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. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    You are correct. The mothers living body.
     
  2. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    I can't even read that. I could only assume what you're trying to say. So,

    killing what could become a baby =/= killing a baby

    If it hasn't become a baby yet, you do not kill a baby in the process of aborting a fetus. Simply chronological logic. Can't apply the privilages of a baby to the fetus until it actually becomes a baby.

    Just like you can't get a senior discount until you're a senior. You can't go up and ask for a ticket to a movie on a senior discount when you're a teenager, by telling them, "this is just one stage in my development where I'll eventually become old. I'm really, essentially old right now."

    Five weeks is a fine amount of time, then, call it a baby and ban abortion from there. But give the woman a chance to back out, for at least some time.
     
  3. poke poke

    poke poke hello

    You're missing the purpose of me using this list. I'm not using this list to show that the foetus or my hand are alive, it's original purpose, because according to this list they're not. I'm only using it to show that the characteristics of life which my hand displays is inherently similar to that of the foetus.

    This 'list' that you've provided isn't a determination of life. It just defines an organism. A dead person can be called an organism, just a dead one. This brings up another question. The foetus is still 'in development'. There is no way to determine whether the cellular processes going on inside it can be called 'organs', at least in the first and early second trimesters. So a foetus in earlier stages of pregnancy cannot be called an 'organism' according to your list. The hand analogy still stands.

    In countries where abortion is allowed, it's legal only till the third trimester. Our ideas on when abortion should be outlawed rests close to that: somewhere in the late second trimester. I don't know why you call yourself pro-choice when your views regarding abortion pretty much match those of the average pro-choicer.

    You keep mouthing off potentiality but you haven't explained to me how it's important or sufficient reason to protect the life of the underdeveloped foetus. Sperm are potential humans, but they are unimportant because they don't have 46 chromosones. My hand has 46 chromosones, but it's unimportant because it is not a potential human. You're drawing a line somewhere, and in the most retarded way. I could deconstruct your arguments in several ways.

    Miscarriages. I bring this up whenever someone likes you waves potential life in my face. What follows is an annoyingly idiotic retort: 'it's natural'. Natural disasters are natural. They still kill humans. People still take measures to protect themselves against earthquakes and tornadoes. Yet you're only condemning abortion here; you haven't said anything about miscarriages or how it kills foetuses. And yet both take away potential human lives which are obviously so precious to you.

    And I'm only arguing morality with you here, since it seems to be the root of the issue. I figured you wouldn't hold a candle to me if I start talking about practical reasons to condone abortion.
     
  4. The Doctor

    The Doctor Absolute Beginner

    Well I would say your analogy's flawed, but since you consider an unusually large clump of cells that can't actually do any human activity except grow and grow the same as an actual fully-developed person who's out of a womb, and I don't, I can't really fight you on that because other members have stated why a fetus isn't human further back in the thread anyway.

    Did it ever maybe occur to you that maybe the child would be born into an unsuitable environment? Sometimes the simplest explanation can be the correct one. I don't know if you know about the Baby Peter incident in Britain, but considering the amount of cruelty he was subjected to by his mother's boyfriend, I'd say it would be kinder if he was aborted.

    Probably would care; unlike your examples, the foetus isn't an actual human being yet.
     
  5. Tim the turtle

    Tim the turtle Happy Mudkip

    Let's say that this is the case, then what is wrong with choosing personal comfort? A very famous analogy was used by Thomson to argue this scenario. Say that oone had been kidnapped by a society of music lovers who need you to save a dying violinist. This violinist needs your blood to survive and you must be hooked up to him permanently for nine months so that he might live. Most moral philosophers agree that in this case the kidnapped person would not have a moral obligation to save the violinist because it is a massive affront to her right to control her own body. We might say that saving the violinist is a good thing to do, but we would not say that it is something you have to do. This scenario works well enough with a bona fide person such as the violinist, add into the equation that the foetus may not even be a person at the time of abortion and it becomes very hard to argue against the rights of the mother to abort in cases of rape.

    If this is the case, wouldn't allowing the birth to occur if it's at great risk to the mother's life be effectively giving the foetus the right (by dint of allowing it's existence that could be easily terminated) to take the mother's life. Many people would argue that it is perfectly moral to take the life of another person if they are being directly threatened by the other person, hence why many people beleive that soldiers are still moral individuals, as are those who kill in other forms of self-defense. To claim that no one has any right to take a life in any circumstances is a dangerously hardline approach to morals.
     
  6. Ethan

    Ethan Banned

    I'm pretty sure among nearly every nation and most conservatives, abortion is permissable in the case which it endangers the mothers life.
     
  7. Tim the turtle

    Tim the turtle Happy Mudkip

    I'd like to think so, but some of the people I've encountered...

    But yes, in terms of law that usually is the case you're right.
     
  8. Vernikova

    Vernikova Champion

    That already happens though and I still don't care. I might take notice of it when the fetus is in the outside world though so until then . . . .
     

Share This Page