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

[CSolarstorm]

A penis, on the other hand, is part of a man, and there is at least one big restriction on what we can do with it, such as not using it to have sex with women that don't want it.

Well first, a woman is not allowed to rape someone with their body, either, so logically that comparison is moot.

Second, by omitting women from the subject of involuntary sex, your statement implies men face some unique obligation not being able to rape that women don't. This is worse.

Third, you just don't bring up something that all good men would do anyway, like not raping people, as if they are following some noble responsibility, especially not to use it in an argument to compel a the same group that men are obligated not to hurt, women, to take on an obligation of their own. And you don't use that given point that isn't even on subject in an argument where you compare it to a practice, abortion, that the entire debate is centered around questioning, or it's implied that the legitimacy of rape is questionable. And it's not.

I admit I might be misunderstanding something, but Iceberg said word for word "might as well die". I can't comprehend that. I have family that are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of their reach.

Really? I'm sorry to hear that. There's a possibility that I might have a different standard for human thoughts though, because I've been put next to a lot of delayed people and been shown by professionals the specific signs of human thought behind their exterior. But I understand how hearing those words would be irreconcilable, especially since different people might not be able to see those signs as well as me, and mistakenly think that they are incapable of basic human emotion.

 

[Sadib]

EDIT -
There's a big difference, the baby is a separate entity, even though it is connected to the mother. A penis, on the other hand, is part of a man, and there is at least one big restriction on what we can do with it, such as not using it to have sex with women that don't want it. Unfortunately, that does not stop some people, despite rape being a major crime.

I would have missed this if SunnyC hadn't replied to it, because you edited that part in after I posted my post. Why didn't you just make a new post, instead of making editing an old post? There were two posts after you.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying that abortion should be illegal because rape is illegal?

 

[Manafi's Dream]

Well first, a woman is not allowed to rape someone with their body, either, so logically that comparison is moot.

Second, by omitting women from the subject of involuntary sex, your statement implies men face some unique obligation not being able to rape that women don't. This is worse.

Third, you just don't bring up something that all good men would do anyway, like not raping people, as if they are following some noble responsibility, especially not to use it in an argument to compel a the same group that men are obligated not to hurt, women, to take on an obligation of their own. And you don't use that given point that isn't even on subject in an argument where you compare it to a practice, abortion, that the entire debate is centered around questioning, or it's implied that the legitimacy of rape is questionable. And it's not.

Good grief, I've stirred up some very good trouble and a little bad trouble. Please don't think I ever meant to question the illegality of rape, as this was not my intention. I just wanted to make a point that men aren't told they can't do certain things (OTHER THAN RAPE), so why should women? It's her uterus; if she wants it empty, then she could certainly make it empty.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Good grief, I've stirred up some very good trouble and a little bad trouble. Please don't think I ever meant to question the illegality of rape, as this was not my intention. I just wanted to make a point that men aren't told they can't do certain things (OTHER THAN RAPE), so why should women? It's her uterus; if she wants it empty, then she could certainly make it empty.

Actually I liked your comparison, and I even used something like it before when bringing up The Daily Show segment where they talked about making it illegal to masturbate in order to protect sperm. I'm not looking for trouble with anyone, I'm just disturbed that JDavidC would draw that comparison in specific - I think he turned what you said around when he used rape as an example of something men are not allowed to do with their body. To me it was like, 'well duh.' And so I deconstructed all the problems with him using rape as an example, not in the least the fact that both genders are not allowed to rape. I was a little ruthless in doing it, but if it helps at all, I rewrote the post a few times to seem as neutral as possible, in an effort to not get angry at him personally but just explain how it concerned me.

 

[JDavidC]

@Marioguy: There wasn't much activity (that I saw in this thread) last night for me, so I thought maybe a short edit wouldn't hurt instead of another new post. Maybe that was an idea I just should have scrapped. However, I am not going to say "Rape is illegal, therefore abortions should be illegal.", that isn't my argument.

Anyway, when I said the following:

A penis, on the other hand, is part of a man, and there is at least one big restriction on what we can do with it, such as not using it to have sex with women that don't want it.

(which should have women actually changed to people, to fix a problem I see with it), it was to say there IS a government restriction that applies to what men do with their penises (something women don't have, obviously). I certainly don't think anyone here is condoning actually going through with such behaviour. What I'm trying to say is that I have a problem with unborn children being compared to a male reproductive organ as if they were merely body parts (the latter one is), which was the point of the post. I then pointed out something you obviously CANNOT do with the latter. It isn't meant to be some tactic to make Manafi's Dream look bad BTW, it was purely meant to counter this statement:

Telling a mother what she can't do with her baby is like telling us guys what we can't do with out penises

BTW, I never said in that sentence it was perfectly fine for women to do something like rape either. Maybe this is my Autism getting in the way, but I'm not exactly sure why SunnyC disagrees with what I've said like this. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't be interested in what someone does with their own body, but when someone else has to pay the price, that's when it's different. Abortion is nowhere near as straightforward an issue as we would like it to be.

 

[Iceberg]

This is the core difference between our positions. We value all innocent human life. You only value human life that fits your idea of ideal. There really cannot be reconciliation.

How can you look at severely mentally disabled children and think "meh, they might as well die..."?

That's not really what Iceberg said, though. She said 'if you are so severely retarded that you are beyond basic human thought' than someone's life might not be valuable. All of the mentally disabled people I've known (since I've gone a Special Education school) even if they can't speak, are obviously capable of basic human thought. The only ones that aren't capable of any basic human thought probably fall in the category of people who will be 'vegetables' forever.

She really should have used the word 'vegetable' instead of 'retarded' since anyone that I've ever known as 'retarded' is capable of basic human thought. She does not come off as a Social Darwinist, just pro euthanization. Although you may reject that as well. Are you sure you did not misunderstand her?

SunnyC is right. I should have used the term vegetable. If you are capable of human thought then you should only be euthanized if you want to (there is a very interesting case in the Canadian courts right now about a severely ill woman fighting for the right to die, since she is so much pain). However, if you are a vegetable and will never have any thought, there isn't much point for you to live. Unless you have a someone (family/friend) who is willing to take care of you completely, why live? You cannot think, you cannot feel, you cannot do anything. You'll just be a drain on the system. This is the same as an unwanted fetus. If the fetus' parents want to take care of it, or have a friend/family member/etc. that is willing too take care of it, than abortion is not really necessary. But if the fetus is unwanted and nobody will care for it it will only drain the system and above all else, have a miserable life. So why not end the fetus while it cannot feel or think. I know there is adoption, but orphanages are pretty full nowadays. On top of that the world is over-populated enough.

I admit I might be misunderstanding something, but Iceberg said word for word "might as well die". I can't comprehend that. I have family that are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of their reach.

I did mention in my post a point which you blatantly ignored in the quote you took out. My point was that is there is someone that loves and cares for the severely retarded than there is no reason for them to die. My point was that if they are alone in the world and surviving off of peoples hard-earned tax payers' dollars than there isn't much of a point for the non-sentient to live. You conveniently ignored this from your signature though. I'm sure you could edit any speech with quotes like you did to make the person out to be something they are not. In fact, just for fun I'm going to edit a bunch of Hitler's speeches to make him sound like a real nice guy.

Even if I was pro-life, I would still agree with you on this point. While a fetus has potential to be something, a severely retarded person does have potential to be anything.

I see that mattj has literally put you on the record by quoting you in his sig. He did this to me once also. Unfortunately, I don't think it's against the rules. Either that, or Profesco really doesn't care. What I did was put in my sig a quote with the last paragraph of this vm from a mod on the Zelda Universe Forums. This was during one of mattj's bans from ZU. They have stricter rules there.

It was always my goal in life to be misquoted in someones signature. I'm flattered that I pissed mattj off so much I earned a place in his rank. After all, to quote Eminem "God sent me to piss the world off"

 

[Kaiserin]

I did mention in my post a point which you blatantly ignored in the quote you took out. My point was that is there is someone that loves and cares for the severely retarded than there is no reason for them to die. My point was that if they are alone in the world and surviving off of peoples hard-earned tax payers' dollars than there isn't much of a point for the non-sentient to live. You conveniently ignored this from your signature though. I'm sure you could edit any speech with quotes like you did to make the person out to be something they are not. In fact, just for fun I'm going to edit a bunch of Hitler's speeches to make him sound like a real nice guy.

Although I'm not really thrilled to be defending this, let me draw a comparison: let's say there is an autistic person who graduated high school, but is unable to attend/finish college for various reasons, or hold a job for long periods. So somewhat low-functioning, I suppose, but certainly not debilitated enough to lack self-awareness. Let's also say there is a man who lives alone on welfare; he's getting up very close to retirement age, but is depressed to the point of being almost incapacitated. He has no remaining family, or the remainder is all estranged, and for the most part, he's a quintessential picture of the hermit old people who live on top of the hill in huge, creepy mansions that kids often go to TP on Halloween.

Although the autistic is almost assuredly never going to marry and is going to rely on his caretakers his whole life, he is capable of complex thought, if not in the same vein as others. So is the older man, but he, like you said above, has no one to love him. He's shuttered himself up completely, and is too depressed to bring himself to come out of it to boot. Both are living off government aid.

Should we euthanize either of them, withdraw their benefits, or do something else? Why, then? Because of disabilities, because of age, or because of who they have left in their lives?

 

[Iceberg]

Although I'm not really thrilled to be defending this, let me draw a comparison: let's say there is an autistic person who graduated high school, but is unable to attend/finish college for various reasons, or hold a job for long periods. So somewhat low-functioning, I suppose, but certainly not debilitated enough to lack self-awareness. Let's also say there is a man who lives alone on welfare; he's getting up very close to retirement age, but is depressed to the point of being almost incapacitated. He has no remaining family, or the remainder is all estranged, and for the most part, he's a quintessential picture of the hermit old people who live on top of the hill in huge, creepy mansions that kids often go to TP on Halloween.

Although the autistic is almost assuredly never going to marry and is going to rely on his caretakers his whole life, he is capable of complex thought, if not in the same vein as others. So is the older man, but he, like you said above, has no one to love him. He's shuttered himself up completely, and is too depressed to bring himself to come out of it to boot. Both are living off government aid.

Should we euthanize either of them, withdraw their benefits, or do something else? Why, then? Because of disabilities, because of age, or because of who they have left in their lives?

I see where you are coming from. But the difference is that the people you mentioned are capable of thought and therefore their own decision. While yes they are a drain on society, it is an acceptable drain. They are sentient. If one of them became so miserable they wanted to be euthanized, we should let them. The difference between them and a vegetable is the vegetable cannot choose for itself. Just like a fetus. So therefore the choice should be in the caretakers hands.

 

[Scriptor Scorpio]

For the last time, if you don't agree with the rules stated in this thread, stop posting in it. As you can see below, a fetus is alive, human, a separate entity from the mother and isn't a parasite. It cannot be determined if it's sentient or not and an arbitrary boundary for when it is, well, arbitrary.

Imagine if you are debied abortion because for some reason you filed for abortion when the boundary had already been crossed. Ridiculous.

Laws have almost always favored humans, so dragging the rights of animals into this won't help. And when looking at certain laws, both born and unborn non-humans have more rights than a human, born or unborn.

Finally, pregnancy isn't torture in normal cases. Some women actually want to have children, so it can't be that excruciating.

Doing anything against your will for months on end however, if you argue it like so, isn't that great to endure, but not as worse as torture if the torture is the forcing to not abort, but not the pregnancy itself. Pregnancy is hard, but not excruciating. Or else, as I have stated before, I'm ashamed my mother had to bring me into this world. But she would laugh at me being ashamed about such a thing, because it was worth it. Perhaps the pro-choice side is getting at that: they don't get the benefits of the child, because it is given up for adoption. As something like a compensation would seem extremely awry, let's just keep it at accident or rape equals choice of abortion at any point, early or late term?

Even if medicine advances enough that up to freshly fertilized eggs can be transferred from one woman to the other, it cannot be done without the mother's consent to 'save' it from abortion, because the 'egg' has half of her DNA, comparable to a right of privacy that sperm or DNA cannot be taken or used without consent. And we're talking about sperm being used for fertilisation without consent being illegal, unless anyone wants to fight something like that too. Any word about the father's choice or responsibilities in different situations?




- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.
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. 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.

- 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.
First, note that the personhood argument is stated dogmatically.
[...]
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Profesco
If you have these qualities (or whichever qualities the philosophical community comes to a consensus on), you are considered a person, in the sense that you are an agent worthy of moral consideration; if you haven't, you aren't.
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.

[*]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.

 

[blackpeppper]

OK, I think it'd be easier if you respond with all your points later. I'll just say for now that I view the mother and the unborn child as equals, at the very least for the sake of erring on the side of caution.

First of all, I will respond in ways that I feel are appropriate; Wrong, you are not erring on the side of caution, but whatever your unscientific morality likes best, because in reality, woman and fetus are not equals...science proves this fact.


"THIS IS SCIENCE:
HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."

http://galerouth.blogspot.com/

Call pregnancy what you want, but scientifically, pregnancy is an invasion of the woman's body, and she has the right to remedy the situation in ways she feel are best, not you.

Also, with abortion, you ARE taking actions that will harm someone else. In this case, the mother is taking action that will bring harm (actually death) to someone else, the unborn child within her, so it's actually the same kind of thing as with drugs.

AGAIN with this unscientific morality, what you are talking about is a woman choosing to remove an non-sentient, human parasite from HER body; you kill sentient beings everyday, and you don't give a crap about that at all --- and don't pretend you.

And FYI, a fetus is not a child or baby, there is no such thing as an "unborn child" that is an oxymoron and misnomer of the human development chart; It's clear you don't care about SCIENCE at all and loves to using emotional fallacies because you lack an logical argument.

There's a difference between having an abortion and using drug ( legal and/or illegal) while pregnant and knowing it could cause fetal harm and deciding to give birth to the fetus, anyway-- and you that, too.

@blackpeppper - IMHO, you're really grasping at straws with semantics, by using solely the way definitions are written to justify terms such as 'parasite' and 'reproductive slavery'.

Actually, I'm using science and LAW to back up my argument, some people call it being "intellectually honest" ... maybe you should try it, someday.


“When individuals of the same species parasitize individuals of the same species, they are referred to as intraspecific parasites.”
http://krohde.wordpress.com/article/parasitism-an-introduction-to-xk923bc3gp4-51/

Regarding parasites, they just leech, they do not continue the bloodline of the host. The unborn child was created in the mother's womb, and does NOT have a choice to go elsewhere.

OMFG, who are you to tell me that I'm wrong, when YOU don't even know that Conception occurs in the Fallopian tubes, not the uterus?

BTW, A ZYGOTE DOESN'T HAVE THE MENTALLY ABILITY TO CHOOSE ANYTHING --- EMOTIVE WORDS, WILL NOT WORK WITH ME.

Furthermore, it does not 'hijack' the mother's immune system, it sends signals to tell the mother's body a baby that needs care has implanted, there's a world of difference.

LOL, then you prove all those scientists and their peer-reviews studies about how the zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE...wrong.

the links proving my point are at galerouth blogspot com.

Without stuff like this, we would go EXTINCT. There have already been several links to the American College of Paediatrics put in near the end of this thread where scientists that SPECIALISE in growth state that life starts at conception.

Wow, now you are grasping at straws.

THE SPERM AND OVUM ARE ALIVE, SO LIFE DIDN'T START AT CONCEPTION, JUST A NEW HUMAN BEING, AND IT'S A BIOLOGICALLY PARASITE FOR 9 MONTHS TO A WOMAN'S BODY.

the human race is over 7 billion, we are not going EXTINCT anytime soon --- so stop grasping at straws.

Furthermore, IMHO, the law is wrong, the US Supreme Court screwed up Roe vs Wade on a monumental scale, as I have stated before. Only the dissenting judges expressed anything that was common sense.

I don't know what you said before, but what I quoted was about the US' constitution and human reproduction, noting about roe vs wade... AGAIN, so stop grasping at straws.

Pro-choicers really need to stop using such loaded terms as 'parasite' if they want to be taken seriously by a lot of pro-lifers.

LOL, why should want to be taken seriously by you people? you pro-life people lack a logical argument most of the time, use emotional fallacies AND STRAWMANS, and down-play any PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE without proving it wrong ... pro-life people at their hearts are nothing more than CREATIONISTS.

Finally, try to use scientific sources directly, instead of ranting weblogs if you can. If you can't do that, then at least try wikipedia articles that cite scientific papers (I do see you do some of this, though, but not for the science parts). I'm sorry, but I cannot take a source as http://galerouth.blogspot.com seriously at all.

That's funny, since you have yet to prove scientifically that a fetus is NOT a parasite, you didn't know that conception happens in the fallopian tubes ....and I'm not posting all of galerouth's blog on this thread.

deal with it.

 

[Iceberg]

Doing anything against your will for months on end however, if you argue it like so, isn't that great to endure, but not as worse as torture if the torture is the forcing to not abort, but not the pregnancy itself. Pregnancy is hard, but not excruciating. Or else, as I have stated before, I'm ashamed my mother had to bring me into this world. But she would laugh at me being ashamed about such a thing, because it was worth it. Perhaps the pro-choice side is getting at that: they don't get the benefits of the child, because it is given up for adoption. As something like a compensation would seem extremely awry, let's just keep it at accident or rape equals choice of abortion at any point, early or late term?

This is all I ask. I think it is wrong to let a woman get an abortion when she didn't do anything to prevent the baby. Something like rape or a broken condom was out of the woman's control. She tried to prevent the child and therefore shouldn't have to labor for it. If the woman just didn't feel like using a contraceptive, than abortion isn't right.

Even if medicine advances enough that up to freshly fertilized eggs can be transferred from one woman to the other, it cannot be done without the mother's consent to 'save' it from abortion, because the 'egg' has half of her DNA, comparable to a right of privacy that sperm or DNA cannot be taken or used without consent. And we're talking about sperm being used for fertilisation without consent being illegal, unless anyone wants to fight something like that too. Any word about the father's choice or responsibilities in different situations?

This got me thinking about how thus far in the abortion debates I have participated in, nobody has mentioned the father. The father contributed half of the zygote's nucleic DNA. He has a stake in this. So why is all the responsibility being plagued on the mother?

- 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.

While you do have a point, there is a flaw with the argument that a fetus is a person. Firstly, any human cell has a complete set of DNA. Yet nobody objects when you scratch your skin, eliminating untold numbers of human cells. How about every month when a living egg cell passes through a woman's uterus? Is that a crime? That cell had the potential to become a human and a complete set of human DNA, but it's termination is OK? Secondly, it depends on how you define human. IMO, sentience and our thought capability is what makes us human and therefore "worthy" of living. A fetus, just as a vegetable, does not have sentience/advanced thought capability. Therefore, they aren't really human in my opinion.

- 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.

You have a valid point. The fetus has 50% of each parents' nucleic DNA, and 100% of the mother's mitochondrial DNA and cell organelles. So it is more the mother, but your point still stands. However this brings up the instance of conjoined twins. Say a woman gave birth to a child, but the child has a third leg/whatever extra appendage. Turns out, the extra appendage is actually a not completely developed twin - a twin with slightly different DNA being expressed. So the extra appendage has separate DNA from the other twin, therefore according to you not part of the other twin. So then, would the removal and destruction of the extra appendage be immoral? Since it has human DNA unique to itself.

Even then, the fetus is still partially a part of the mother. Since it is physically connected to her and only her.

- 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.
First, note that the personhood argument is stated dogmatically.

That is the problem with most abortion arguments isn't it? They are opinion-based. Such as where life starts. Some say conception, some say brain wave activity, some say a beating heart, some say birth. Arguments can be made for every position. But in the end nothing will be accomplished.

Since the whole abortion arguments are centered on opinions and uncertainties, wouldn't it be wise to side with freedom? Nobody can agree that a fetus is living or not, or is a person, or a part of the mother, etc. If abortion is legal, people will have the right many men and women died for - freedom. Because with abortion legal, if you want an abortion you can get one. If you don't want an abortion because you think they are immoral, you don't have to get one. Pro-choicers are not trying to force everyone to get an abortion - or to conform to their ideals. Pro-lifers are trying to force people to not get abortions - therefore bow to their ideals. If abortion becomes illegal it will take away a woman's freedom. Limiting human rights is a slippery slope, as we all know. Look to the Middle East in countries like Iran, not too long ago women were allowed to go to university and show their hair. Now they're not. Slippery slope.

I have a question for you Scriptor Scorpio. From what I think I understand, you seem to be for abortion in cases of accidents and rape, but against it in all other cases. Am I correct? I wouldn't want to misunderstand.

 

[blackpeppper]

For the last time, if you don't agree with the rules stated in this thread, stop posting in it. As you can see below, a fetus is alive, human, a separate entity from the mother and isn't a parasite. It cannot be determined if it's sentient or not and an arbitrary boundary for when it is, well, arbitrary.

actually, the human fetus is a parasite:

"As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."

http://galerouth.blogspot.com


And the article about the human fetus being non-sentient:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...es-the-fetus-feel-pain-uk-report-says-no.html

Finally, pregnancy isn't torture in normal cases. Some women actually want to have children, so it can't be that excruciating.

That's moot to a fetus being scientifically a parasite and to woman not wanting to be pregnant --thus, getting abortions.

PREGNANCY CAUSES HARM: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

And we're talking about sperm being used for fertilisation without consent being illegal, unless anyone wants to fight something like that too. Any word about the father's choice or responsibilities in different situations?"

What are you talking about? The man has no property rights over the fetus because he has no rights over the woman's body .... slavery is unconstitutional.

I support male abortion, a man's right to legally remove himself from all responsibility towards his biological child.

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.

“When individuals of the same species parasitize individuals of the same species, they are referred to as intraspecific parasites.”
http://krohde.wordpress.com/article/parasitism-an-introduction-to-xk923bc3gp4-51/

a zygote ( foreign invader) is formed from a man's sperm, a foreign invader.

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.

So pregnancy osteoporosis doesn't exist in your world?

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.

Really, I thought calling the human fetus a parasite, is being intellectually honest --- because science proves it.

This is a terrible choice, pro-choicers overvalue the reputational productive life of the woman, as they believe destroying a chance of a succesful career and physical scars is worse than torture.

ACTUALLY, pro-choicers live in reality and we know that a healthy women + wanted pregnancies = healthy babies and that will lead to a more healthier society in later on.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fetus-feels-pain-37-weeks-study/story?id=14472566 ---watch all the videos on this page to see why.

how many children with rad syndrome do you want?

how many abused children or children killed by their parents, do you need?

the last thing a woman who has a unwanted pregnancy needs is to remain pregnant.

Pro-lifers overvalue the life of every single thing and undervalue a the actual possibility that the forcibly non-aborted child will have a happy life. Truth is, if you look at risk analysis, most individuals growing up in an unloving family and a bad neighbourhood will far too many times end up miserable for far too many times in their life.

First of all, pro-lifers don't care life because all of you would of joined the green movement and fight for cleaner food, water and air... we have some of the worst environmental standards in the world --- and I doubt you gave one pregnant stranger a water filer, yet.

SECOND, you don't care about the life of the fetus, because you won't be there to help a pregnant stranger for her pregnancy, labor and delivery, and 18+ of child rising --- you just care about your morality over her.

THIRD, abortion is not about a child growing up --- but a woman wanting to remove her unwanted, human parasite from within HER body.

@blackpepper: I quoted the first post that state the rules, if you don't like them, don't post here. Make your own topic.

REALLY, prove that I broke serebii . net rules --- I just replied to your unscientific claims that a fetus is not a parasite, using science to prove that a fetus IS a parasite.

DON'T GET PISSY WITH ME, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE ME NOR THE SCIENCE WRONG.

But what if it's not a human... Genius! And so the two sides were born.

I never said that the human fetus wasn't human.... it's just a parasite -- prove the science wrong.

Because our political parties are especially known for vetoing everything so they remain strong and they don't move towards 'center', losing any more extremist voters, I strongly oppose distinctive sides, each revelling in their splinter factions pf extremity. But I also detest grey areas where freedom is a dangerous thing. In the grey, the law cannot punish those that go just op the border with the black and spit at it, pardon my drama.

I don't care about politics, just science and law ---abortion existed before America was country and will be here on this earth way after america is gone.

But just like the moral dilemma with smokers using health insurance to treat their lung cancer, we shouldn't allow women to ask for an abortion when they didn't have the responsibility to take contraception. Everything prohibited by law is to try to prevent harm to people, their financial security, their health, animals, the environment, etc. At least, I think it is.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH MANY PRO-LIFERS, YOU PEOPLE WOULD GO ON THESE NON-LEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL TANGENTS TO JUSTIFY YOUR MOVEMENT.

WHO ARE YOU TO DENY MEDICAL CARE TO CANCER VICTIM --- WHEN IT'S ILLEGAL TO DENY PRISONERS TO HEALTH CARE?

and for abortion, reproductive slavery is unconstitutional --- a woman have all the unprotected sex she wants, and have all the abortions she wants --- until she has no uterus left, period.

get over it.

and a woman can always have a natural abortion, anyways --- so your opinion is flawed.

So when a woman refuses to take contraception, use the three-strike system so after the third abortion she is institutionalised untill she is evaluated to be sane enough to be a responsible member of society. No need for sterilising or something like that, just like with prisoners given a life-long jail sentences instead of the chair, the woman is still allowed the ability to reproduce for if someday, in her forties, she is sane enough to use contraception or choose to have children.

I guess I have to repeat the US' constitution, again:


"THIS IS THE LAW:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent."

http://galerouth.blogspot.com


That goes for the male part also ... he has no legal authority over the woman's body, too.


I support male abortion....google what it is.

 

[Profesco]

This thread seems to be getting a bit out of hand. Problems I've been noticing include ad hominem attacks, shifting goalposts, nearly pathological equivocation, talking past one's interlocutors, and a slew of repeat arguments (which would be understandable in a thread this large where new visitors enter late and cannot be expected to read all 1800 replies, but which are also being delivered by veterans).

We'll take a break from this debate for a short time, giving everyone a chance to think more carefully about their arguments while a fresh version is planned and composed.

Sit tight, my impassioned companions!