1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Abortion, Right or Wrong?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Rezon, Aug 4, 2009.

  1. poke poke

    poke poke hello

    I'm not sure where the sarcasm is stemming from. You keep protesting to everyone that you only ignore points to speed up the this thread but when you ignore one of the only posts that touches on what you've been crying to everyone else then I have every reason to call you out on it.

    The reasons are before your eyes. The foetus does not fit into many of the list's categories. There are certain types of plants which do not show any sort of tropism so applying stimulus response or autonomous response to them is debatable. Viruses do not fit into many of the categories in this list yet they are generally categorised as living organisms. The validity of this list however is a different debate. I'm going by with it at this instance.

    I'm going by this list because I have no other better test for 'life' up my sleeve and it seems generally accepted by the people in this debate. My hand passes the same categories the foetus does in this test for life. By this standard I'm claiming that my hand is just about as alive as the foetus is and I'm awaiting a rebuttal to this claim.

    Keep reading.

    It's the best indicator because it shows that the foetus is developing a true individuality, a hard evidence, unlike DNA, which shows that it is truly seperate from the mother.


    Important point:

    When I say brain development I mean when the brain starts to function. This link shows that by the late second trimester the brain has developed enough for the foetus to assume a semblence of sentience. Sucking its thumb shows a craving for mother's milk. And thumb-sucking is only one of the varied movements the foetus shows during this period. Viability is well and good, but this is where I draw my line: the period when a foetus stops becoming mere 'human' and ascends into 'personhood'.

    Fair enough.

    DNA means little to nothing. I could bring up organ transplants at this point.

    If this list is infallible then my hand is a human life.
  2. Pandeji


    This is ridiculous.
    As defined by science, having "life" is having the following.

    1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.
    2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
    3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism).
    4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
    5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment.
    6. Response to Stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms.
    7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

    Don't try to b.s. your way into some new scientific definitions of life.

    Hands cannot reproduce. They are not alive.

    Human fetuses? It is certainly arguable that they do not have complete control over #1 - Homeostasis. However, because their bodies are changing to become what the human needs them to be in order to survive, this argument can go both ways.

    I will not partake in this debate by choosing sides. However, I will not watch people compose arguments based on random facts they made up.
  3. poke poke

    poke poke hello

    Oh wow. If it's your life goal to bring me down on the pecking order on this board make sure you amount to more than:

    You have in the list a very unabsolute and vague inclusion of reproduction. I can keep poking holes in your logic since neither kids nor foetuses can make babies. You can replace my hand with my penis if the thought of sex organ enters your head. See if there's a difference.

    Explain 5, 6, 7. Selective ignorance is a pseudo trademark.
  4. Ethan

    Ethan Banned

    No, there's not, but there's a difference between simply critisizing what members are discussing and trying to control the entire debate with one post. Especially when the critisism is unfounded in the first place. You brought up other members that are condescending...I don't care? That doesn't mean I condone it. Yes I am intervening, but if you pay special attention to the pretty blue rank that I have under my name you would understand that's my job. "Telling someone off" was an especially stupid thing to say considering I didn't come off particularly belligerent but rather was matter of fact in the points I wanted to make.

    At any rate, when I make decisions as a moderator its not your moral obligation to challenge me. SPPf is not a democracy.

    tl;dr Be quiet.
  5. Vaporeon4evr

    Vaporeon4evr Cyndakill

    Pride, perhaps? We are all guilty of it. And also a need to make myself laugh. Because abortion isn't funny. I like providing myself comic relief in the form of sarcastic scolding. At any rate, I apologize that it had to be on your behalf. I suppose I was so used to GhostAnime bantering about there being "no such thing as inherent rights" that I assumed no one would offer a valid analysis of my proposal.

    Although I agree that the validity of this list is not something we ought to be debating, I must point this out: If you must insist on using the list as a foundation for an argument, and concede that it is a fallible and shaky list at best, then be aware that your argument will consequently be fallible and shaky as well. Castles built on pillars of sand have a tendency to collapse.

    Well, there's where I'm different. I know you don't have a better test for life. And I don't recognize the current list in question as a valid foundation for indication of life. Some non-living things fit the specifications of the list, and some living things do not fit the specifications of the list. It can go either way. According to this list, your hand is like a fetus. But let's look at this from another scientific perspective.

    Organism --> Organ system --> Organ --> Tissue --> Cell

    This list holds true for mammals. Each contains all of the following. According to it, a hand would likely fall under the category "organ", perhaps even an "organ system". It's compotents are skin, muscle, bones, and blood. Respectively, parts of the integumentary, muscular, skeletal, and vascular systems of the body. A fetus, on the other hand, could be classified as an "organism" during the later stages of pregnancy. It's organs and organ systems are already functioning. From THIS perspective, a hand and a fetus differ. So these determinations of life, these lists, can be distorted to support even the most outlandish ideas. Herein lies the paradox of the "life" debate, a paradox I have long been trying to point out.

    It would appear that our ideas about where the "line" is are similar. The reason I suggest viability is because, at that point, it is perfectly capable of living on its own, and of development into a functional person.
  6. alakazam_1

    alakazam_1 Alakazam used WIN

    Disagree if you want. I probably won't return to this topic as I find that most people have stubbornly "pro-choice" views and won't listen to reasoned pro-life arguments.

    The whole idea of the point of viability is so ******* stupid. The fetus won't be able to survive on its own for years. The point of viability suggests that if you left it alone outside it could get its own food, shelter etc.. As far as I'm concerned, it's an individual human being and killing (aborting) it for any reason is no better than killing a newborn baby or child. And to the person who brought science into this with the list of characteristics of life, I have to say that that shows a stunning failure to recognize that the baby will have these characteristics eventually and that the real debate is over the morals, not the science.
  7. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    Yea, this totally isn't biased.

    which is irrelevant to some.

    Vaporeon4ever, I think we've hit the knitty gritty of our debate pretty and good. We just disagree on what values we hold important, and I of course respect you for your opinion.
  8. deon99

    deon99 Active Member

    nah i aint with it there killing a child if they didnt want kids they should have worn a rubber dont take it out on baby.
  9. miloticsavior

    miloticsavior YOUR out of order!!

    The answer is yes. You see, you can't really form an accurate opinion to this question without taking into account personal biases, such as religion, life events, etc. Personally, I do think it's wrong IF the parent getting the abortion has the means I.E. the money, food, clothes supplies necessary to take care of the baby. However, if the parents do not have these luxuries, and the baby would cause a major inconvenience and disruption in their life, as they did not have the money to care for the baby, then abortion should be an option.
  10. The Doctor

    The Doctor Absolute Beginner

    Cool story bro

    Just because your childhood was good doesn't mean a person in a similar situation will be exactly the same.

    Supposing that person was raped and impregnated. What then?
  11. dubiOUS

    dubiOUS Well-Known Member

    I'm not a guy, I'm a girl btw.

    And I agree on that, but doesn't a child have the right to live and make a better life for him/herself???
  12. The Doctor

    The Doctor Absolute Beginner

    It's a saying, bro.

    See, no-one's forcing anyone to get an abortion, we just support the idea that that option's available. Furthermore, doesn't a woman have the right to do what she wants with her body?
  13. dubiOUS

    dubiOUS Well-Known Member


    I perfectly understand that I have no right to decide what a someone does with her body. I still have my opinions however, and believe that the child's rights should be taken into consideration before someone chooses to abort it.

    That said, it just seems to me that people are being so self-centered about what they want and how much of an inconvenience a baby would be, that they're not taking into consideration the life of another human being [in its earliest stage]. If they didn't want a baby, then they should have the sense to take preventative measures to begin with and acted responsibly.

    That's all I'm saying...
  14. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    So why do you want a baby to have a mother that was irresponsible in the first place?
  15. Slappy_Pancake

    Slappy_Pancake Well-Known Member

    Am I causing a genocide every time I masturbate?
  16. Vaporeon4evr

    Vaporeon4evr Cyndakill

    Why yes, yes you are. Every time you enter the thrall of self pleasure, a nation of millions living in your loins lets out a collective scream of horror. When you climax, millions of your children are expelled into the vast unknown of the outside world. Brothers must watch each other shrivel and suffocate within the dark depths of your old sock; must endure the screams of their sisters while they themselves slip from life. And all you can think about is how good it feels. You ought to be ashamed.
  17. ??????

    ?????? That guy.

    Sex cells aren't human. They are half. Study Meiosis more.

    The mother doesn't have to raise the kid.

    Availability allows for an abortion to take place, something pro-life people feel is murder.

    And the fetus is not the mother. They don't have the same DNA. Does the DNA of your father combine with you outside the womb? The fetus is a separate entity from conception, where the difference of DNA first manifests.

    Organs will never develop into a human, and are surrendered to the patient for the patient's use.

    It is. Your hand doesn't contain living human cells? Your hand is human life, but will never be a full human. A fetus has both of these characteristics, so your comparison is null.
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2009
  18. Grei

    Grei not the color

    I'm not entirely sure if this post is sarcasm (/half-sarcasm) or not. : /
    If it's sarcasm, this next bit can be directed at anybody who does believe this.

    If it's honest, I think this view is taken a little far... I mean, when somebody has sex, thousands of sperm end up dying no matter what--only one (or, in some rarer cases, two) sperm end up inside of an egg. Does that mean you shouldn't ever have sex, because it kills more than it creates?
  19. Vaporeon4evr

    Vaporeon4evr Cyndakill

    Hehe, I was definitely being sarcastic. Damn, people in this forum never seem to catch my sarcasm... we all need to lighten up a bit.

    That's exactly why this argument is stale. As ?????? pointed out, sperm cells aren't even human. That's why their death doesn't matter.
  20. The Doctor

    The Doctor Absolute Beginner

    But, like a foetus in the womb, they have the potential to become human life. Isn't that the general pro-life argument?

Share This Page