• 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

Your views on abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't really see how there can be a debate about this. Its the parents choice not anyone else. You can't say what you would do unless you've been through it. The government has no right to tell you what you should do with your kid.

That all being said i don't agree with abortion, but again, its not my choice, nor is it my problem.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of anti abortion people out there (most are religious, surprise, surprise). They say that the baby can't help how it was conceived, which is understandable. It's not how I think though.

As for the serial killing thing, I wasn't saying abortion was like genocide. I was saying that his view that abortion is okay because it helps the environment is a rather screwed up view.

Don't know who's view it is you're attacking, but I'll answer it anyway.

I have the same opinion about helping the environment. Abortion = lower human population.
A lower human population means that there are enough places to live, enough jobs, and not as much pollution. The human population is on the increase. It may end up that carbon emissions, etc. increase.
 
Last edited:

denizenofevil

Well-Known Member
Yes, to be honest. So does letting our people do drugs and alcohol.

Now I'm curious on your views of the death penalty and of of euthanising the extremely disabled and the old. It's easy to say we should get rid of other people's lives to help the environment but I don't see any of the people who say that committing suicide in the name of helping the environment.

ghostanime said:
It isn't a sick or twisted view, because in the end we don't really know what a human being is. There is no real consensus on when it is, and thus we shouldn't force it on people.

I do not understand how you can say that the fetus is not a human being. I can see somebody saying that the fetus isn't capable of thinking but never have I come across somebody who says that the fetus (made of of flesh and blood and containing the genes of its human mother and father as well as its own DNA) may or may not be human. No one forced it on people. Like I said before, they made the conscious decision to have sex.
 
Last edited:

darkjigglypuff

Borderline Troll
How the heck can you determine whether or not it's a human being? Does it have the genetics of a human being? Is it a product of sex being two human beings? If so, it is a child! Quite honestly, your view that the fetus isn't a human being and isn't a child is a sick and twisted view.

As for the serial killing thing, I wasn't saying abortion was like genocide. I was saying that his view that abortion is okay because it helps the environment is a rather screwed up view.

A fetus is incapable of empathy, understanding, reasoning, or even individual though or imagination.

An abortion is basically the same as cutting out a tumor from your body.

By your definition, cancers have the same genetic code of the inflicted individual, thus removing them would be wrong.
 

Lucos

Well-Known Member
We can determine quite easily when a fetus is or isn't a human being.
After 24 weeks we can speak of a human being, because then the organs in the fetus are complete and are starting to function. The fetus can now be considered a baby rather than an embryo, because after 24 weeks it can live on it's own. If anything would happen with the pregnancy and the woman has yo give birth to the child early, if it's after 24 weeks, the baby has a change to survive, since it's organs are (fully) functioning and with some help from the doctors it still would have a change to survive if the woman would give birth to it (even though the changes are small if the fetus is only 24 weeks old).
However, if a woman would give birth to a baby younger than 20 weeks old, there is no way that the "baby" ever will survive, because it's simply not complete yet and it doesn't even look like a baby, it's still an embryo.
It might sound cruel to you, but this is the medical way of determining if a fetus can be considered as a baby or embryo.

It isn't a sick or twisted view, because in the end we don't really know what a human being is. There is no real consensus on when it is, and thus we shouldn't force it on people.

I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, I just want to make accepting abortion a little easier. Besides, what I said is almost exactly what the law says. It's not something I made up.
 
Last edited:

denizenofevil

Well-Known Member
A fetus is incapable of empathy, understanding, reasoning, or even individual though or imagination.

An abortion is basically the same as cutting out a tumor from your body.

By your definition, cancers have the same genetic code of the inflicted individual, thus removing them would be wrong.

Does the tumor have its own identity? Does it have the potential to live on its own? Does it have its own unique DNA?
 

darkjigglypuff

Borderline Troll
Does the tumor have its own identity? Does it have the potential to live on its own? Does it have its own unique DNA?


A tumor is just as real as a fetus. A cancer may not be able to survive on it's own, but then again, a fetus earlier than 24 weeks can't either.

Also, cancerous growths do have slight differentiates from to host's DNA, that's what makes them cancer. But they're still technically human, and almost indistinguishable from the host's own tissues, which is why the immune system won't attack it.
 

Lucos

Well-Known Member
Does the tumor have its own identity? Does it have the potential to live on its own? Does it have its own unique DNA?

Does the embryo have its own identity? No.
Does it have the potential to live on its own? No.
Does it have its own unique DNA? Yes, but so does a tumor.
 

Lucos

Well-Known Member
Here, I've did a little research. I've found out that worldwide almost 70% of all abortions happen before the 12th week. The embryo will not be bigger than this during that period of the pregnancy: click here


PS: To put a little bit more spice in this topic:

What do you people think about human embryo's used in chemical research for new medicine, research in stem-cells and even research in cloning? (no no no don't worry there is no such thing as human cloning, that's not what they do)

I think it's acceptable, because like I said, they aren't human beings yet.
 
Last edited:

Empoleon Bonaparte

Well-Known Member
If one is given the possibility to grow an organism in herself that can save her or a loved one via stem-cells, then I see no reason not to.
I personally think it is better to save a life of someone who actually matters in this world, instead of a creature that does not even have the ability to think yet.
 

IMPERIAL DRAGON

Enemy Of Reality
Ethan.

Resorting to adoption is just a very sorry state of affairs. Orphans obviously have just as much potential to become perfectly successful despite their early disadvantages, but orphanages around the world overflow with unwanted children, and to me that is far more heart breaking than the concept of abortion. In an ideal world, an unwanted child would be born and then given to a couple who actually want it, but adoption only works in theory, otherwise there wouldn’t be an incredible amount of unwanted children out there. Please don’t confuse my views with degrading the worth of life, although I do deeply believe that parenthood is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly, and should only be attempted with the best of intentions. I’m casting no aspersions on what these children may accomplish; it’s not the life I’m undervaluing, but the circumstances. Our world is suffering from over population, and we no longer have to all reproduce to carry on the species, so I say the act of creating life should only reach fruition if full responsibility and integrity is taken, since it should not be attempted half heartedly; human potential is so vital it deserves whatever it takes to see it realised. Obviously new parents will be unsure and learning as they go, but people should not be forced to commit to a child if they made a mistake and are not yet ready to deal with the consequences, and to give a child away is symbolic of the emotions involved, that of passing on that responsibility. But that act must not be underestimated since giving up a child for adoption must be an incredibly stressful and weigh heavily on the conscience, although to me adoption seems far crueller than abortion, not all children live happily ever, they spend years rotting away in a home specifically for unwanted children. Every orphan must one day face that reality, and tread through life with that cross to bear, knowing that their very own flesh and blood would rather toss them aside than love and raise them, that is an horrendous epiphany I’d wish on no one. That is a harsh truth they may learn to work through, but it lingers with them forever, so it would be fair enough if every unwanted child was adopted at birth, but since they’re not, abortion seems some how the rational option.

It’s not directly your fault, but you’ve taken the surge of unwanted children comment out of context, understandably so due to it being a reference to a current British culture and I’m unsure where you’re from. From personal observation, it’s pretty blatant that in this country there is a custom of certain kinds of people having far too many children and taking too little responsibility for their upbringing, the sort of kids who grow into a life of crime and at times gang association, or in other words, the root of anti social behaviour in this country. I’m not suggesting sterilisation or anything that extreme, just my cynical nature is shared by many who think if these yobs were aborted, we’d have a nicer, safer country. China’s one child law does infringe upon personal choice and desire, but it’s undeniable that if every parent thought more carefully about having children before doing so, our society would have fewer flaws. People should heed the saying, any fool with a dick can be a dad but it takes a man to be a father, but this is often cancelled out by the lack of fathers to the youth of today.

Common sense entitles any woman to an abortion, they are by no means obligated to explain or justify why they want to abort, because if they have decided they don’t wish to raise a child, their judgment should be respected since the individual knows the circumstances of their life far better than any do good, pro life bureaucracy could ever imagine. If a woman wishes to go through with an abortion, it should be available to anyone under any circumstances.

You mentioned couples waiting years for a white baby, what of all the non white children?

It’s not a question of who has the right to decide if life or death is the kinder fate, but mother is god in the eyes of a children, and accordingly she has this divine right over her body to create or destroy, she is the most important factor in all this, her will dictates if raising the child/ having an abortion/ giving it up for adoption is the best scenario for mother and child. Everyone else can merely speculate on what is most logical or what most adheres to a person’s set of morals, but ultimately we’re just spectators, the right of the mother must be paramount. Children born into unfortunate lifestyles may not wish for death, but a change in history, perhaps, but as I said, we’re not debating whether or not they should be aborted, it’s all in theory.

Most women who abort do so because it’s inconvenient, not their time to be taking on motherhood. It’s not necessarily down to medical reasons, they’ve asked themselves if they are ready, and if the answer is no, for whatever reason, it’s an intimate decision. Question is when do you consider an embryo a child? For the most part you could say it’s a child in the making and has potential for life, it’s not yet a person as we know it, just in a different state of being.
 

denizenofevil

Well-Known Member
Well, I guess our definition of what is a human being differs. I do believe a fetus is a human being as it can live outside of the mother's body at a certain age. No matter how old that tumor is, it can't. I don't think the embryo should be aborted or used for experiments/research. My view of what defines a human being will always make me vehemently opposed to abortion and I full-heartedly support personal responsibility and accepting the consequences of your choices.
 

Lucos

Well-Known Member
Well, I guess our definition of what is a human being differs. I do believe a fetus is a human being as it can live outside of the mother's body at a certain age. No matter how old that tumor is, it can't. I don't think the embryo should be aborted or used for experiments/research. My view of what defines a human being will always make me vehemently opposed to abortion and I full-heartedly support personal responsibility and accepting the consequences of your choices.

Your choices?

What about rape?
What about a broken condom?
What about becoming ill, therefor the birth control pill doesn't work correctly, therefor you become pregnant although not intended?
 

denizenofevil

Well-Known Member
Your choices?

What about rape?
What about a broken condom?
What about becoming ill, therefor the birth control pill doesn't work correctly, therefor you become pregnant although not intended?

Did you read my earlier posts? I said that in extreme cases (including rape), it is justified to an extent. I also said that when you choose to have sex , you should understand that birth control is not 100 percent effective. If they aren't prepared for pregnancy because of emotional or finances or whatever, they should not have sex. Plus, there are these pill things called plan b. A broken condom is no excuse.
 

IMPERIAL DRAGON

Enemy Of Reality
People like you limit progress with your barbaric out dated views on abortion. Fair enough, you firmly believe in responsibility, I respect that, but what do you have against preventing mistakes from happening? That is the core issue here, since you’re saying if you engage in sex and the contraception fails, tough shit, deal with the consequences, but that’s actually quite naïve of you to ignore further preventative measures. Do you not understand people engage in sex for enjoyment and pleasure, especially now since we can remove much of the risk of pregnancy? Yet you still say deal with the pregnancy as some strange penance for having sex, despite being pregnant is not the final word on the issue? It’s not literally as simple as getting pregnant and having a child as a result; we are able to change that, so how or why can you refuse this opportunity to prevent a problem from escalating? If your attitude is deal with it even if the condom breaks, despite that not being the fault of the people involved, you might as well say don’t bother why contraception to begin with when you’re treating sex as something wholly unnatural and shameful.

I personally think stem cell research is something we desperately need to research further when you consider the sheer amount of possibilities it provides, the misery it can cure and prevent is so vital it’s beyond measure. Why people oppose this is beyond me, they’re standing in the way of progress and it comes from a source that is disposed of anyway, since that’s what happens to aborted embryos, so why throw away what could be put to use to serve humanity.
Euthanasia is a decision much like a mother’s right to abort, it exclusively involves the people in question; it shouldn’t be illegal as the law has no logical right to comment or intervene.
 

denizenofevil

Well-Known Member
People like you limit progress with your barbaric out dated views on abortion. Fair enough, you firmly believe in responsibility, I respect that, but what do you have against preventing mistakes from happening? That is the core issue here, since you’re saying if you engage in sex and the contraception fails, tough shit, deal with the consequences, but that’s actually quite naïve of you to ignore further preventative measures. Do you not understand people engage in sex for enjoyment and pleasure, especially now since we can remove much of the risk of pregnancy? Yet you still say deal with the pregnancy as some strange penance for having sex, despite being pregnant is not the final word on the issue? It’s not literally as simple as getting pregnant and having a child as a result; we are able to change that, so how or why can you refuse this opportunity to prevent a problem from escalating? If your attitude is deal with it even if the condom breaks, despite that not being the fault of the people involved, you might as well say don’t bother why contraception to begin with when you’re treating sex as something wholly unnatural and shameful.

I personally think stem cell research is something we desperately need to research further when you consider the sheer amount of possibilities it provides, the misery it can cure and prevent is so vital it’s beyond measure. Why people oppose this is beyond me, they’re standing in the way of progress and it comes from a source that is disposed of anyway, since that’s what happens to aborted embryos, so why throw away what could be put to use to serve humanity.
Euthanasia is a decision much like a mother’s right to abort, it exclusively involves the people in question; it shouldn’t be illegal as the law has no logical right to comment or intervene.

Oh, my views on abortion are barbaric?! I think you're barbaric for believing that a baby is just a mistake that can be aborted away like it's nothing. How can you not find the injecting of chemicals that literally burns apart the fetus barbaric? In late term abortions, did you know that they cut apart the baby's body? Is it barbaric to think that's a horrible thing to do? There's plan b pills and there's various forms of contraceptives. THOSE are preventatives available. They aren't 100% effective but neither are abortions! Did you know that abortions can fail and the fetus/baby is born alive? It's not about what the purpose of sex is for. How can you deny that sex, whether you're doing it for enjoyment or not, CAN CAUSE PREGNANCY? Just because you are doing it for fun does not take the risk out of it! If I decide to go sky diving because I think it is fun, I make the decision knowing that I may possibly die despite all the preventative measures I take! If I were to die, it would solely be my fault for making that choice. My parents cannot sue the airplane pilot. When people are allowed to destroy another being because they made it mistake, that is anything but progress. If believing in the sanctity of life is outdated, then so be it. I'm outdated.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Like I said before, they made the conscious decision to have sex.
So what? Forget this 'responsibility' argument for moment. If you're so hyped on responsibility, WHY on earth do you want someone who is 'clearly' irresponsible to birth a child?

In late term abortion
Null argument. Nobody even supports these.

When people are allowed to destroy another being because they made it mistake, that is anything but progress.
And realistically, the only progress you can make is a way to prevent abortions and mistakes. You aren't getting anywhere telling humans not to have sex, because that's a natural urge.
 
Last edited:

denizenofevil

Well-Known Member
So what? Forget this 'responsibility' argument for moment. If you're so hyped on responsibility, WHY on earth do you want someone who is 'clearly' irresponsible to birth a child?


Null argument. Nobody even supports these.


And realistically, the only progress you can make is a way to prevent abortions and mistakes. You aren't getting anywhere telling humans not to have sex, because that's a natural urge.

Simply because there are other options. There are plenty of people out there who are responsible and willing to adopt a baby. There's always a way for someone to help the kid. If given a chance mothers can bond with their baby and out of love, they can learn to be more responsible. Motherhood changes a lot of things. I'm not asking people not to have sex. All I want is for people to stand up and take responsibility for their actions instead of acting like they can just abort them away.
 

Dragoon952

The Winter Moth
I am pro-choice, but not pro-population control (like with China). Parents should be able to have as many children as they can support, and I do not believe in government regulations regarding just how many.

At least you are consistent. I too often find people of the pro-choice persuasion be all for "reproductive rights" or women...except for reproduction.

They are both lumps of alive stem cells without any conciousness that are fully dependant of their host to survive.

Um, no. The fetus has no similarity to cancer whatsoever.

A.) Cancerous tissue is not made of stem cells. Stem cells can hypothetically become cancerous, but there is still debate on whether CSC theory is accurate. Not to mention that cancer stem cell theory is hypothetical and, although they share similar characteristics in the theory, are not stem cells in the true sense.
B.) A fetus/pregnancy is not a disease.
C.) A fetus does not express the main qualities of cancer (i.e., uncontrolled growth, invasion, metastasis, etc.).
D.) The fetus is made up of cells of a unique "organism" apart from the mother and is inherently entirely genetically different.
E.) The biological "dependent on the host" argument suggests a parasitic relationship which is completely biologically incorrect usage of terms. The "host" as you call it actually develops an entirely separate organ, the placenta, to facilitate the grwoth and development through shared resources with the "parasite" you are referring to. Parasitic relationships do not involve the creation of a new organ by the host to support the parasite which is encoded in its own DNA. Not to mention the insanity of calling nautral biological reproduction a disease or parasitism.

To name a few reasons.
 
Last edited:

Jb

Tsun in the streets
...you do know that that's not an effective method of birth control right? This, by the way, is why so many teenagers don't use birth control. They think the pull out method is effective.

What part is not effective? the part where u pull out so u dont ejaculate in her thus not getting her pregant. or the part where a seed magically appers out of nowhere to put a baby in her.
 

Mawile412

Problem
okay let's just imagine for a second that you're pregant/got someone pregnant and it wasn't planned. what if you used a condom but it happened anyway? would you SERIOUSLY want to keep the baby? Adoption isn't as easy as it used to be. so just imagine YOURSELF in the same situation as those pregnant teens or rape victims or even those people that didn't plan. You don't wanna go through the stress of pregnancy for 9 MONTHS for nothing. If i got pregnant by accident i would not want to go through with the pregnancy. i wouldn't want my body changing so fast. so imagine that YOU'RE a pregnant teen mother. You'd think abortion is a saving grace if that ever happened
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top