Abortion, Right or Wrong?

[lugia p]

so a fetus dosent suffer when it arms and legs are pulled off ( Link removed )just click that link and you will see how horible it is

 

[Ethan]

There really isn't a need to show a picture of a mutilated fetus to illustrate your point dear.

 

[Kaasuti]

so a fetus dosent suffer when it arms and legs are pulled off ( Link removed )just click that link and you will see how horible it is

I have seen that specific video and it's sad, but it still doesn't make me think abortions should be illegal, as many people have said in this discussion there are too many babies/children already, if every person had their babies there would be alot of unwanted and uncared for children in the world.
Abortion is usually an intelligent and non selfish decision made by people who think that it would be kinder to not bring a child into poverty and strife, please don't bring "don't have sex" into the argument either, sex is something that people do for intimacy not just reproductive reasons.

 

[Mandi.]

I hate when people show me pictures of the DEAD FETUS.
It really doesn't upset me at all. >> It's a fetus afterall. And you know how I feel about them.
The feeling is so little, it doesn't matter.

 

[DarkRidley]

I'm pro-choice. I find pro-life anti-human. Why should we care so much about a barely conscious, brain-dead fetus? An adult woman's choice to do as she likes with her body and her life takes precedent over a fetus. I won't get into whether a fetus is human or not, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't have self-awareness, any cognitive ability, or any relationships with other humans or with the world. A woman does. Calling it human doesn't change that.

 

[poke poke]

You make good points, but I'm afraid you're missing the point of my argument here.

...what? You sound like everything I just posted went over your head. I overestimated you.

The problem is, I have no idea at which point the fetus does attain "humanity", again, because the term is so subjective. The whole point of MY argument is that we should be focusing on what defines human life, and when the fetus reaches this point. Up to this point, abortion should be allowed, because there is no human life in question. After that point, it should be prohibited, because the fetus is a human life, and is therefore entitled to its right to live, which cannot be violated by another human or government.

You are partially correct. A fetus is non-human up to a certain point. No one can qualify a fetus as non-human in the latter stages of pregnancy, because there are so many characteristics attributed to humanity which a fetus displays and doesn't display. Abortion isn't a risk: it's fine up to a certain point, after which it is illegal.

All we know is that somewhere along the path of pregnancy, the fetus becomes human, and it is no longer okay to kill it. I'm challenging this debate to find this point.

I uphold that human life should be regarded and protected under any circumstance. I just have no idea at which point a fetus becomes human (...) I'm cutting to the core of the argument: the fetus's humanity.

Yeah. I overestimated you. This talk and 'cutting to the point' crap doesn't slide past me when you completely ignored the most important part of my post. I already drew the line. I spelled out for you how I drew the line. You didn't bother replying to my view of the line. Did you even read my post? You're going to get your daily dose of it till you address it.

Now this begs the question: if the foetus and my hand are so strikingly similar then what's the fuss about; why is no-one protest about self-mutilation the way they do about abortion. For the answer I'm going to have to go to where your arguments and your entire stance stems from. You're giving the foetus personhood, sentience, humanity, a 'soul', blah blah whatever you want to call it. Why? Don't know, don't care. Maybe it's because of your misguided sentimentality of the clump of cells.

Fact of the matter is the foetus does not have any sense of individuality at its early stages of development simply because it does not have any organ to process its sentience. When pro-choicers revoke the foetus of any rights and call it 'not human' what they mean is this: my sixteen month old cousin cries when hungry, sleeps, gets up, laughs when I make a face; a foetus does not. It can't. It's basically a vegetable. It's in the third trimester that the foetus develops brain cells and starts developing its sentience about whose assumptions dictate your stance. And the third trimester is the period where even the most dedicated pro-choices stop condoning abortion.

But a hand will never grow into a fully grown human that can support itself.

lol - I already covered this. If you're going to spiral backward to the 'potential' crap then you're not even worth handling.

Because what you do with your hand/foot/body is up to you. A fetus is not part of the mother. It is half created by the mother, and half created by the father. Even if it was completely created by the mother, it would not be part of the mother. Attached? Yes. Part of her living functioning body? No. It is no more part of her body as a tapeworm is.

Through all this blabber you still haven't proven to me how the foetus is anything more than the glimmer of human life I'm claiming it is; just that it's not truly a part of the mother. You're labeling it as a parasite; no one has refuted me when I said it wasn't sentient. Are you really pro-life or are you just giving everyone more of a reason to kill foetuses?

Is it truly misguided to care about a life?

...I'm sorry. I'll make sure the cockroach I just stomped gets a full-blown funeral.

It does not cry when it is hungry because it is not hungry. It obtains its nutrients directly from the mother. It does not laugh when you make a face because it cannot see you.

I wake up, make breakfast by myself when I'm hungry, am capable of educating myself, and laugh at Jay Leno. A child of sixteen months cannot. Does this make it less than me? Certainly not. It has not fully grown yet.

Your cousin of sixteen months cries when hungry, sleeps, gets up, and laughs when you make a face. A fetus cannot. Does this make it less than your cousin? Certainly not. It has not fully grown yet.

Irrelevant and arbitrary excuses. It was obvious what point I was trying to make. The foetus is incapable of showing emotion of any kind. Forget emotions if you like; it cannot do anything. It does not have any humanity. And learn the difference. The only thing the foetus has in its favour of being classified as a human life is its cell structure. My hand also has the same cell structure. Welcome to the point: my hand should have every right you should the foetus should but would you care if I chopped it off?

And why are you not looking at what could be? With the rare exception of a miscarriage, all pregnancies end in a newborn child, which will grow into a toddler, which will grow into a teenager, which will eventually grow into an adult that will reproduce children of his or her own.

There are three parts of the life of a fetus. What is, what will be, and what was. What is is that the fetus is rapidly growing into a newborn in nine months. What will be is a newborn that has grown past the fetus stage, and from there it will go through the process of life. What was was two people had vaginal intercourse, with full knowledge of what could happen if the condom broke/birth pill didn't work/they had unprotected sex, and the sperm met the egg. A pregnancy is not an accident. If you know how sex works, it is not an accident.

I'm not even going to bother with this. By this logic, sperm and eggs are also human lives. Potentiality and cell structure play into this. I doubt your against masturbation. Figure out yourself why this is a horrible argument.

It is always human. When human sperm mets a human egg, a human is created. The fetus is always human. It doesn't become a bear. Not a snake. Not a lamb. A human.

No one cares if you consider a foetus human. No one has every denied a foetus being human; they're debating humanity. It's what you get for bombing a composed post in reply to a post you thought you knew how to argue.

It can breathe on its own accord because it has grown the ability to do that. A human fetus cannot do that because it has not grown the ability yet. Like a toddler hasn't grown the ability to ejaculate.

I have a question for pro-choicers. Why do you care if the baby feels pain? If feel it is moral to murder it, why do you care at all if it feels pain?

You're the typical pro-lifer and you're assuming everyone to be no better than the typical pro-choicer. You have the same retarded copypasta arguments that every 'baby killer' on the street has heard a million times. Why did you even reply to my post? You didn't refute my main points. It's the same crap I hear from every pro-lifer in any abortion debate. Want to know why threads like these are closed? Because when progress is going on someone like you comes along with a generic post that takes everyones intelligence levels and debating tactics back to the stone age.





I still have a question for you though. And not only you; the ones in this thread can answer this as well. What is it that makes us different from the common animal? What is it that makes us human?

 

[lugia p]

I'm pro-choice. I find pro-life anti-human. Why should we care so much about a barely conscious, brain-dead fetus? An adult woman's choice to do as she likes with her body and her life takes precedent over a fetus. I won't get into whether a fetus is human or not, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't have self-awareness, any cognitive ability, or any relationships with other humans or with the world. A woman does. Calling it human doesn't change that.

so darkridley if youre parents were brain dead you would not care about them?

 

[FallenForce]

I thinka bortion is right if you are unstable to support a baby, financial and health wise.

If the mother was a drug taking binge drinker, I would let her make an abortion, or an adoption.
No way in hell would I let a women like that keep a child.


But then again, I've never been emotionally involved with a baby, so what do I know?

 

[Slightly Insane]

Of course my hands have rights. Every part of MY body has rights. Because my whole body is me. A fetus, in my opinion (and lot's of other's) ..is basically the mother,

Basically? Is she taking care of it? Yes. Does she have custody of it? Yes. Does she OWN it like she would own, say, a chair? Absolutely not. It is a human being in its first stages of development. Period.

and the mother's rights.

As does the child.

If somebody hurts my hand ..they hurt me. I'm a living creature who is capable of my rights.

Agreed.

A woman with a fetus in her body ..can decide to do what she wants with it ..for it is attached to her inside of her body.

What does it matter if it is attached? It is the destruction of a human life. There is no right that allows you to destroy another human right. As stated recently, you cannot go to an illegal immigrant with NO rights WHATSOEVER in this country and kill it/rob it/commit any crime against it. Why is this obvious, yet it is debatable if it is moral to murder an unborn child?

A fetus is evolved from an egg. A woman produces those eggs. They are her. Once the baby is born, then it shall have it's OWN rights.

They are FROM her. If the baby was her, then they would be Siamese twins.

What does being shoved out of a vagina do anything to give you rights? You did nothing.

But the father doesn't have to go through the pain of pregnancy and carrying that fetus.

The mother knew quite well the risk of having intercourse. She knew the consequences if something went wrong. The pain and carrying are consequences.

Even though I'd say the father should have some say in what the mother does, it's not fully his choice.

There shouldn't be a choice. Let me put this as bluntly as I possibly can.

1. Abortion is murder.
2. Murder is illegal.
3. Abortion is (should) be illegal.

And yes, a fetus is alive.

If the baby was growing inside him, then he would.
A tapeworm isn't made inside your body. It's a parasite that gets inside and takes away nutrients and other stuff from the body.
A tapeworm and fetus are nothing similar.

It was an analogy, but this point fails. A tapeworm comes in from the outside. Sperm comes in from the outside. The only difference is where the living being is formed.

No.
But technically, it's pointless to care about what happens to a fetus, when is hasn't even been evolved fully yet.

So a newborn baby is fully evolved.

A child of sixteen months doesn't live in another person's body. It's able to survive out in the world, without needing it's mother's nutrients and ect. Of course, it can't survive without being taken care of. It is able to be it's own person outside another person.

I still struggle to see the difference between a fetus and a sixteen month year old in the sense of self-care, which is one of the huge parts of this debate. A fetus takes the mother's nutrients. A sixteen month year old takes the financial care of the mother. The mother's energy (nutrients) is spent getting financial care. It's simply in a different form.

Like I've said many times. If the people are smart and responsible enough to use protection ..and if sadly, it fails ..I don't see why it's their responsibility to have to take care of a baby, if they don't want one.

If the man is smart and responsible to put money in the right stocks, and if sadly, the stock market crashes, I don't see why it's the man's fault to have to take care of a bankruptcy, if he doesn't want one.

Every action people do results in a consequence. Some are positive. Some are negative. It is a risk. If you decide to inhale the smoke from rolled tobacco, you may get lung cancer. If you decide to ride bulls, you may be severely harmed. If you decide to have sex, you may get a child. The first two do not have cop-outs. Why should the third?

Abortion is murder of humans.
Abortion is for personal comfort.
Abortion is murder of humans for personal comfort.

Murder of humans is illegal.
Abortion is (should be) the illegal murder of humans for personal comfort.

Sex is for pleasure and bonding as well as reproduction. Condoms and birth control were made for people to engage in sexual intercourse, without having to get pregnant/get the other person.

And if they fail, you have a consequence.

So are you saying a fetus should have more rights than a living animal? Bulls hit.

Why should a human have more rights than an animal? They are both life forms, yet monkeys are in cages and humans kill animals while they have more than enough food to survive without the murder.

The way the hierarchy is, humans > all. A fetus is a human. It is from a human. It will become a human.

..In all honestly, I don't care if the fetus can feel pain or not. The 'life' that is taken away from it ..is so quick ..it doesn't really matter at all. The fetus barely has a brain. Can't remember. It doesn't think, therefore ..I don't think it really cares if it gets 'killed' in a painful way.

If you do not care about the pain and murder of an innocent, defenseless child, this debate will go nowhere.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

My my, no need to fuss because I shrugged your aside your argument. I suppose you are mistaking frustration for overestimation because in my bout of hubris, I deemed you inferior? Heaven forbid anyone should assume himself to be better than you!

Vaporeon4evr: You seem to be no stranger to debating, not even abortion arguments; you may have come across the hand analogy a few times. Let me bring it to the stand and leave the foetus aside for a moment.

Now my hand has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Therefore it is 'human', and keep in mind that I'm using the term as most pro-lifers do: very loosely. My hand is also 'alive'. Let me take you back to the seven signs of life:

1. Growth
2. Stimulus Response
3. Metabolism
4. Homeostasis
5. Reproduction
6. Mutation
7. Autonomous Motion

I'm not going to go on a tangent to try and prove my hand fits into every single criteria. Many of them are debatable; the list itself is a horrible indicator of life. But contrast my hand's results with this test to the foetus' during the first and second trimesters. You'll find that the results of the latter and former are easily interchangable. I could go on a further dissection of this if you like.

Expound if you deem it necessary. I don't understand how you can claim that this list is a horrible indicator of life, and then ask me to contrast a hand to a fetus based on the specifications listed in said list. I don't think I ever expressed opposition to first trimester abortions. I believe that this "line" I'm searching for exists somewhere in the second trimester, close to the point of viability.

Now you wonder: where exactly do my hand and the foetus differ? In truth, they don't. My hand is to my body as the foetus is to the mother. The first cannot survive when remove from the second. I could very well cut off my hand right now, and neither you nor anyone else can tell me otherwise.

Here, you are wrong. The hand will never be able to survive alone, at any point in time. It is not its own organism. A fetus, however, IS capable of surviving when removed from the mother, after the point of viability (which, arguably, is the best indicator of when abortion ceases to be acceptable). But I think you say the same thing later, so...

Now this begs the question: if the foetus and my hand are so strikingly similar then what's the fuss about; why is no-one protest about self-mutilation the way they do about abortion. For the answer I'm going to have to go to where your arguments and your entire stance stems from. You're giving the foetus personhood, sentience, humanity, a 'soul', blah blah whatever you want to call it. Why? Don't know, don't care. Maybe it's because of your misguided sentimentality of the clump of cells.

Perhaps you misinterpret. I have a natural sentimentality for a fetus in the later stages of pregnancy, when its humanity is at least plausible. Is it so wrong to give personhood to a fetus that has already developed the functions necessary for it to survive alone?

Fact of the matter is the foetus does not have any sense of individuality at its early stages of development simply because it does not have any organ to process its sentience. When pro-choicers revoke the foetus of any rights and call it 'not human' what they mean is this: my sixteen month old cousin cries when hungry, sleeps, gets up, laughs when I make a face; a foetus does not. It can't. It's basically a vegetable. It's in the third trimester that the foetus develops brain cells and starts developing its sentience about whose assumptions dictate your stance. And the third trimester is the period where even the most dedicated pro-choices stop condoning abortion.

Are you suggesting that consciousness of individuality should be a standard of determination? Or is it the presense of an organ that regulates this consciousness?

Your 16-month old cousin has had 16 months to develop. Let's rewind for a second. Let's take a newborn baby, hardly a day old. He is "basically a vegetable," and yet you wouldn't think twice about killing him. What differentiates him from a fetus in late term, other than the fact that he is no longer in the mother's womb? I will concede that I am unfamiliar with the finer deatails of prenatal development, but if I recall correctly, doesn't the brain develop early during pregnancy? I am unsure where cognitive thinking processes are developed. Third-trimester abortions are an abomination. I think viability is a reasonable place to draw the line, which occurs somewhere during late 2nd trimester.

Of course you could very well bring up the 'potential developed human' as nearly everyone does when I present them with the hand analogy, but as you or some other enlightened individual said during the course of this debate, 'we are not looking at what could be, we are looking at what is'.

I'm not stupid enough to say "dur it will be a human eventually." Determinism flattens that argument.

 

[ChedWick]

so darkridley if youre parents were brain dead you would not care about them?

I'd pull the plug. Doesn't mean I don't care for them...

 

[LiteBlue-]

I'm pro-choice. And I'm all for everyone's opinions, but I gotta say that these pro-life people sure know how to irk me loads. D:

A woman has every right to do what she wants to her 'fetus' (..not human yet, yes yes.)
Pregnancy happens. People aren't going to not have sex, just because they don't want children ..I MEAN COME ON. o: Who doesn't want sex? ahahaha.
But yeah. That's a big reason why condoms and birth control were made, so people could have sex, without getting pregnant.

And think of the women who choose to get abortions. I'm pretty sure most of them have their reasons. One being, they're young and/or can't give the child the right suport/love/life.
Two ..maybe the woman is a druggie/alcoholic. You don't want a poor baby being born into a life like that.

People really need to get over their stubborn thoughts about abortion. OMG YOU KILL A PERSONZ! OMG.
WHO CARES.
People die every second. You don't make big deals out of that. And if a person has an abortion early ..the fetus has no brain. no feelings. it doesn't know anything. so it's basically like throwing out a broken toy or something.

D: Besides. This world is over-populated. So I'm all for abortions wohoo.

And just saying. If I got pregnant anytime soon ...abortion would be my first though. And I wouldn't have any regrets. x] OMG I'M HEARTLESS! I KILL FETUSESSSSS! D: D:

The sad thing is, most people have an abortion, and kill an innocent life, just to relieve a little SOCIAL PROBLEM....you think that's a good reason? And it's just really ironic that they greatly suffer emotionally, to relieve this social problem.....they end up having a much harder time forming close friendships, try to avoid sex, try to avoid anything that has to do with babies (seeing babies themselves, baby bottles, diapers, the baby aisle in the store, etc.). It makes me very ****** off when these women decide to have an abortion to relieve their SOCIAL PROBLEM (social problems are usually minor...), and then, THE WOMAN GETS NO GAIN SOCIALLY, INSTEAD, SHE SUFFERS GREATLY SOCIALLY, EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY (perhaps spirtually)....SO SHE GETS ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSEFUL GAIN OUT OF THE ABORTION, EFFECTIVELY DESTROYING A LIFE FOR NOTHING, SH!T, NADA!

p.s. I'm against abortion.

 

[lugia p]

I'd pull the plug. Doesn't mean I don't care for them...

well i guess but if they could be come conscius in a few months then would you

 

[ChedWick]

well i guess but if they could be come conscius in a few months then would you

Well brain dead is different than in a comma. In your scenario no I would not.

 

[lugia p]

Well brain dead is different than in a comma. In your scenario no I would not.

what i was getting at was that why kill a fetus if its going to become conscius.

 

[??????]

Now my hand has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Therefore it is 'human', and keep in mind that I'm using the term as most pro-lifers do: very loosely. My hand is also 'alive'. Let me take you back to the seven signs of life:

1. Growth
2. Stimulus Response
3. Metabolism
4. Homeostasis
5. Reproduction
6. Mutation
7. Autonomous Motion

I'm not going to go on a tangent to try and prove my hand fits into every single criteria. Many of them are debatable; the list itself is a horrible indicator of life. But contrast my hand's results with this test to the foetus' during the first and second trimesters. You'll find that the results of the latter and former are easily interchangable. I could go on a further dissection of this if you like.

Your hand shares DNA with you. A fetus does not share DNA with it mother. Cutting off your hand is not comparable to abortion, different individuals are involved.

And its pretty much BS to say that that list is a horrible indicator of life. The only thing that does not follow it are viruses, and their status of life is debatable.

 

[The_Panda]

I love all this "ABORTION IS MURDER" and "NO, ABORTION IS NOT MURDER" stuff mixed in with quote spamming, it really lends to a constructive debate, ya? This whole debate is rather constructive, don't you think?

Personally I don't think a foetus is "alive". Yeah yeah yeah, you can link to wikipedia's stuff on cell biology and quote a list of stuff that means something is "alive", but uh you tell me, what on earth is that supposed to mean in the context of this debate? If you go by such an incredibly literal way of expressing it, you'll come across all sorts of issues which, no doubt, you already have. So let's discuss this plainly. What does it mean to be alive, but furthermore, what does it mean to be human? The term "life" in itself is an incredibly vague term; it doesn't really have a set medical definition. The one which doctors generally use though is when the brain is operating; as the brain is what allows the coordination of the various cells in the body as a fully functioning organism. So a person may be dead and for a short period of time some individual cells in that person's body are still alive; but if the brain is not alive then that person is more or less dead. I would definitely think this is the best qualification for "life", it's what is more or less generally used in medicine and surgery, it gives a good way to determine whether something is "alive" or not (in terms of declaring a person dead) and it circumnavigates issues where those in comas are dead. If we choose to define life that way, a foetus isn't alive. So yeah.

But may I say, the question of whether a foetus is alive or not is absolutely irrelevant. So yes, you may as well not have read my last paragraph (I certainly don't want you to bother refuting it; but given the record of the debating forum nowadays when it comes to reading simple instructions on posts, I'm sure more than enough people will). The big fault of most people who are pro-life (and some pro-choice people as well) in my opinion is the over reliance on semantics and the definitions of words, like "life". Because what the argument seems all to be about is the word "life", and indeed it's the very power bestowed by this word which arguments on both sides rely on. Essentially what you're basing your argument on is nothing to do with the foetus itself, but how you define the word "life", and from that what you quality as murder, et cetera. That would be all fine if the definition of life were something that's not contested, in the way that nobody doubts that the square root of two is an irrational number. But it is hotly contested, and even in purely medical circles where abortion is irrelevant the difference between "life" and "death".

Like to further expound on that, those lovely few lines given to us by Slightly Insane are a good example. He's defining murder, I assume, as the killing of an innocent life; but then the definition of murder itself shifts all the time as the definition of life does. So his argument is resting on the semantic value of the word "life", and in many ways the foetus itself has been excised from his case. He's more or less setting up the equivalent of a straw man, over and over again. So what I propose is this: instead of this ridiculous and futile definitional stuff that you guys so insist on cooking up, we look for a moment at the following questions.

1. What does it mean to abort a foetus (abortion of a FOETUS, please don't chuck around the word "life" everywhere or you're really not bringing anything constructive into this debate, rather, you're just regressing). By this I mean, do we view it as an active or passive killing, whether we view it as harmful or not, et cetera.

2. How do we view the abortion of a foetus, as in, how do we value it morally, given what we can say for the first question. A similar mistake in using the word "murder" is made to using the word "life": you're using murder itself as the precedent, not the abortion of the foetus; not only are you assuming that the death of a foetus is murder but you're also assuming that the wrongness of murder is a tautology.

3. How do we assess the rights of the mother to be in all of this, and what is her role with respect to the foetus; then from weighing these three questions and balancing the rights, we can decide whether abortion is right or wrong.

Of course there are other issues and the three questions above won't necessarily settle the issue. They're a good roadmap though for a constructive debate, and they carefully avert tautology and semantics. I suggest that, before anything else, we try restructure the debate along these, or at least similar, lines.

 

[Ethan]

I love all this "ABORTION IS MURDER" and "NO, ABORTION IS NOT MURDER" stuff mixed in with quote spamming, it really lends to a constructive debate, ya? This whole debate is rather constructive, don't you think?

There's nothing wrong with what the members are currently discussing. As long as members are displaying a degree of reason in their conversing back and forth, there's no reason to intervene or call for a drastic change in direction. The only reason abortion is so controversial in the first place, is over the idea of whether its murder or not. It should be common sense that the pivotal point of any abortion debate is going to be whether or not abortion is murder.

If you want to discuss the deeper medical aspects involved, perhaps you could find other alternatives than being intellectually condescending in your approach.

 

[Mr. Mudkip]

I do agree with one point made here, and to rephrase it in my own words:
It's like pulling the plug on someone in a coma.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I do agree with one point made here, and to rephrase it in my own words:
It's like pulling the plug on someone in a coma.

Only in likeness of procedure...the person in a coma has been alive for possibly decades, lived through human experiences, had/still has an identity stored in their brain, they have/had people who know them, and they have a fully developed body. Meanwhile, if you pull the plug on a fetus, all you can do is wonder what would have been, but there is nothing really to miss.

The fetus is a not-yet developed human. It shouldn't be personified it as a child or an elderly patient. Sure the fetus is the human species, it will become a human, but it is not done becoming a human yet. It's like saying eggs are chicken. True, they are of the chicken species, but it's painfully clear that they are not chickens.

There's nothing wrong with what the members are currently discussing. As long as members are displaying a degree of reason in their conversing back and forth, there's no reason to intervene or call for a drastic change in direction. The only reason abortion is so controversial in the first place, is over the idea of whether its murder or not. It should be common sense that the pivotal point of any abortion debate is going to be whether or not abortion is murder.

If you want to discuss the deeper medical aspects involved, perhaps you could find other alternatives than being intellectually condescending in your approach.

There's also nothing wrong with critisizing what the members are discussing and asking for a change in direction. It was a valid idea and contribution to the debate. People are intellectually condenscending all the time on this forum and they are revered for it. Aren't you the one intervening by telling someone off for offering an idea?