AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Abortion

1508 318758
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,675 posts
Jester

What my peers here think?

I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.

My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.

Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?

  • 1,508 Replies
Estel
offline
Estel
1,973 posts
Peasant

Well, I wouldn't call those people criminals. I have to agree, Catholics have sticks WAY up their butts, but alot of the teachings in that Church, I follow. Now I believe Abortion is wrong. Do I think it should be illegal? No. We can't make the whole country follow a Christian belief.

But something else comes into play. I know this was a few chapters back in my history book, but somebody said that we all have the right to life. Now who gets these rights? Humans get these rights. Now it should all come down to what really specifies a living human. I have done stdies, and I KNOW I have post somewhere in this 75page thread, but I believe that if it can die, than it is living. I have heard of accounts saying that embryos have died.

Would you agree that cells are living? Would you agree that an embryo is made of cells coming together to create something larger? I'm sure you can make the connection there.

nonconformist
offline
nonconformist
1,101 posts
Nomad

Ya cells are living Estel.. Which means all cells in your body are living right? Every 3 years every cell in your body is flushed out of your system and new ones are made... An embryo is just the same thing. A sac of cells getting flushed out of your system. Everyone has the right to life, but for something that doesn't even have arms or legs, and is only 1 cm long... i gotta say thats not life. That sir is a sac of cells.

Estel
offline
Estel
1,973 posts
Peasant

At the point where you can actually "abort," the baby/embryo/fetus, whatever it is, it is simply killed, correct? For it to be killed, doesn't it have to be living?

nonconformist
offline
nonconformist
1,101 posts
Nomad

Well it destroy's the cells. If you call that killing. It also depends on what you call living. A rock has live cells in it, and around it. But no one calls that a living being. By throwing this rock you can destory these cells, of course causing the rock to break. Some people require it to be breathing, or moving, or even having a heart that beats. At the point where most abortions happen, the baby doesn't have a heart beat, isn't breathing, and isn't moving. Just cells.
And yes there is a right to life, but if you cant care for that life and decide to leave it sumwhere, is that not the same as abortion.
It also brings back the comments about r@pe. Would you want to carry something that you did not want in the first place? As well you already went through the mental and physical disturbia of being raped, now you have to go through giving birth to that very baby? Its kinda sick dont you think?

Estel
offline
Estel
1,973 posts
Peasant

Rocks don't have cells in them. They might have cells ON them, but not actually part of the rock.

It also brings back the comments about r@pe. Would you want to carry something that you did not want in the first place? As well you already went through the mental and physical disturbia of being raped, now you have to go through giving birth to that very baby? Its kinda sick dont you think?


I wouldn't want to carry a baby anyway, but a baby that truly isn't wanted is pretty serious. But would you agree that the mother would go through just as much trauma if she went to get an abortion? At most points of abortion, the fetus is around 8 weeks. Now I bet you believe that at that moment, it is definately living. Well the mother would have to go in and simply order its murder. Now if you keep the baby, there are alternatives to keeping the baby. You can give it to adoption, and get it off your back. Of course you still live with that feeling knowing that you have a child out there, but doesn't that even up to the feeling of knowing that you HAD a baby, and now it's dead and gone?
ShintetsuWA
offline
ShintetsuWA
3,176 posts
Nomad

ome people require it to be breathing, or moving, or even having a heart that beats. At the point where most abortions happen, the baby doesn't have a heart beat, isn't breathing, and isn't moving. Just cells


For something to be living, it must be capable of using energy. I'm not sure if an embryo is using energy, since it is sort of a "leech" for the period of time before it is considered a fetus. That being said, Nonconformist, an organ that is using up energy is living. It can be set up much earlier than that too, if you want to talk about tissues as well. So once the embryo is able to use up energy, it is living. I don't feel like debating about this anymore, since I've already done so in much earlier pages. I'm just on here to clarify things at times.
millahnna
offline
millahnna
111 posts
Nomad

I've always held the opinion that the question is not one of "life" so much as sentience. At the moment the egg is fertilized it is living tissue. And I say that as someone who is adamantly pro-choice in terms of legislation (for various personal reasons I couldn't abort myself, most likely). But when one starts to talk about said tissue being "a life," this starts to take on a different definition for many people, and one that varies wildly for individuals.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Moe and I attempted to draft a definition on what "life" was some months ago...was a fun exercise if a bit of a dead end.

I have a suggestion though, I haven't tried it with examples yet:

Living being: An entity that exercises tendency towards maintaining homeostatic integrity and towards self-propogation.


It's an extraordinarily broad definition and a major problem here is that I haven't yet differentiated between an individual and species...since that's probably going to be involved in normative qualifiers I'd have to use so as not to exclude infertile or sterile beings, for example, from my definition. And talking about what constitutes a species in itself is nightmarishly complicated. But the more the qualifiers, the less reliable the definition is.

But this would make that basic distinction between an unfertilised ovule and sperm and an embryo!
Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,434 posts
Scribe

So, even though the baby is not fully developed, it gives us the right to kill him/her just because he/she is not as important in society? Does that mean we should be able to kill all the five year olds in our society simply because they aren't as important as others? I see not the logic in that. We all have the potential to become someone who can change the world.
I know you missed the @, but Ican still reply. :P
Was just making a statement as to why allowing abortion does not mean we should allow the killing of other 'blobs of cells', such as adults. And no, five year olds tend to already have gained much more potential than fetuses, so... It doesn't quite add up. But if I were to choose between who got killed of, an adult contributing to society, or a child that is still in the process of learning, I would let the child be killed. Of course, this only works on a small scale, because if all children were killed off, our society would get a lot of trouble with the amount of capable people in a generation or so...
Just a one by one scenario...

Quick question, what religion to you believe in? Or rather do you believe in one? I no Christianity believes that all lives are valued the same, but I thought lots of sets of morals follow the thought that all life is equal in value. Of course there are factors to how valuble a living being's life is. How productive they are to the human race, etc.

Now responding using steevo's post to add on. I wouldn't say that if I had that thought that we should kill all 5 year olds. They are the future. Now I'm trying to thik how Zoph is seeing it. I think she may respond like the baby should only be killed in an abortion if the mother is in danger.
I currently do not believe in any specific religion, nor am I atheist.
I do believe that life in its pure form is of equal value, no matter the individual. But that is just life. The individual's value is a different matter to me.
But indeed yes. Killing should only take place to save something more important - and I would most definitely consider the woman's life more important than the life of a fetus (thanks, Zootsuit). Unless you could somehow prove it would develop into the second coming of Christ or something.

Estel, you make a good point that all of the worlds five year olds ARE the future (I was just using them as an example to argue against Zoph's post by the way) But I guess what I don't understand is why are we killing all of the babies by abortion if they are also the future of America.
An important point to make, is that not all pregnancies are terminated... Bunches of people still wish to have children. Some of the ones who have an abortion will possibly end up having several kids later on, because they manage to establish a good life without having to take care of a child when they did not feel ready for it.

Would you agree that cells are living? Would you agree that an embryo is made of cells coming together to create something larger? I'm sure you can make the connection there.
Every tiny little cell is a living thing with its own structure and circle of life. It's the combination of enough of them that eventually creates bigger living creatures... But it is a very discussable thing, when exactly an embryo goes from being little living cells to be distinguished as a human being.
nonconformist had some good points on this...


Oh, the definition of life. Even if they can be considered life, those little embryos, does that give them any right to life if it imposes on the woman's life quality? I think it is better to terminate the undeveloped rather than risking both of their lives getting ruined. But that's just me (and some others).
Estel
offline
Estel
1,973 posts
Peasant

Oh, the definition of life. Even if they can be considered life, those little embryos, does that give them any right to life if it imposes on the woman's life quality? I think it is better to terminate the undeveloped rather than risking both of their lives getting ruined. But that's just me (and some others).


That is pretty much the main question after you get past the others. I believe that all life is equal. A fetus has just as much potential to do something in the future as another grown human has. A fetus just hasn't grown into the full figure with certain skills, etc.

I remember that Moe and I had a debate on abortion. We both had different views on the value of life, so of course there's going to be conflict.
Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,434 posts
Scribe

That is pretty much the main question after you get past the others. I believe that all life is equal. A fetus has just as much potential to do something in the future as another grown human has. A fetus just hasn't grown into the full figure with certain skills, etc.
It does indeed have just as much potential. But since it will take more effort to raise it, than to (for example) let a young woman have an abortion and get on with her life instead of needing to take care of a pregnant belly with a content she does not initially want - admitted, she might change her mind once it arrives, but it will change her life forever... And not necessarily for the better...

I'm actually generally against abortion (I'm not sure I could go through with one myself, even if it was caused by a r@pe (but I don't know, for I have not experienced it)), but I am pro-choice. It is not my place to decide over other people's bodies. It's a moral issue they very much have to consider with their own mindset and set of morals... And we as a society needs to put down some rules about how far into the pregnancy an abortion is acceptable, but I don't think we can say that it just plain simply is forbidden.

I remember that Moe and I had a debate on abortion. We both had different views on the value of life, so of course there's going to be conflict.
There's always conflict, that's what makes the debates live on. To a degree, it can be a good thing.
Estel
offline
Estel
1,973 posts
Peasant

but I am pro-choice. It is not my place to decide over other people's bodies. It's a moral issue they very much have to consider with their own mindset and set of morals... And we as a society needs to put down some rules about how far into the pregnancy an abortion is acceptable, but I don't think we can say that it just plain simply is forbidden.


I agree with that. I have weird takes on everything. I believe in evolution AND creationism, and I'm pro-choice, but I'm Christian and hate the thoughts of abortions in any circumstance. It really isn't our place to control people on how they run their lives.
vcjesusfreak
offline
vcjesusfreak
6 posts
Nomad

People who argue pro-choice do not understand that the women makes the choice before she becomes pregnant, she knows that no matter what she uses there is a chance she will become pregnant. Also at 18 days an unborn child's heart starts beating at 6 weeks (i think) that child starts to have brain waves... if you stop a beating heart or stop a brain from working you are killing that child

Zootsuit_riot
offline
Zootsuit_riot
1,523 posts
Nomad

child


FETUS.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

FETUS.


It would become a child, but no we murder it so i guess ya a fetus and it will always remain one due to the selfishness of humankind.
Showing 736-750 of 1508