Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

is abortion ok?

Posted Mar 24, '13 at 2:20am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,709 posts

Wouldn't a depletion in nutrition without receiving anything in return be considered degrading? If you lose nutrition, your body degrades. Seeing how the fetus doesn't offer anything in return it could be considered a parasite then. Really, both senses of parasitism you gave could be the same logically. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.


Excuse what I said..apparently logic decided to leave me for a moment

But because of my own hiccup in thought..you did answer yourself with the question of it being kind of mutual haha
 

Posted Mar 24, '13 at 3:59am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,776 posts

Knight

So what about people who are almost completely brain dead or mentally retarded, is it ok to kill them because you don't like them?


There would have still been consciousness over a period of time, and in those examples there still is consciousness.

I'm pretty sure it varies quite a bit too.


I wouldn't find it all the odd to find that it varies. Though we can still pin point about when certain features develops.
 

Posted Mar 24, '13 at 8:05am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,260 posts

Knight

Right, let's settle this..


About the zygote (again):
We can agree that the zygote is the moment in human development where the genetical identity is settled. Though genetical identity is only the basis for the later-developing consciousness (or personhood).


About consciousness:
There is no fixed date to when consciousness starts; we would first have to settle at which degree of neural complexity does consciousness start.
About the brain, the central nervous system develops from the neural tube, which differentiates from cell layers around the fourth week. In the following two weeks, the brain buds form. But keep in mind that those buds are only precursors to the actual functional brain that develops only later.

I think this fits in here rather well:
"First Trimester - This is the single most common view held by adults in the western world. The medical assumptions include the fact that the fetus has no brain and therefore no awareness, by and large, movement can not yet be felt, and the large percentage of natural abortions (miscarriages) in the first trimester (generally given as "around 25%" of all pregnancies) makes an abortion in this trimester more palatable to many who would otherwise challenge a woman's right to abortion. "
link

 

Posted Mar 26, '13 at 1:27am

thugtastic

thugtastic

164 posts

So babies in the First Trimester are basically animals because they are alive but still ok to kill?

 

Posted Mar 26, '13 at 2:00am

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

So babies in the First Trimester are basically animals because they are alive but still ok to kill?


That's not what we're trying to say. At that point in time, there are a very many factors to take into account. The first is that natural abortions happen all the time during that period, the second being that the fetus is not developed enough to have a brain yet. If a woman does not want to have a child, why should she be forced to? It is her body, what goes on inside of it should be her choice, especially when what is inside of her is not yet developed fully.

None of us are arguing that we want to kill fetuses, or that abortion should be the immediate go to option. We're arguing that it should be allowed for people who need it, and that it should be up to the woman in question to decide whether or not it is needed, no matter how conception took place.
 

Posted Mar 27, '13 at 12:15am

Bladerunner679

Bladerunner679

2,534 posts

So babies in the First Trimester are basically animals because they are alive but still ok to kill?


They aren't even alive on their own until birth. They are parasites for the most part, and during the first trimester they are just a mass of cells. They aren't even animals. Arguments like that are useless to those immune to pathos rhetoric.

-Blade
 

Posted Apr 16, '13 at 4:28am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,260 posts

Knight

So, here in Switzerland, where abortions are financed by the obligatory health insurance, abortion rates are one of the lowest world-wide and illegal abortions pretty much inexistent...
... in such a setting, some people started an initiative demanding that abortions should be paid by the clients themselves. Arguments? "Health insurance is not supposed to take lives" and "religious people should not have to finance abortion via health insurance". Those people point at Austria where abortion is to be paid from your own pockets.

Funny enough, doctors from Austria warn us not to accept this initiative. From their experience, families have to go into debt to finance those expensive operations, and there are virtually no advantages to it.

Now I don't think this will pass anyway. But I still want to hear your opinion: assuming abortions are legal, should they be paid by health insurance or do you have to pay for it yourself? Arguments?

 

Posted Apr 16, '13 at 5:19am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,437 posts

"religious people should not have to finance abortion via health insurance".

"Pacifists shouldn't have to finance the military via taxes, so I'm not paying 14% of it." Doesn't work.
"I believe in natural treatments, so I'm not paying for the insurance that covers radiation therapy." Doesn't work.
The bundle packages are part of a social contract/agreement. You can't pick and choose. There's also the "Do unto Caesar" argument to counter their claims, but that's from the big book of multiple choice.
 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 8:07pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

NO, it's NOT OK -_-


great job on elaborating your point of view. xD
 

Posted Apr 24, '13 at 1:39pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

Its really bad. How would you like to have been killed as a baby. Or your bf or gf, or best friend. It's not alright. It's murder, and it's just a way to decrease the human population so it's easier to control.

 
Reply to is abortion ok?

You must be logged in to post a reply!