, as I've shown, more likely to embrace young foster children than those 11-18. And even then, children 1-5 have a better chance of being adopted. Plus, you have the fact that children of minorites are adopted more often than chidlren of the majority. You have two crucial key factors that work against more than half of the foster children in America. Plus, most couples these days aren't looking at adoption.