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

The Great Big Abortion Debate (READ THE FIRST POST!)

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by TheFightingPikachu, Feb 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Manafi's Dream

    Manafi's Dream フェアリータイプタイム

    All right, I'll step down. That is a pretty legit source, so I won't argue.

    I will still say, however, that people should have the right to make their own decisions. I personally would never choose abortion, but if someone else does, what good reasons do I have to interfere in their business? If they want to kill off their kid, they can do it. If they didn't do it through abortion, who's stopping them from doing it after the baby is born?
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  2. Malanu

    Malanu Est sularus oth mith

    You don't have to stop supporting pro abortion but just know there is credible sources to support when Life does begin. I know and accept the information I provided, but I still feel its not my place to stop someone from having an abortion if they so choose, They just really need to accept/understand what it is they are planning on doing, and proceed if that is still their decision.

    Your edit Ninja'd me!
  3. Manafi's Dream

    Manafi's Dream フェアリータイプタイム


    That's exactly how I felt in the first place. I just don't share the same opinion as that college. I will, however, respect their credibility and not argue with their points.
  4. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    It's funny that you quoted Profesco's rule, because I was actually referring to one of Profesco's posts. I can't find it, because of how old it is, but he said that humans, unlike zygotes, are sentient. (Manafi actually reminded me of the word.) Profesco also said something about different colored clothes, and how you need to have a way to categorize them so that you don't clump them all as one color.
  5. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    I have 2 problems with this actually. 1. The mother should be acting to protect the life, it's what a parent does. 2. There are two parents. The father should also share the responsibility of looking after the unborn baby.

    I set this up for those wanting to find Profesco's posts in this thread: http://www.serebiiforums.com/search.php?searchid=363850
  6. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

  7. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    Hmm, in that case, try Advanced search -> Single content type search, then search for posts by Profesco in a thread with over 1750 replies in the Debate Forum, and show all results as posts. That should get you all of his posts in this thread.
  8. mattj

    mattj .

    What I'm getting at isn't that being alive makes abortion unjustifiable. What I'm getting at is that human zygotes are verifiably alive. As Malanu pointed out, acknowledging that scientific fact alone does not forbid abortion under any circumstances. I myself accept that abortion can be justified under certain circumstances. But it really is a scientific fact that freshly fertilized human eggs absolutely do meet every criteria for life.
    You know as well as anyone else that sentience cannot be a requirement for life. Numerous life forms are not sentient and humans are not sentient at various times for various reasons. Sentience has nothing to do with whether or not a human zygote is alive.

    Again, can you show us any post where the question of which qualification for life a human zygote does not meet was answered? The fact is, I haven't dodged questions in this thread. The other side continues to dodge them. Concerning this example, the claim has been made over and over again that human zygotes are not alive (search the word "alive" in this thread). But when asked to show which qualification they don't meet, they just move on to another objection to the pro-life movement, usually, skin cells or bugs, (which is then refuted, at which point they move on to another objection, which is then refuted, repeat, repeat, repeat).
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  9. Manafi's Dream

    Manafi's Dream フェアリータイプタイム

    Ok, so what if the father was:
    a. a drugee
    b. a drunk
    c. physcially abusive
    d. the mother's rape victim
    e. (and this is probably most common) not there, because he doesn't want to step up to the plate?

    You're going to say that fathers, as a blanket rule, should have a say in their babies' lives no matter what? I'm sorry, but in a country where young pregnant women more often have to fend for themselves, the father just can't have the same say as the mother.

    Most mothers do protect their children. Yes, it is what they do, but some women have reasons for not wanting to raise a child:
    a. not wanting the baby to interfere with their career
    b. not being mature enough to handle the responsibility
    c. just doesn't want the baby

    Again, arguing that a zygote is alive is irrelevant, because you will never be able to sense that you are pregnant within 5 days of the egg and sperm attaching to one another. The zygote is only called the zygote for 5 or so days until it becomes the blastocyst. I've answered your question already by showing you that this whole argument is extraneous, but rather than respond to this, you are the one who is actually ignoring me!

    If you really think you're not dodging questions, then answer this:

    Why, after all this argument, do YOU feel that YOU should interfere with the personal decisions of a complete STRANGER? The person neither knows you nor you know her, and yet here you are telling her what she can and cannot do with her baby. Why exactly is it ok to do this? And don't say: because the zygote is alive! We've been through this, I've practically derailed your argument, so answer me straight-forwardly.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  10. mattj

    mattj .

    I already have. Multiple times here in this thread. I can and should interfere with the personal decisions of a complete stranger concerning abortion for the same reason I can and should interfere with the personal decisions of a complete stranger concerning murder, rape, incest, or any other act that harms a living human being. I'm sure you agree that we can legislate what a mother can and cannot do with her toddler? We can't throw toddlers off bridges now can we? Then why couldn't we tell a mother, regardless of whether we know her or not, that she can't kill her unborn child?

    I tired of typing "freshly fertilized egg" so I typed "zygote" instead. Of course they're not the same thing. My argument covers fertilization to birth.

    you haven't nearly derailed my argument in the slightest

    i'm not sure what you're talking about there
  11. Manafi's Dream

    Manafi's Dream フェアリータイプタイム

    That's exactly the point. The child is unborn, so it isn't the same thing as a 17 year old teenager being mugged and shot, or an old woman being strangled to death by her son (wow, messed up, right?). A toddler is different, because it is no longer in the stomach of the mother and would not have to rely solely on her to make their decisions. A toddler has passed the trials of labor and thus has the same rights as any other human, but an unborn child isn't exactly considered a citizen or, to be quite frank, alive by any outside party, like the government. What, do you want us to give birth certificates and social security numbers to unborn children? If they have the same rights as people already born and living outside of their mothers' wombs, then why not count them in the census every 10 years? Heck, let's go ahead and put them on the Gerber Life program. You see where I'm going? An unborn baby is simply that: a baby who has not yet been guaranteed life.

    I'm not supporting murder, rape, or incest (only one of which by definition is actually taking another person's life), but I am supporting equal opportunities for the living, and by giving the right to live to unborn babies, you are taking the most unalienable right that belongs to every man and woman: the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even they find that happiness by depriving the world of a newborn child (who could happen to be the next Einstein, but oh well).

    Save yourself the trouble and just call it a baby. Better yet, save everyone the trouble and just stop trying to prove a point that can't win.
  12. Scriptor Scorpio

    Scriptor Scorpio Science Hero

    I tried to cut every non-vital part of the very first post.

    I. Pro-Choice Arguments
    The pro-choice side stands for abortion being basically legal. Though there may be some who would limit abortion, most stand for abortion on demand. In this view, an individual abortion does not need its own justification. Legally, a woman doesn't need to give a reason why she wants an abortion—if she wants it, she gets it. The very label "pro-choice" indicates this, and the fetus does not have any rights. It is fairly safe to say that just about any pro-choice advocate will cite one of the following five arguments in support of abortion being basically legal.

    A. The Main Four Arguments for Abortion
    The first four arguments are used much more commonly than the last one, and the they are also very easy to dismantle when compared to the last one.
    (1) A fetus is not alive
    Let's be clear: it obviously matters whether a fetus is alive. If it were true that a fetus is not alive, it could not be killed. It would be a mistake to object to killing something that isn't alive in the first place.

    But a fetus is alive. This is beyond question. Even before conception, the two reproductive cells are alive. Thus, the argument that a fetus is nonliving may be often repeated—spreading and multiplying in popular discussion—but it is dead wrong. As an argument for abortion being legal, it cannot stand.

    (2) A fetus is not human
    Some admit that a fetus is alive, but do not believe that it is human. Like the previous argument, this would clearly make a difference, because most of us understand that killing a cow is not murder. If the fetus is not human, it cannot be entitled to human rights.

    But, just like the previous objection, it is completely false. When two human reproductive cells unite, the result is a fertilized egg with a full set of human genes. Obviously, the fetus is not fully developed before birth, but it doesn't have to be to be human; neither is a seven-year-old, and seven-year-olds are undoubtedly human. One doesn't need to be an adult to be human.

    (3) A fetus is only a part of the mother
    Some come very close to realizing that a fetus is a human by saying that it is merely part of a human. If a fetus were merely an extension of the mother, abortion would be no different than removing a kidney or an arm. Having one's tonsils out or having an amputation is not killing anyone, only removing a part of the body. The implied right of privacy (first cited in Roe v. Wade) plays prominently in this argument, since a woman has control over her own body, and if she needs an arm or an appendix removed by a surgeon, the government shouldn't be interfering.

    Just like the previous two, it would make sense if it were true, but the fetus is not simply a part of the mother. It has some of the mother's DNA, that's for sure, but it also has some of the father's DNA. Your arm has your DNA (which you inherited from both your parents), not yours mixed with someone else's. A fetus is not part of a human, it is a human.

    (4) A fetus is a parasite
    Some see no problem with getting rid of a fetus because they call it a parasite. It is inside another life form, it gains energy from the mother, and often causes other undesirable effects like morning sickness. Who would argue that a mosquito should be protected?

    Before anything else, I want to point out how it blatantly contradicts two of the previous objections. Since only living things can be parasites, the idea of a nonliving fetus is incompatible with the parasitism argument. Also, a part of your body, like an arm or kidney, can never be a parasite even if it becomes dreadfully diseased. Therefore a fetus cannot simultaneously be a part of the mother and a parasite of the mother.

    Of course, not only do the people who use the parasitism argument need to make up their minds, they also need to get their facts straight. A fetus is not a parasite. Here are the definitions of "parasite" and "parasitism," as defined by Merriam-Webster's dictionary:



    Since a parasitic relationship must be between two organisms of different species, a fetus is not a parasite. Also, parasites usually enter the host from outside, while a fetus is born from reproductive cells—one of which is the mother's own. A fetus isn't taking energy from its host, and in fact the mother's body helps nourish the fetus. The relationship between a parasite and its host is fundamentally different from the one between a mother and offspring. (When parents are frustrated by their teenager eating them out of house and home, they might use the term in a humorous way that we know better than to take literally!) If a mother doesn't want the fetus, that doesn't make it a parasite. The sole purpose of calling a fetus a parasite is to make it sound like it has done something worthy of death, which is self-serving and revisionist. A fetus is offspring, and offspring are not parasites of their mothers.

    - - -
    The four preceding pro-choice arguments are fundamentally inaccurate. Perhaps that is why some attempt to patch them up by saying that these words have different meanings than their ordinary definitions. Consider the following three statements, especially noting the bold emphasis I've added:

    These quotes, particularly the last one (since when does the law take into account souls?), show people on the pro-choice side reduced to whining about the fact that the oft-repeated "fetus is not human" argument is poorly-reasoned garbage. A "metaphorical sense" of the word "human"? Please forgive me for thinking that this sort of hedging has no place in rational discussion. The ordinary definition should suffice.

    However, those who make these objections often have at the back of their minds a different pro-choice argument entirely, and that introduces us to the personhood argument.

    B. The Personhood Argument
    (5) A fetus is not a person
    Some argue that without certain higher-order thoughts, a fetus is not a person. To be a person, you need self-awareness, rationality, and some specific emotional capabilities. A fetus, it is argued, is neither self-aware, nor rational, nor capable of advanced emotions.

    I will wait to describe why this is supposed to matter. Before that, here are a few important challenges to the non-personhood of the fetus:

    First, note that the personhood argument is stated dogmatically. However, it may be worthwhile to note that the other four arguments are sometimes stated in less-dogmatic versions. For example, "We don't know when life begins," "We don't know when the fetus becomes human," etc. Thus, the personhood argument might be exaggerated, in which case it would be better stated, "We don't know when a fetus becomes a person." This removes a lot of the sting of this argument, since its whole point is that persons have certain rights (including a right to life). If the fetus might be a person, then it might have rights that abortion would violate.

    Second, when does a fetus become a person? Is it a person several days before birth? A few days after the start of the third trimester? Could it be before the third trimester? If a fetus has to become a person, the point at which it does is absolutely crucial to this argument, and the personhood argument itself indicates that no abortions should happen after that point.

    Third, with the fetus in a location that strongly hinders interaction with other persons, it's kinda hard to show that it couldn't start emoting or interacting rationally (on a newborn's level or slightly less) if it were outside its mother. Even a fetus three days before birth hasn't really interacted with the world. Thus this whole argument may reduce to "a fetus is in a location where it can't interact in certain ways." Of itself, it might not really be incapable of interacting using certain emotions.

    Fourth, it is not clear that personhood can be gained or lost. When a child is two hours old, it can't use language, it's reasoning is certainly minimalistic at best, and near-constant crying is not evidence of empathy. (And "self-aware" might be a poor label for some newborns.) I'm not sure a fetus can be excluded from personhood so easily.

    However, since I've already hinted at why the personhood argument is thought to matter to its proponents, I'll explain that with a quote:

    In the bold emphasis I've added, you see the foundation of the personhood argument. You also see its chief flaw. Just about everyone agrees that plenty of non-persons have rights and deserve moral consideration. I know of no one who would argue that a dog is a person, but dog fighting is rightly outlawed. We should have no problem recognizing that a fetus should begiven more consideration than a dog.

    Some argue that the law is species-ist if something like a cow can be killed while a fetus can't. "Why should the law favor humans?" they ask. Yet the laws of just about every nation favor humans, since no nations of which I am aware allow animals to, say, own property or enter into business contracts. The decision in Roe v. Wade was supposed to be based on language in the Constitution; it was not ostensibly an interpretation designed to radically change how we view the relationship between human and animal rights. And it is also significant that no one seems to question the general use of the phrase "human rights" except in an abortion debate.

    Therefore, while the first four pro-choice arguments were completely false, the fifth is uncertain but irrelevant, unless one assumes incorrectly that persons are the only ones who have rights according to the law.

    II. Pro-life Arguments​

    Many pro-life arguments have been distorted by pro-choice debaters. Often the pro-life side is accused of trying to impose a religious viewpoint on the nation. These errors are due in part to some pro-life debaters carelessly stating their arguments and due in part to many pro-choice debaters not paying attention. As you will see, pro-life arguments do not require the acceptance of any religious position. I want to state up-front that my argument is not based on the existence of souls. This was a major issue about which I disagreed with the basic premise of the one past abortion debate. Since when do laws make mention of souls? (As far as I'm aware, none do.) If no law makes mention of souls, and if some people doubt they exist, the debate must proceed on other grounds—and it can.
    A. Abortion is homicide
    Most of the evidence for this position has already been outlined above, in the responses to the main four pro-choice arguments.

    First, a fetus is a separate human. It has a full set of human genes and it is not a part of its mother.

    Second, the intentional killing of a human is homicide. Homicide is illegal except in those cases where it has sufficient justification. One example of justifiable homicide would be self-defense.

    A few aspects of this argument must be noted immediately. (1) Note that I use the term "fetus." This term applies to an unborn child from about two months after conception (until birth). Other words, like "zygote" or "embryo," could have been used, but I wasn't attempting to limit my argument to early-term abortions. And though some may argue that it doesn't happen (as we'll discuss later on), there is apparently no law stating that abortions must be performed early. It seems quite a few of them are performed (perfectly legally under Roe v. wade) long after the unborn child reaches the stage of development where it is called a fetus.
    (2) Note that I described abortion as "intentional killing." Though some pro-choice debaters have tried to apply pro-life arguments to spontaneously-aborted fetuses, obviously no one can make it illegal for them to die naturally! Intent differentiates types of homicide and degrees of murder. Intent matters.
    (3) Note that I described the fetus as "a separate human." As discussed above, a fetus is not part of the mother. Even some generally reasonable debaters seem unable to see this distinction, thinking that pro-life arguments would prohibit the killing of each of our individual cells. Yet there is a difference between something being human (i.e., a human arm, a human cell), and being a separate human. A fetus is separate. An arm is not. Furthermore, as discussed above, a fetus obviously doesn't have to be an adult human in order to be a human.
    (4) Since I'm sure some will be thinking this because of what I just said, note that I didn't say a fetus was "a human being." As I found out, many pro-choice debaters take the term "human being" to mean "human person." The use of the term "human being" seems to be the whole reason that people objected to the new Missouri law that we discussed in our previous abortion debate (at least as far as the Huffington Post article indicated). However, the word "being" is not quite so specific, as some dictionary entries should demonstrate. In my opinion, the different uses of "human being" make the phrase ambiguous and thus not useful for this debate.

    B. Potential justifications for abortion
    Even though few seem to acknowledge that abortion is homicide, some seem subconsciously aware that individual abortions may need independent justification, so they offer reasons applying to individual cases. However, it is often assumed that almost all abortions are requested for essentially good reasons. For example, as one user has said,

    This makes a straw man out of the pro-life position; homicide is no laughing matter. Few if any would argue that women are actually getting abortions just for fun, but that doesn't prove that the reasons offered justify the abortion, nor that all or even most abortions are requested by women who are truly desperate. It matters whether homicide is justified, not whether the women think they need it.

    I do not hesitate to say that in cases where it is certain that neither the mother nor the fetus will survive delivery, abortion is justifiable homicide. This self-defense may be a sad matter, but it is clearly justified. In cases where the fetus can survive delivery, but the mother will not, this is still self-defense even if it is a difficult choice to make.

    Other reasons may not be quite so clear, but I still have a great deal of sympathy for them. If a woman is raped, I do not think killing the fetus is so clearly the right answer, but I don't seek to criminalize abortion in such a case. She is a victim, so I do not argue that the law should require her to carry the baby. However, I never could understand why people cite incest alongside rape as a reason for abortion. (It seems almost an automatic response for some.) Could they possibly mean, "A couple, married despite being too closely related by their state’s laws, should be allowed to get an abortion whenever they want"? Most likely, they mean "incestuous rape," so they should probably just say "rape." Some also argue that a mother has the right to abort a fetus that would be born with birth defects. In such cases, I think caution would be better, for it is certainly possible for technology to help overcome difficulties for baby's continued living. In sum, potential justifications for abortion are part of a continuum from "clearly sufficient" to "clearly insufficient."

    There are other commonly cited reasons that are quite clearly insufficient grounds for homicide. For example, is a performing artist who gets pregnant by her own carelessness justified in getting an abortion because she or her managers believe it would ruin her career? Is a woman justified in getting an abortion because she doesn't want people to find out that she had sex with someone? That's not what "justifiable" means. Nor should the father be able to pressure the woman into getting an abortion just because he doesn't want to take care of a child that's partly his responsibility, as we previously discussed. Also, I have anticipated some other reasons that will likely be offered, but I prefer to wait for people to bring these up. Some of these could turn into very interesting sub-debates.

    However, these reasons are frequently offered as reasons for abortion in general, even though these should only apply to specific cases. It seems a lot of people have a tendency to say things like, "What if the woman were raped?" and then to continue by arguing that abortion shouldn't be illegal. Under the current law, abortion on demand is legal, meaning people are defending abortion on demand even if they don't realize it. Organizations like Planned Parenthood repel any attempt to limit abortions to only certain cases, and this easily furthers media stereotypes that make it seem like an "all or nothing" issue when it isn't. I have seen an appreciable number of people on these Forums argue for abortions being legal before a certain time (often the third trimester), yet they do not seek laws making abortion illegal before that time. Sometimes, they outright state that no one believes abortions should be performed after a certain point, even though it's not clear whether any law makes such limits. Since partial birth abortion had to be banned in a 2003 Congressional act that was fought all the way to the Supreme Court, somebody supports late term abortions.

    In conclusion, my argument here is not that absolutely all abortions should be illegal. Since abortion is homicide, I argue that any given abortion needs to be justified independently, and many are not justified. The mother is not justified in killing a fetus just because she does not want it. My fundamental point in this debate is that abortion is basically legal under our current system when it should not be. One can say that a woman should have control of her own body, yet for a fetus to come into existence (except in cases of rape), she had to give up some of that control over her body to some man (and killing the fetus is exercising control over a different body, too). It can only be made to appear as a matter of a woman's choice by rampant misinformation and fallacious reasoning. Instead, it is really about the rights of the fetus.

    Be sure to use terms carefully!
    Terms are important, whether you're talking about carrying a fetus to term, or terminating a pregnancy. *Rimshot* Wordplay aside, you need to be careful to say what you mean. If you say that a fetus isn't alive, people won't understand you if you really mean a fetus doesn't have personhood. Also, some definitions of the word "baby" specifically indicate that the term applies only after the child is born, though others even specifically apply the term to a child in the womb. Finally, as I recommended above, you might want to be careful about using the term "human being"--no matter which side you're on.
    Don't mistake part of someone's argument for their whole argument.
    For example, the fact that a fetus is alive is significant, but it is not intended to be taken on its own! Taking this detail in isolation, some pro-choice debaters ridicule the pro-life view with words like, "You need to quit saying 'all life is sacred!'" Since the status of fetuses as life forms was not the whole argument, and since this puts some Buddhists' words in non-Buddhist mouths, it is an obvious straw man. Also, we can debate whether or at what point a fetus can feel pain (though I probably won't since this sub-debate isn't integral to the issue of homicide), but if this is not someone's whole argument, don't treat it as their whole argument.
    Don't describe pregnancy or delivery with terms of exaggerated horror.
    I understand that carrying a baby is difficult and that delivery can be very painful for many women. I do not seek to downplay these facts. However, some describe these in terms that approach actual torture, almost as though someone is purposely inflicting pain on the woman. It is also wise to remember that some women actually want to have children. It is not honest to describe pregnancy or delivery in terms that make them sound like things no woman would want to endure. Some also state that abortion can be more painful than delivery, making the whole argument from painful childbirth self-refuting.
  13. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    I never said that zygotes aren't alive. I simply said that there's a big difference between them and humans because they lack sentience.
  14. mattj

    mattj .

    ^ Adult humans often lack sentience.

    This is what we call "moving the goalpost". Your question was "Why should I be able to legislate that a woman I don't know can't choose to abort her unborn child. The point was that I don't know her, therefore I have no right to intrude on her decision. I pointed out that we already legislate concerning myriad people and situations that don't directly relate to us (murder, rape, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). You made the claim that because I'm not involved in her pregnancy I can't have a say in what she does or does not do. I pointed out that we already have a say in what other people do or do not do, regardless of whether or not we're involved. You moved on to another point.

    Try keeping track of how many pro choice arguments are plainly refuted. That's two down (its not alive, its none of your business). Keep them coming.
    Why isn't it the same tihng as a 17 year old getting shot or a woman being strangled? Its a living human being being killed. Sounds the same to me.

    And if you're keeping track that's three down.
    Why would being inside the womb make any difference concerning abortion? Its generally accepted that post 22 weeks most unborn children are completely viable outside the womb. Why should a baby that only gestated 22 weeks and then was born have the right to life, while a baby that has gestated 40 weeks, and is further developed than that 22 week-along baby not have the right to life?

    That's four.
    Kids have to rely solely on their parents to make decisions until they're at least pre-teens. And legally until they're 17 or 18, depending on where they live. My 7 month old son relies solely on my wife and myself atm. My 5 year old daughter less so, but considering she's autistic, still to a great degree. I have a 2nd cousin who is severely (and I do mean severely) mentally retarded. He's nearly a vegetable. He relies completely on his parents for nearly everything. I guess he can breathe and poop on his own. But unborn children do that too. I can't see how having to rely on your parents for food/shelter/direction/whatever should deny anyone the right to life.

    That's 5.
    Untrue. Many children, including both of mine, never went through any labor of any kind. Labor cannot be a requirement for the right to life.

    That's 6.
    Unborn children are considered to be alive by myriad outside parties, including the American College of Pediatrics, as well as some states, and in some cases the Federal Government of the United States. No one who knows anything about early life biology believes that unborn children are not alive. We've already been through this.
    The only reason we don't give them to them now is because there's a high chance that unborn children will not survive. Many pregnancies end in miscarriages. In the early years when the death rate for very young children was much, much higher, we didn't count them in censuses either.

    That's 7.
    I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
    if you support equal opportunities for the living


    and you understand that unborn humans are, in fact, alive





    I'm sure you'll disagree with some of the points I've made in this post. That's completely understandable. What's not understandable is this idea that the pro-life side of the argument is the losing side of the argument. You've made claims (its okay because unborn children aren't alive/well what about skin cells/its none of your business). I've pretty plainly shot them down (um... yes they are alive/skin cells do not contain the necessary information/we all legislate other issues that don't involve me).

    I can't make choices for you, but at what point do the number of arguments in favor of abortion that are just plainly shot down finally cause you (not you, but anyone in general) to question their strongly held positions? How many arguments do you (not you, but anyone in general) have to see shot down before you'll really think over whether or not abortion is justifiable (or when it is justifiable)?
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  15. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    Well, if the father was going to be a threat, or otherwise a nuisance, instead of supportive, then you might have exceptions to that. I'm just stating what parents are normally supposed to be doing for their child. It's when they do the exact opposite that I get angry.
  16. Iceberg

    Iceberg A human

    Name one benefit of an unwanted pregnancy. Conjoined twins are different because both are sentient. A mother is sentient and a zygote is not

    You really are quite rude aren't you? Did I ever say that scientists sprinkle magic dust onto skin cells? No, I didn't. Grow up. The debate forum rules clearly say not to put words in your opponents mouth that they didn't say. Especially something as ridiculous as the things you make me out to say. Scientists take the DNA of any cell and put it into a womb. This is clear then that zygotes aren't so special.

    It shares 50% of her nucleic DNA and 100% of her mitochondrial DNA. I never said the zygote shares all of her DNA.

  17. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    No, not just the DNA, but whatever parts of the zygote (or later stage unborn child) uses the DNA to carry out the functions of growth etc. The DNA is data, effectively, but a brain is more than the data that it uses.

    I can agree with you on the 'model society issue'.

    IMO, the best solution is to pass laws that protect people's lives as much as possible first, be it laws against killing, speeding, abortion etc. There are already plenty of restrictions placed on people's freedoms in order to save lives. Abortion is a far trickier grey area for lots of people, but for me, restricting it is the same as saying people cannot just go around killing other people for whatever reason, or that you can drive at any speed for whatever reason etc.
  18. mattj

    mattj .


    You could, you know, google "benefits of pregnancy" or something but
    Conjoined twins are not always sentient. I suppose in the times when one twin is not cognisent, you believe the other should have the right to take its life? Or do you realize that the lack of sentience cannot possibly justify the death of a living human?
    I suppose you've never heard of a figure of speech. I tire of typing out "and the scientist removes the DNA and blah blah blah. Calm down.
    And what do they put it in? Hmmmmm..... xD
    What did they put it in? Oh. A freshly fertilized egg cell. I.E. A zygote. I guess zygotes really are special. Turns out any old cell won't do the trick. Its gotta be a zygote. If you seriously think scientists shove any old cell in a vagina and *poof* a clone comes out, you seriously don't have even the most basic understanding of how cloning works.
    You compared a zygote to a cell in your body. Cells in your body contain 100% of your DNA. So....
    Lol. No they don't. Adult humans are not sentient at various times and for various reasons. What makes a human a human, and not a dog or a rock, is their DNA. Sentience has literally nothing to do with being human or not.
    A possibility shouldn't trump human life. But as is plain to see, freshly fertilized human eggs are both human and alive.
  19. Iceberg

    Iceberg A human

    That's just it though, a zygote, which is only a bunch of cells, has cell organelles and DNA. Just like any other cell. By the time that the unborn child has a functional brain even I would contend that abortion is a little immoral. I wouldn't impose this on other people though.

    This is exactly the issue. The solution you suggested is based on your opinion, just as many of my ideas are. In general I am for freedom. I know what you mean when you say that freedom needs to be limited to protect human lives, but the issue of whether or not a fetus is a living human is opinion for the most part. Therefore, IMO the best solution is to let people make their own decisions on what is moral and what is not.

    That article doesn't provide much. It just says in a very vague sense that pregnancy can have positive benefits, but doesn't give any scientific evidence. To me, throwing up constantly, stretching your skin to the point of it being scarred forever, vulnerability to disease and infection, ripping your vagina by shoving a object between the size of a football and a watermelon through it, the emotional torment of laboring for a child you didn't want, and the fact that you won't be able to work seems a lot worse than "hormones that make you feel energized". I have never seen an energized pregnant woman, probably because they spent all night vomiting.

    If the non-sentient twin has a negative impact on the sentient twin just as an unwanted baby has on a mother, the sentient twin/mother should have the right to decide to get rid of it. If we are going to decide that organisms without sentience deserve to live than we'll have to stop killing cows, chickens, and pigs. Since they have flowing blood and a functioning brain. The only difference is the aforementioned animals are not sentient.

    I never said they didn't. I was arguing your claim that any cell doesn't contain the material to create an organism. The fact that the genetic material from any cell can be used proves my point. Also, the only reason the zygote grows is because it is attached to the uterus' wall. I.e. completely relying on the mother and only growing because it is part of her.

    And when did I say they were identical? That's right I didn't. Comparing and suggesting two things are identical are two very different things.

    In your opinion sentience has nothing to do with being human. Look back a couple of pages and you'll find a post by me linking to an article about what Harvard scientists concluded makes humans so special. They concluded it was four types of thinking we are capable of that other animals are not. I.e. sentience. Your argument is weak at best since chimps have 97%+ DNA identical to any human (some were recorded to have 98-99% similarities). Bananas have 20% identical human DNA. A bunch of nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, and oxygen atoms arranged in a certain way doesn't make our lives so important. The same argument could say suggest that dogs are special because of their dog DNA. Break it down and it is the same elements.

    I felt the need to highlight this because of how ridiculous it is. Rocks don't have DNA, in case you didn't know. If you did, it was awfully misplaced in this statement.

    So something without lungs, a heart, a brain, veins. blood, emotions, feelings, brain wave activity, sentience, or any other organ/basic function is a living human. The only thing human about it is it's DNA. My dead uncle has human DNA too. So does the blood I bled earlier today. Also, don't state you opinions as facts. A good percent of the population would disagree that a cell is a living human being and therefore demands the right to ruin an actual human's life.

    I have a question for you. It is obvious that you think abortion is wrong. It is also obvious that other people don't. So why do you think your opinions/beliefs should be able to trump others? Why do you think laws should be made because some people feel that way? What gives you the right to dictate how others live? Why should you be able to ruin a woman's life? You don't like abortion? Fine. I'm not saying you have to get one. I'm mostly defending the freedom of other people, people who disagree abortion is immoral and/or do not thing zygotes are deserve full rights, to live their lives how they want.

    If society was to be the way you would have it, interracial marriages wouldn't be allowed. Why? Because some people thought they were immoral and didn't like them.
  20. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    That website makes pregnancy seem like a super power. I have no idea why a woman wouldn't want to be pregnant all the time. They are just taking for granted the ability to create life and have super powers. Curse you contraception!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page