Forums → WEPR → Abortion

Humans not only make tools, we improve the tools, industrialize them, etc.

That's just an extension of 'make'.

I know that, I'm saying what they should do. A lot of people also murder (not as many, but...) but that doesn't mean they made the right choice.

That is actually a pretty big difference.
It's almost the opposite, in my opinion.

A murderer cuts into someone's life and ends it, affecting all the people who knew that person.

An unwanted pregnancy cuts into one woman's life and changes it forever, no matter what choice she goes with.

If men have the right to have sex and then not have to deal with any of the consequences of the baby, then so do women.

Let me put it this way.

Men and women have the right to have sex with women without being truly responsible for whatever pregnancy may come from that. Of course, the women/women combo is riskfree in that matter, but that's how it goes.

Now let's put on offended faces because men can have sex with men without risking pregnancy, which women can't.

Pregnancies are totally sexist.

Sonam:

i am interested in what school you are talking about

I go to a Christian school (now everybody's looking disinterested). But I still think it's a great idea. I know most schools don't do that, but I was making the point that it would be a rather useful idea.

Zophia:

And it is an entire life. It won't be a pregnancy the entire life, but both having an abortion and having a baby will leave psychical marks no matter what (unless we're talking about retardation).

Good point. My feeling has always been that in regards to that, each one is a gamble for regret and sorrow. However, in one we save a life (or let a life start, however you prefer).

Would you explain in what case it would be the same?

The abandoned baby was abandoned even though the mother was no longer risking her health, so if the mother is not risking her health (obviously it's always a bit of a gamble, but a PREDICTED gamble), then it would be kind of the same. Not exactly, again, but the concept.

What a fetus has during abortion depends on when the abortion is performed.

I thought those were developed early on. Maybe I'm wrong, but the point before was that the fetus is the egg and the sperm combined.

I just dislike the 'it was their choice to have sex, they shouldn't have a choice to do anything about the consequences they tried to prevent'.

I understand. I wouldn't use that argument for every abortion, just for birth control abortions. It would definitely depend on the consequences, if they are fatal.

Yes it can.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant it can't survive without help. I'll address this with Firefly, so stay tuned

Nerdius:

Women may not want a child, and it is their decision to have the kid and give it to adoption or abortion. Having a child is expensive, if they can't afford it, why ruin your life for it?

I understand that you believe the fetus is not alive, but in this post, you haven't addressed why it is different than murder. But that has been done on a bunch of other ones, so I'll let you off the hook

Firefly:

A fetus is obviously linked solely to that mother, and as such the woman has the right to decide what to do with her body.

I made a mistake. The fetus can survive without the mother, but not without help. The responsibility of raising a child isn't the same as the responsibility of giving birth, simply because the former does not end in nine months. If it is going to put the mother's health at grave risk, I absolutely agree. But you see, the woman HAS the right to decide what to do with her body, but back in bed. Of course she didn't know she'd get pregnant, but she had to expect and plan for it. The problem with sex is that the consequences are not immediate, even when they don't involve pregnancy. STDs, for example. Don't want to get off-topic, so I'll finish up here. Sex was the choice, and unless we are saving the mother's life, she basically threw a knife up in the air and didn't bother to see if it would land on her (that will be an expression one day, mark my words).

My point being that fetuses aren't human, not according to biology or law. Perhaps you may believe that they deserve to be treared as such, but legislation should not be created on the basis of opinion.

Science believes it to be true. A while back, science used to believe that things could spontaneously combust. What if we're WRONG? This is why I take the standpoint that if the fetus is alive, we lose a lot more by aborting it than we lose by NOT aborting a fetus that was NOT alive. So for reasons of health, I agree. For reasons of rape, incest, and child problems, I tolerate. For birth control, I disagree. Even if you don't agree with me, hopefully that at least explains my position.

Just saw an extra post, a few things for you Zophia:

That's just an extension of 'make'.

True, but animals do not do it, was my point.

A murderer cuts into someone's life and ends it, affecting all the people who knew that person.
An unwanted pregnancy cuts into one woman's life and changes it forever, no matter what choice she goes with.

An excellent point, but I was only saying that peer pressure does not determine what's right and wrong.

Science believes it to be true. A while back, science used to believe that things could spontaneously combust. What if we're WRONG? This is why I take the standpoint that if the fetus is alive,

Unless you can offer some empirical studies backing up your claim then that's a pretty poor reason. The methods of research and finding this out have been continuously refined and verified. You could apply 'what if we're WRONG' to any argument and jump to an illogical conclusion. That doesn't make it right.

I respect your right to disagree, I respect the right of people being able to do what they want with their own bodies even more.

Unless you can offer some empirical studies backing up your claim then that's a pretty poor reason. The methods of research and finding this out have been continuously refined and verified. You could apply 'what if we're WRONG' to any argument and jump to an illogical conclusion. That doesn't make it right.
I respect your right to disagree, I respect the right of people being able to do what they want with their own bodies even more.

I think we've reached an impasse, Firefly. I'm getting a C in science, so I can't really argue too well there. But anyway, since we don't know, that's basically my reason. If it is proven that the fetus is not alive until birth, abort away. You and I disagree there, and probably we won't convince the other one otherwise. Very interesting debate, I liked your new armatar, and see you later, I guess

Good point. My feeling has always been that in regards to that, each one is a gamble for regret and sorrow. However, in one we save a life (or let a life start, however you prefer).

I take it you consider that a good thing.

The abandoned baby was abandoned even though the mother was no longer risking her health, so if the mother is not risking her health (obviously it's always a bit of a gamble, but a PREDICTED gamble), then it would be kind of the same. Not exactly, again, but the concept.

That's the "kinda sorta maybe?" kind of 'the same'. Not actually the same.
And by carrying a baby you are always risking your health. Unforeseen complications aren't that uncommon.

I thought those were developed early on. Maybe I'm wrong, but the point before was that the fetus is the egg and the sperm combined.

Just pointing out that it doesn't actually start breathing till much much later on (considering when the upper time limit is for performing abortions in most places).
It's not little babies, it's blobby things that rapidly develop. Which is why abortions are law-restricted to happen within the first few months.
Also, it is not a fetus when the egg and sperm is combined. I'll repost that link I posted before. Here.
Once it's 10 weeks, it is called a fetus.

I understand. I wouldn't use that argument for every abortion, just for birth control abortions

People who think abortion is a type of birth control needs better sex ed. >_>

Of course she didn't know she'd get pregnant, but she had to expect and plan for it. The problem with sex is that the consequences are not immediate, even when they don't involve pregnancy. STDs, for example. Don't want to get off-topic, so I'll finish up here. Sex was the choice, and unless we are saving the mother's life, she basically threw a knife up in the air and didn't bother to see if it would land on her (that will be an expression one day, mark my words).

You like to ignore the fact that occasionally birth control and other general means of protection against sexually transmitted anythings fail? Or is that just under the 'you know the risk, don't have sex if you aren't prepared for the consequences'? (I see the point of that one, I just kinda don't like it as an argument for or against abortion.)

So for reasons of health, I agree. For reasons of ****, incest, and child problems, I tolerate. For birth control, I disagree. Even if you don't agree with me, hopefully that at least explains my position.

I don't even know why we argue (or are we even arguing?).
ABORTION IS NOT A KIND OF BIRTH CONTROL. It is a way out of BIGGER problems than the abortion itself when all else fails.

True, but animals do not do it, was my point.

Apes make tools, otters utilize stones as tools, some dolphins weight lift to impress the ladies, many species are impressive architects. Hmhmhm~

An excellent point, but I was only saying that peer pressure does not determine what's right and wrong.

Then you could just have said that simple sentence instead of using a debatable metaphor. :P

I'm 90% sure someone ninja'd me.

If it is proven that the fetus is not alive until birth, abort away.

It is alive, given that it requires living cells for it to grow.

Definition of life may vary. Whether terminating growth of living cells counts as killing them is discussable. Personally I don't think so.

I take it you consider that a good thing.

Yeah. I'm confused now. I'm pro-life because I believe the child is alive or close enough to alive that we can't put it's life at stake without a very good reason (birth control is not a good reason).

That's the "kinda sorta maybe?" kind of 'the same'. Not actually the same.
And by carrying a baby you are always risking your health. Unforeseen complications aren't that uncommon.

I'll stop using analogies.
But my point is that we can't really go by unforseen complications. A mother that plans her child usually won't just suddenly panic and abort because she might be at risk. But a mother that plans her child and is told that she is at high risk probably will. Plus keep in mind, while the woman may BE at risk, she only aborts because she doesn't want to go through with pregnancy, and she doesn't think of that. We make the excuse for her.

You like to ignore the fact that occasionally birth control and other general means of protection against sexually transmitted anythings fail? Or is that just under the 'you know the risk, don't have sex if you aren't prepared for the consequences'?

I feel that if they know the risk, and they aren't at too great a risk, the consequences should be accepted. That's a bit harsh, but I just simply can't understand why avoiding sex to protect your health and possibly your life, not to mention steer clear of this decision, is so hard. I do it, and I don't have to do it. I just couldn't put someone in that position.

Apes make tools, otters utilize stones as tools, some dolphins weight lift to impress the ladies, many species are impressive architects. Hmhmhm~

That's true. I just mean they haven't done it as effeciently as humans have. Not sure where this part of the debate even came from...

Then you could just have said that simple sentence instead of using a debatable metaphor. :P

I've learned my lesson.

Yeah. I'm confused now. I'm pro-life because I believe the child is alive or close enough to alive that we can't put it's life at stake without a very good reason (birth control is not a good reason

I won't argue with your beliefs, as they are your beliefs and I do not consider them wrong.
I will argue that your beliefs (as well as anyone else's) should not affect people with different beliefs. Since people still discuss whether it is right or not to terminate the life of an embryo (actually not a fetus, since most abortions are done before that stage), I don't think there should be laws against it, but that it should be every woman's own choice, and every doctors own choice whether or not they are willing to do it.

I'll stop using analogies.

I've learned my lesson.

Using non-specific sentences when arguing things people might disagree with tends to cause a mess because metaphors can often be seen in several ways. Good thing to know, it is.

But my point is that we can't really go by unforseen complications. A mother that plans her child usually won't just suddenly panic and abort because she might be at risk. But a mother that plans her child and is told that she is at high risk probably will

True. Or at least almost, since not everyone who knows they're at high risk gives up~

Plus keep in mind, while the woman may BE at risk, she only aborts because she doesn't want to go through with pregnancy, and she doesn't think of that. We make the excuse for her.

That's generalizing and not necessarily true for the majority. I'm pretty sure it is at least not true for all.

That's a bit harsh, but I just simply can't understand why avoiding sex to protect your health and possibly your life, not to mention steer clear of this decision, is so hard. I do it, and I don't have to do it. I just couldn't put someone in that position.

Sex drives. They're evil.
Abstinence is a good choice if you really do not under any circumstances want to have to deal with such a thing.
Taking the risk can be lovely, though. (Not that I would know, but you hopefully get my point.)
I think that we actually agree most of the way... Just not wording things in the same way.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, so only one thing to say, Zophia.

That's generalizing and not necessarily true for the majority. I'm pretty sure it is at least not true for all.

I was unclear. I was speaking of women who use it for birth control. I didn't mean to generalize every abortion.

I think that we actually agree most of the way... Just not wording things in the same way.

Just what I'm thinking

I was unclear. I was speaking of women who use it for birth control. I didn't mean to generalize every abortion.

Good thing to mention.

Just what I'm thinking

Nice discussing with you. (Always fun to argue and along the way realize that you more or less agree with each other~)

I think we've reached an impasse, Firefly. I'm getting a C in science, so I can't really argue too well there. But anyway, since we don't know, that's basically my reason. If it is proven that the fetus is not alive until birth, abort away. You and I disagree there, and probably we won't convince the other one otherwise. Very interesting debate, I liked your new armatar, and see you later, I guess

It is immaterial what grade you are achieving in science, unless you can find some studies that back up the claim that fetuses are people and do feel pain etc, then your argument remains week. Like I said before anyway, by the upper limit of legal abortions babies do not resemble human form at all, do not feel pain or other sensations. In addition to this point only 1.5% of all abortions are performed in the final legally allowed week.

It is immaterial what grade you are achieving in science, unless you can find some studies that back up the claim that fetuses are people and do feel pain etc, then your argument remains week.

I don't remember saying they were definitely people, and I don't see how whether or not they feel pain makes it less of a life. Like I said, my reason is that we can't prove it. Even if science is teaching us what is most likely, it is not proof. It's a weak argument because it's not an argument. I was just telling you why I believe as I do. If you want to ignore scientific claims I've made, go ahead. I didn't mean to make any claims. I usually use a source when I say something based on what I don't fully understand or just seems too general to say.
BTW, only said that because that's the worst I've done in science, and I don't consider myself a scientist. Actually I checked, I'm getting a B right now.

(birth control is not a good reason).

Don't generalize. Sometimes, abortion for birth control is okay. Sometimes, it isn't. It's a very hit-and-miss thing, and throwing a blanket generalization over it isn't close to the truth.

Don't generalize. Sometimes, abortion for birth control is okay. Sometimes, it isn't. It's a very hit-and-miss thing, and throwing a blanket generalization over it isn't close to the truth.

I don't ever consider it responsible. Even if the mother is in danger, the REASON is for birth control, meaning she can give birth to the child, but it would save her time and effort to end the life (or potential life). But if you want me not to generalize, then I don't think birth control is a good reason. MY opinion, not a fact, and people are entitled to disagree and argue.