Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?

It is so much of a fact that contraception (like condoms) have an 11% chance of failing that they document this "fun fact" in every Biology, Microbiology, and Physiology textbook in every university in every first world country.

The cheap condoms are the ones with more possibilites of ripping, so that's their fault.

You do not understand the physiology of an embryo or fetus.

Your characteristics of what stands for a human life mean we can make the analogy that spermatogonia and oocytes can be considered human life, and (females) kill one every month and (males) several ten millions 5 days out of the week.

I didn't study human anatomy, now before you start "oh you're talking out of your durr" i'll say that what if that kid that got aborted would've turned out to be a genius?

You seem to have ignored the arguing points against your definition of it being murder. The fetus lacks personhood, it's not viable on it's own and lacks cognitive capabilities. As such, not yet a person. Since it lacks the characteristics to be a person (namely personhood) it couldn't be regarded as murder given as Merriam Webster defines it murder "the crime of deliberately killing a person".

^

I think abortion is murder, it's even worst than murder because the baby can not defend himself. If you don't want kids just close your legs or use condoms, and if you don't have money to raise the kid, then only in this case you have the option of putting the baby up for adoption, then some family could adopt the kid or if not then the kid will live in an orphanage and will go to school and when the kid is 18 he'll get a job and he'll live, at least the kid will have a chance of being adopted and live, everyone should have the right to live, it's not the baby's fault you had unprotected sex. In case of rape there's the morning after pill readily available at the hospital or even at the pharmacy in many states, and rape cases is only 1%. Abortion is murder, who doesn't agree that abortion is murder how about i kick you in the stomach when you're pregnant and make you lose your child? will that be murder? wouldn't you call me a murderer then? would you sue me for murder? would a cop arrest me for murder? a cop could arrest me for assault right? not murder since you say abortion is not murder, the only difference between abortion and me kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is that she wants to kill the baby and the doctor is the killer, and if i kick the pregnant woman in the stomach then i'm the murderer, that's the only difference, abortion is murder! if you don't want kids just close your legs or use condoms.

I really don't believe in abortions. There is only 2 ways I think anyone should get an abortion.
Incest & rape.
And that is only if the woman wants to have it,(rape) that is.

what if that kid that got aborted would've turned out to be a genius?

Or a serial killer, or a terrorist, or a genocidal dictator?
"What Ifs" don't do well here.

There is only 2 ways I think anyone should get an abortion.
Incest & rape

If you say it's murder, and the worst kind because the fetus is defenseless, why does the method of conception suddenly dehumanize it?

The cheap condoms are the ones with more possibilites of ripping, so that's their fault.

Is there a $30 condom I don't know about that offers a 100% success rate?

I didn't study human anatomy, now before you start "oh you're talking out of your durr" i'll say that what if that kid that got aborted would've turned out to be a genius?

You're using Supposition to bolster your arguments? I can do that too. What if you were a woman? Would you like 60 year old OBGYNs in Congress declare that you cannot choose what to do with your cervix? What if you were Homosexual? Would you agree that it's okay for countries to put you to death for being Homosexual?

In case of rape there's the morning after pill readily available at the hospital or even at the pharmacy in many states

YOU'RE CONDONING ABORTION, THE BABY WAS A DAY OLD, EVERYBODY GASP!

and rape cases is only 1%.

But that man up there with the purple font says that pregnancy from rape is more prevalent than that. And he has a fancy link that leads to an article.

I think that, because he has an article and you don't, he is more believable than you. Because he has EVIDENCE.

There is only 2 ways I think anyone should get an abortion.
Incest & rape. And that is only if the woman wants to have it,(rape) that is.

Of course she wouldn't want rape. But given your previous posts, that line of thinking likely wasn't as immediate.

Is there a $30 condom I don't know about that offers a 100% success rate?

Look em up.

You're using Supposition to bolster your arguments? I can do that too. What if you were a woman? Would you like 60 year old OBGYNs in Congress declare that you cannot choose what to do with your cervix? What if you were Homosexual? Would you agree that it's okay for countries to put you to death for being Homosexual?

Out of topic Mr. Scientist.

Of course she wouldn't want rape. But given your previous posts, that line of thinking likely wasn't as immediate.

Read again.

Look em up.

So there are some! But you're seriously expecting the commonpeople to shell out a generous amount of money every time they want to have sex? I mean, this is still an 11% chance to fail, I only used it because you initially posted that all of them had no chance to fail.

Out of topic Mr. Scientist.

This isn't out of topic in the least. You're using Supposition to back up your argument, which is emotional, not rational. I only noted that I can do that too and showed you how ridiculous it is.

Supposition. A shot in the dark. Grasping at straws. A situation that never would happen in this universe.

I am a little sad that you decided to not quote the rest of my post that further supported your hypocrisy

So there are some! But you're seriously expecting the common people to shell out a generous amount of money every time they want to have sex? I mean, this is still an 11% chance to fail, I only used it because you initially posted that all of them had no chance to fail.

Then it's there fault they have an unwanted child and then the couple blame their problems on the fetus by aborting it.

I am a little sad that you decided to not quote the rest of my post that further supported your hypocrisy

Which one? I gave the answers to the ones that deserved one.

Then it's there fault they have an unwanted child and then the couple blame their problems on the fetus by aborting it.

After the 8th week, the organism is called a fetus instead of embryo. Just so you know, the first two weeks is just a "germination". From there up until week 9, the bunches of cells is called an embryo.

Since you're comfortable with allowing women to take the morning after pill on day 1, what is wrong with week 1? Week 2? Three, four? The amount of cells is still trumped by the tens of millions of cells vanquished after one bout of ejaculation.

Which one? I gave the answers to the ones that deserved one.

You know, the part about being completely strict on the "no abortion" rule, yet still allowing for a morning after pill, being okay with abortion if the woman was undergoing incest or was raped, yet still stringent on wanting every single bunches of cells to make it to full development.

I really don't believe in abortions. There is only 2 ways I think anyone should get an abortion.
Incest & rape.
And that is only if the woman wants to have it,(rape) that is.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term "rape".

In case of rape there's the morning after pill readily available at the hospital or even at the pharmacy in many states

*GASP*

I think abortion is murder, it's even worst than murder because the baby can not defend himself.

Yes, though the way you're defining it as such would seem faulty given how it can apply to eggs,sperm and cancer as well.

If you don't want kids just close your legs or use condoms,

Abstinence only is an unrealistic expectation and as noted condoms have been known to fail.

and if you don't have money to raise the kid, then only in this case you have the option of putting the baby up for adoption, then some family could adopt the kid or if not then the kid will live in an orphanage and will go to school and when the kid is 18 he'll get a job and he'll live,

Adoption services are already overcrowded as it is. We are having trouble with an influx in the thousands in some places. Without abortion we are likely looking at an influx in the millions. Just from an economic aspect alone it wouldn't be feasible, but there is more than that to consider. I will just copy and paste what I have said earlier on that matter

"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."

you're pregnant and make you lose your child? will that be murder? wouldn't you call me a murderer then? would you sue me for murder? would a cop arrest me for murder? a cop could arrest me for assault right?

By the standards I proposed this would depend on how far in the pregnancy was.

Ignoring how I'm defining it and just looking at the laws, this would depend on the state you're in and again in some places how far along the woman is.

There is only 2 ways I think anyone should get an abortion.
Incest & rape.

Again copy and paste response.
"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?"

And that is only if the woman wants to have it,(rape) that is.

What? If she wants to have rape? Contradictory, shows the reliability of your posts.

If unwanted or are not ready for a child, then why bring a life into the world where you are unable to give it the proper life? People have a choice of what they do to their bodies.

What's the definition of life of an unborn baby? At what point is it able to feel pain and have consciousness?

Just so you know, the first two weeks is just a "germination"

Zygote might be a better word.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term "rape".

I think he may be under the impression that "If itâs a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down."

Zygote might be a better word.

Well the Zygote is at the very crux of conception. When it starts to split into more cells, we start calling it more names like Morula (16 cells) and Blastula (when twice as many cells start becoming specialized). So the entire process of this happening is "germination". We call the bunches of cells an embryo when the germination forms a distinctive shape.

http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf

There's a few major problems with this though.

1) It does not follow that potential human life is inherently the same as developed human life.
2) It generalizes far too much, when abortion in of itself is a special case.
3) It ignores the rights of the woman in question.

A sperm and ovum joining do not magically, immediately imply a value equal to that of an autonomous being. This new entity is biologically dependent upon the mother's body and cannot be separated. It is not capable of thought, feeling, awareness, or anything. It follows a rote biological path of development utilizing the mother's body as a resource. The most logical thing to do is view it as a part of the mother's body, not a separate entity, as it has no characteristics of a separate entity, and only has the potential to become a separate entity. Is it not the mother's right to decide what happens inside her body? Are we now suddenly valuing the potential of something more than an actualized human being?

Trying to apply this theory of the right to life because it deprives the subject of all future valuable experiences I have no inherent issue with, though I think it's oversimplified and an unnecessary statement. Life has the right to life, but it is clearly not wrong to kill always. A generalization on such an important statement is unacceptable. Instead, working back from the initial principle and establishing cases where it is wrong to kill makes far more sense. Abortion is one such instance, because we must account for the rights of the woman in question to control her own body. It is wrong to kill, except when it's not. A simple statement which upholds the value of life, except when demonstrated not to. The statement itself holds no power, yet provides a basis for all further reasoning. Many reasons can be provided as to why life has the right to life, yet any pitfalls in those will still come to that inevitable conclusion, because life is inherently a valuable thing.

The third is really a restatement of the first two, but so important and nearly always forgotten in the anti-abortionist's stance. When discussing abortion, we are talking about two beings at least. It is not intellectually honest to assert that an abortion is murder of an innocent, as if that innocent party was just laying on the ground doing nothing but trying to grow. It's not. It's inside another human being, a human being who might not want it there. A human being who will be permanently affected by having it there, whose body is being used as a resource by this other being to grow. When talking about abortion we have to consider that there is more involved than ending the potential a fetus represents. I hold that the woman has the right to control what happens inside her own body, and that the fetus' inherent right to life does not exceed the woman's right to choose because it is a, incapable of thought, b, has never experienced consciousness, c, cannot survive without its host, and d, is not fully developed.

Abortion is undeniably the ending of a form of life. It is not an immoral form of ending life. I would argue that aborting a fetus that is capable of life outside the mother should constitute as murder, because at that point enough time would have passed that the mother would have made her decision (or should have) on whether to keep it. Likewise, I would consider it murder to cause a pregnant woman to abort unwillingly, regardless of the developmental stage of the fetus, because she has given her consent to the being inside of her and values it and it had the potential to become a fully developed human being. I do not consider it murder if the woman wishes to abort, because the fetus is not yet capable of independent life and thus is a part of her body.

We do not consider the potential of something the same as the fully developed version. We do not prioritize potential over actual. I will not argue that abortion is not ending that potential, because it is, but it is the woman's right to do so.

That is what abortion is about. Not the fetus. The woman. I do not care whether you want to call a potential human a human. That does not change that situation, but is just an argument from semantics designed to distract from the issue of whether the woman has the right to control her own body. You think it's wrong? Swell, don't abort if you get pregnant. But no one has the right to tell another what is going to happen inside their body against their will, period. Is it irresponsible to engage in unprotected sex that may result in a pregnancy? Absolutely. That does not nullify the right to control one's body, and any argument that the woman should keep it as punishment for her mistake is beyond monstrous.

Plus it doesn't (explicitly, at least) rely on the status of the foetus (i.e. whether it is a person).

I haven't read it all, but the last paragraph (66) states "The problem of the ethics of abortion is the problem of determining the fetal property that settles this moral controversy. The thesis of this essay is that the problem of the ethics of abortion, so understood, is solvable." In other words, as I understand this paragraph, in the end the morality or immorality of abortion does rely almost solely on the status of the foetus. Which according to this very paragraph is different in different aspects, so can I conclude that it's trying to say that each individual will decide for themselves whether it's moral or not?