• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Abortion, Right or Wrong?

ChedWick

Well-Known Member

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
fetusus is part of the living body, the bigger pictue in devolpoment.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

The Doctor

Absolute Beginner
Say a man had his house robbed and the thief got a hold of his credit cards, and then bleeds his bank account dry. In order to maintain the man's personal comfort, should he go rob his neighbor/a bank? Doing so would help him greatly. He wouldn't lose his way of living, and his family wouldn't suffer.

It is the same with abortion. It's the same with almost any negative situation. Something bad happens. You try to fix it. But with some situations, like having your bank accounts robbed, you can't fix it without a drastic action. In the case of theft it is thievery. In the case of rape it is abortion. Abortion is murder for personal comfort. Wouldn't you say that relieving yourself of the pains of rape is personal comfort?

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.

I personally don't care what they have to "think" about. Usually the root of it is selfish, and thoughts of putting the child in a "bad" world is an excuse to cover up the reality of the situation.

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.

Your argument falls apart at the last sentence. If you do not care if a mother would murder her unborn baby for any reason, would you care if she murdered her newborn? Her toddler? Her disrespectful teenage son or lazy husband?

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

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
In the case of rape it is abortion. Abortion is murder for personal comfort. Wouldn't you say that relieving yourself of the pains of rape is personal comfort?
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.

People enjoy life, and NOBODY should have the right to take it from the people.
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.
 

Ethan

Banned
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.

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

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.
 

Vernikova

Champion
Slightly Insane said:
Your argument falls apart at the last sentence. If you do not care if a mother would murder her unborn baby for any reason, would you care if she murdered her newborn? Her toddler? Her disrespectful teenage son or lazy husband?

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 . . . .
 
Top