ForumsWEPRis abortion ok?

869 82515
toemas
offline
toemas
340 posts
2,325

Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree

Please debate

  • 869 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

-Personhood-

First off I would like to emphasize that I'm arguing personhood and not life here. If we are to argue life then we should start with sperm, at which point it would mean that even if a child is ultimately produced or not millions are dying.

Let's start with where we are in development. What you're seeing here is a fetus at ten weeks of gestation.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/10-weeks-baby-picture.jpg
All basic structures of a human are present but not fully formed. The heart has been beating for about 4 weeks at this point (not controlled by the brain but by a rudimentary nervous system.) No brain wave activity is yet present. The fetus is likely under 2 inches in length. (A fetus at 13 weeks is usually about 2 inches long.)


Most abortions take place before this point of development is reached. At around a week or two (8-9 weeks gestation) before the point illustrated above, it can usually be determined if the fetus is viable or not to be carried to term. This is why most abortions take place at the 8-9 week stage. As many are not viable, thus could not survive to term and/or could cost the mother her own life if carried to term.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg

This point is also well before rudimentary brains waves can be detected which occur around 26 weeks.
"26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves indicating consciousness can be detected. The fetus will probably be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time." -Pediatrics, Wisconsin State University

Considering a basic etiological definition of personhood would require consciousness over a period of time. Something that the fetus has not yet developed in the span that most abortions take place. Or another way to put it ;"the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings" -Dictionary.com
This is something the fetus clearly lacks.

The argument of being human starting at conception can be supported by the argument that the individual cells making up the zygote are genetically different from that of the parent. While this may indicate a separate organism, this does not indicate personhood. If we wish to argue that just being a separate organism dependent on the larger organism to survive is a person, then we are left arguing many aspects of individual parts of the human body should be regarded as separate people. This particular grouping unlike those other parts however has the potential to develop into a person. But potential alone can be ruled out as we do with sperm.

Since it was brought up the point at which the fetus has a heart beat doesn't seem like a good point to consider it a person either. This occurs around 6 weeks gestation. The fetus lacks self sustaining viability and even lack basic brain waves. If we are to just go by it having a heart beat, there are many living organisms with heart beat that are not consider to have personhood.

The argument that we are killing babies really often comes off as nothing more than an emotional plea. We aren't dealing with the imagery that is being conjured up in such a statement.

We aren't dealing with this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Happiness.jpg/320px-Happiness.jpg

But something closer to this.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/reggiekrh/patten_pig_human.jpg?1281158303
(One is a human fetus the other is not, care to figure out which you are calling a person and which you are not?)

To sum it up in simple terms I will quote 314d1.
"Sperm= Potential human

Egg= Potential human

Fetus= Potential human

None have a brain enough to be able to think, feel pain, or anything that will make them a person... If it is taking away potential life that is wrong, then warring condoms is also wrong or even just not having sex.
" -314d1

-The costs and rights-

The argument against abortion often ignores the rights of the mother. We do have to consider that any such rights to the developing fetus has a direct affect on the mother.
"Until the fetus is viable, any rights granted to it may come at the expense of the pregnant woman, simply because the fetus cannot survive except within the woman's body. Upon viability, the pregnancy can be terminated, as by a c-section or induced labor, with the fetus surviving to become a newborn infant." -wiki
When considering human rights applied to a fetus, at what point do we consider the rights of the woman who will be forced to carry the fetus to term?

Another thing to consider is that adoption services are already over crowded. "Out of 4,242 foster homes, 16% of foster homes are over their licensed capacity even though 52% of foster homes are under their licensed capacity. There are currently 62 foster homes with more than 10 children." -source
To make abortion illegal would cause an influx to this system of over a million children a year. This could have an impact on the over all quality of life for those in such a system and would cost millions a year more in taxes to support. This isn't even getting into the resource demands as they grow up or the ones who stand no chance at a normal life due to severe mental and physical problems.

On the point of if abortion is right or not I would like to quote Moegreche from a earlier thread on this topic.

"No one actually thinks abortion is the "right" thing to do

Instead, here's how we need to think of the 2 extremes:
Pro-Life (PL): Abortion is never morally permissible, therefore abortions should not be allowed to be performed legally.
Pro-Choice (PC): There are cases in which abortion is morally permissible, thus abortions should remain legal.

Notice that PC here is not suggesting that abortions are the morally correct choice - only that there are situations in which a mother who gets an abortion should not be morally blamed.
There are some within the PC camp who say that a mother should be able to do with her body what she will, and that any abortion should be allowed (with or without caveats).
This all-out version of PC doesn't seem right to me. Clearly, abortion shouldn't be used as a means of birth control. But what is really at issue here? Is it the fact that the mother in this case is having her fifth abortion? Or is it simply we feel the mother to be morally blameworthy by not using other means of contraception?
My suggestion is that it's the latter interpretation that makes more sense. After all, it's not really the number of abortions that we take into consideration - it's the circumstances of needing the abortion. Consider a woman who's having her fifth abortion because she doesn't like how condoms feel versus a woman who's having her fifth abortion because that's the 5th time she's been r-aped.
It's hard to hold the latter woman morally blameworthy for having the abortion, at least compared to the former case. So it's not really about the number of abortions - or really the act of the abortion at all. As I said, it's about the circumstances that make having an abortion in the first place.

This is why I reject the extreme notion of (PL). Intuitively, it seems like we need another premise to get to the conclusion that all abortions are wrong. This premise would presumably have something to do with an inherent right to life possessed by all humans, or even all living things. It would likely also need to defend premises that could define an unborn fetus as living.
Not only does a moderate version of (PC) seems more palatable, but the extreme version (the only version) of (PL) seems too hard to defend.
" -Moegreche

Further information to consider.
Abortion arguments side-by-side
A World Without Abortion

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

i hope this is not covered in the long post befor me that i didn't read. (or have to read because i'm oke whit abortion)

And what if she was *****? Is it still her fault? Besides, even so it's not fair to the child or the mother if the mother cannot or will not properly take care of the child. You can force the mother to have a baby, but you can't force her to love it. So there will be many more children who grow up unloved.


not only that but if you make/keep abortion illegal. then their will be people that try to do it themself whit sometimes the worst endings.
example: the mother is not unknown whit drugs. and she does not want a baby because she doesn't want any1 to have a druggy mother. and believes that the childs life will go to waste if it comes on earth altho it go's the right way and she is clean of drugs for nearly a year already it's still a mess she is in. but she can't have a abortion. still she does not want the child. so for the entire remaining 8 months she will use cocain, heroin, alcohol, smoke, eat fast food, etc again.
in the hopes that the baby will not survive and will be born dead.
but that does not happen and her baby is disfigured and mentaly paranoid. she basicly ruined her own life and that of the child. because religious groups want to force their own believes upon every1 by laws like these.

(true story. happens a few 100 times a year in the usa.
source: discovery channel docu.)
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

she basicly ruined her own life and that of the child.

She could simply put it at the front door of a government building and it's not her problem anymore.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

She could simply put it at the front door of a government building and it's not her problem anymore.


Yes, because overburdening the already overpopulated world and government with yet more children and people to take care of, which in turn in the future will require more resources and a job, is such a great idea.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

kasic ninjad me whit that. but anyway..

She could simply put it at the front door of a government building and it's not her problem anymore.


the government will search for the mother.
by camera images and hospital records.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

I guess if she was ***** you can make an exception. I wasn't thinking of that. However I still don't like the idea, but I see where you are going.


What of situations where she was trying to act responsible and the precautions to prevent pregnancy failed?
What of situations where carrying the child to term would be harmful to her and could even cost the mother her life?
What of situations where the child would having nothing but a short and painful life or perhaps even worse a long life of nothing but suffering?
What of a situation where if the woman is unable to meet the costs of having a child and that if she does abort this would give her the chance to become financially stable allowing for a future child to have a good life, where as the previous one would not?

Did you know that quite a sizeable amount of pregnancies terminate themselves before the potential mother would even know that she's pregnant? Should we arrest everyone that miscarries for murder or manslaughter?


If I remember correctly it was something like 25-30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Essential a natural abortion.
Somers
offline
Somers
1,533 posts
465

I saw the south park episode a few nights ago, where cartman collects stem cells to duplicate a taco bell, so in some cases abortion is good

My family is very **** conservative and believes abortion is never an option no matter what. In my opinion

What of situations where she was trying to act responsible and the precautions to prevent pregnancy failed?


Adoption?

What of situations where carrying the child to term would be harmful to her and could even cost the mother her life?


I believe this is a good situation where abortion would be acceptable, and if its hurting the mother, something could possibly be wrong with the kid.

What of situations where the child would having nothing but a short and painful life or perhaps even worse a long life of nothing but suffering?


Like a bad homelife, or some sort of mental/bodily disease? Thats debatable, i wanna say its better to live than not live at all

What of a situation where if the woman is unable to meet the costs of having a child and that if she does abort this would give her the chance to become financially stable allowing for a future child to have a good life, where as the previous one would not?


A box of condoms runs around 10 dollars. A kid runs about alot of $$$ in its lifetime. Adoption could be an option.

Women are the ones taking the risk of having a child by having sex,and if impregnanted they should take the responsibility of carrying it to the point where they should give it away rather than aborting it.
loco5
offline
loco5
16,292 posts
740

Adoption centers aren't empty bro, they are nearly overflowing, and is just a drain on money

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Women are the ones taking the risk of having a child by having sex,


You make it sound like it's all their fault if they get pregnant. Let me give you a hint: there's more than one person involved in making a baby.

Adoption could be an option.


Let me pose you this: If you were a woman and got pregnant, whether through an accident (such as failed contraception) or ****, would you -really- go through with 9 months of carrying it around, the associated symptoms, the social implications and the process of birthing it when you could painlessly avoid all of that?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Women are the ones taking the risk of having a child by having sex,and if impregnanted they should take the responsibility of carrying it to the point where they should give it away rather than aborting it.


Asking a woman to carry to term is asking that she risk her own life in the process. From 95-2000 one fifth of all maternal deaths (700,000) were the result of unintended pregnancy.

in the US there are about 1,370,000 abortions a year. 2008 statistics had 24 out of every 100,000 births result in the mothers death. 2004 report had an infant mortality rate of 679 per 100,000. (without abortion we could likely expect that number to be higher)

But for the sake of argument let's use those numbers. That would mean without abortion we would have about 329 women die when it could have been avoided. About 9,302 of those children that would have been aborted would die anyway during birth. That would mean about 28 of those women "taking responsibility" would die along with the child they are trying to give birth to. When instead they could have prevented it in the first place.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

the government will search for the mother.
by camera images and hospital records.

Here, they're not allowed to search. She would remain anonymous. Every state has some form of a safe-haven law. Legally, it's not her problem anymore.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

Here, they're not allowed to search. She would remain anonymous. Every state has some form of a safe-haven law. Legally, it's not her problem anymore.

and what is your reply to what the others have said about it?
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

and what is your reply to what the others have said about it?

Well, for the argument of "she's at risk for those 9 months" your hypothetical already stated that she was going to have it anyway hoping it died, so that's not relevant in the situation.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

Well, for the argument of "she's at risk for those 9 months" your hypothetical already stated that she was going to have it anyway hoping it died, so that's not relevant in the situation.


i actualy ment these arguments of abortion being a beter choise then adoption.

Yes, because overburdening the already overpopulated world and government with yet more children and people to take care of, which in turn in the future will require more resources and a job, is such a great idea.

Adoption centers aren't empty bro, they are nearly overflowing, and is just a drain on money

Let me pose you this: If you were a woman and got pregnant, whether through an accident (such as failed contraception) or ****, would you -really- go through with 9 months of carrying it around, the associated symptoms, the social implications and the process of birthing it when you could painlessly avoid all of that?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Well, for the argument of "she's at risk for those 9 months" your hypothetical already stated that she was going to have it anyway hoping it died, so that's not relevant in the situation.


I may have missed something here but where was it stated that there are hopes for the baby to die? Also how would such hope invalidate the risks put on the mother?
Showing 16-30 of 869