Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314928 |
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
Abortion is wrong. Why should something die because you couldn't keep your legs closed?
[/quote]Abortion is wrong. Why should something die because you couldn't keep your legs closed?[quote]
To die you must first live.
abortion should be illegal even if somebody gets *****, your killing a innocent being, without the ability to fight back
we kill innocent deer for fun, how should destroying a small microscopic ball of cells be any different?
Abortion is wrong. Why should something die because you couldn't keep your legs closed?
wow....
People make mistakes.Why should two people *technaiclly three people* live ruined lives because they got drunk/ had feelings for each other? Its not fair to teen parents. Ironically, your church tells me that I have a second chance or I can redeem myself. So why can't teens redeem themselves and by making the option to move on with their lives?
I thought maybe we could look at this argument in a different way.
It seems to me that whether or not a person supports abortion depends on their definition of "erson" and whether or not that definition applies to a fetus. I think this is the only way to go, because arguing that it's the potential for life opens up a slippery slope counterargument.
So, my question is: Is this really what it comes down to - a definition of "erson"?
Or is there something more to this? What is certain is that abortion is not murder, at least by definition. So where does the definition change, and why?
So, my question is: Is this really what it comes down to - a definition of "erson"?
Or is there something more to this? What is certain is that abortion is not murder, at least by definition. So where does the definition change, and why?
Pretty much. The definition seems to change from person to person... I believe that once it thinks, its a person. Some seem to believe that once the girls pregnant, its a person. It also seems to come down to what you consider stoping life, since maney of the people for it say that masterbation and abortion have the same effect, while those for it argue that its not, mainly becase they see it as a person...
Sperm die naturally, abortion is unnatural and there is no difference between it and murder. You kill a pregnant woman and what does it get called???
If a fetus becomes a life at your 15 weeks, how is 14 days 6 weeks any different???
Lol... I can't believe my post just came out like that. Scratch that, reverse it.
Sperm die naturally, abortion is unnatural and there is no difference between it and murder. You kill a pregnant woman and what does it get called???
If a fetus becomes a life at your 15 weeks, how is 14 days 6 weeks any different???
But if the sperm is stopped from ever reaching the egg, then its the same. As for the pregnant woman, it is no different from a regular woman thus it doesen't apply here. And finaly, that one week has an exreamly important factor:thought. Its what keeps us from bieng just rocks.
I think abortion should be legal. We are people and we are more intelligent than other organisms on the planet because we have our own values and emotions. A lot emotions are caused by your values; if you had a book that you really loved and someone stole it you would be bloody furious, but if someone gave you a sequel to it you'd be very happy. An unborn foetus does not have any values at that stage in development and therefore cannot be sad or afraid. If the mother wants an abortion and the foetus can't care for it's death then where's the problem?
That's how I see it. :/
So why use the argument that in order to ban abortion you'd have to ban masturbation?
Because you are arguing against abortion on the basis that a fetus has the potential to become a human. Yet so does sperm. So that logic doesn't really work. A couple denies potential life every time they have sex with a condom, or again, a man masturbates, or a woman allows a menstrual period to pass without conceiving a child.
The potential in life for sperm is zero. I can't become a human alone. Same with an egg.
Since when does 'otential for life' have to be defined by something becoming a new organism all on its own?
In that case, the potential for life argument makes no sense at all, because the fetus is attached tot he woman's body through the placenta; it shares her circulatory and respiratory system. To all intents and purposes it's part of her, and relies on her to survive. Therefore the sperm and the fetus are in the same predicament. Neither can become life 'on their own'.
If a fetus becomes a life at your 15 weeks, how is 14 days 6 weeks any different???
Remember, you have to draw the line somewhere, bearing in mind the deadline is set not only by when biologically a fets can be considered life, but also when it's safe to operate for the mother. That said, a fetus is not neocortically developed enough to have any cognitive capabilities at all until the third trimester, way beyond that of the legal limit of 24 weeks.
Before this time it is essentially a vegetable. We kill vegetables all the time, but nobody calls it murder.
abortion is unnatural and there is no difference between it and murder
This is exactly the type of statement we need to avoid here. There is absolutely a difference between abortion and murder - both criminally and ethically.
Even if you are radically pro-life, you would have to concede that the act of murder is significantly different from abortion. You might think they're both heinous and abominations, but they are nonetheless quite distinct.
By calling abortion murder, you are begging the question against the pro-choice side and not really helping anyone.
So I'm wondering if someone can come up with an argument against abortion that doesn't hinge on defining a fetus as a person/being. And if it's sound and cogent, I'll give you a merit
Ok, avoid the truth so babykillers don't feel bad, got it.
You still haven't answered what it is called when a pregnant woman is killed...
There is a deadline for when there is a difference between a life and a rock. Conception.
You still haven't answered what it is called when a pregnant woman is killed...
Murder, and rightly so.
There is a deadline for when there is a difference between a life and a rock. Conception.
If you believe that at conception the clump of cells deserves to have the same legal status as human life, then we should probably give rights to vegetables, bacteria, and hey, why not cancerous tumours while we're at it? I mean, they are essentially the same in this early stage. Parisitic clumps of cells with no sentience whatsoever.
Because you are arguing against abortion on the basis that a fetus has the potential to become a human.
Although I am against abortion that hasn't really been my main focus in what I'm arguing. All I'm trying to point out is that masturbation and abortion are totally different. Like, in order to have an abortion you either need to have sex (two humans of the opposite gender) or artificially inseminate first. Masturbation doesn't require that. So right there is one difference.
Since when does 'otential for life' have to be defined by something becoming a new organism all on its own?
Depending upon your definition of potential for life we can argue that everything has the potential for life. My skin cells could be cloned in the near future so I better not let any flake off, there is potential there. So Sperm which like skin cells don't have the ability or potential to become life on there own would both have some potential for life.
Sperm only live so long inside the testicle before they die and are replaced. Its a natural process to lose sperm. Men have wet dreams and like I said even the act of getting a woman pregnant kills millions of sperm (the sperm that don't make it to the egg.) Masturbation, although not so "natural", would probably fall along these lines. Are you having abortion because you didn't use all your sperm you have to make babies but instead waited too long and let some die in your testicles? No.
The if I masturbate I lose a sperm that could be my child. Too many factors. How do you know those exact sperm would be the sperm released into the mother of your child? How do you know what one sperm out that batch would be the one to fertilize the egg? How do you know the the next time you have sex, with the intent of getting the woman pregnant, that the woman you have it with will become successfully pregnant?
Masturbation doesn't prevent a baby from being born. Pulling out yeah maybe it does. But are Masturbating, Pulling out, Wearing Condoms the same as abortion, NO. Masturbating, pulling out, and wearing condoms PREVENT PREGNANCIES. abortions TERMINATE PREGNANCIES.
Fetus A = Child A
Sperm A + Ovum B + Successful Fertilization = Embryo X = Fetus X = Child X
The sperm still requires genetic material in order to become a baby. Sperm is not a guaranteed child. Saying Sperm A will become baby A is implausible because we also need to know Ovum A and if the fertilization will be successful.
Having a fetus gives no unknown (aside from miscarriage). fetus A is an already successfully fertilized ovum and is made up of two particular parts, One sperm and One Ovum. All this is know once a fetus exists. None of those other parts are know when a random sperm is released into a napkin.
Sperm A + Nothing = Dead sperm.
come up with an argument against abortion that doesn't hinge on defining a fetus as a person/being
Alright, I shall take your challenge!
Mothering/Parenting is some of the best times of a peoples lives. Sure it is tough sometimes, but they ultimately get more joy out of seeing their child develop and turn into a good adult. Sure the child uses lots of money during it's dependency, but that is a good trade off for 18+ years of happiness. Most mothers love their children, and abortion takes away that future source of love and happiness, ultimately making the parent's life more miserable.
Also, abortion, like everything else, has it's risks. The birth control pill RU486 has been known to cause hemorrhaging, other procedures can cause major damage and infections, and in the most extreme cases death. While having a baby can kill the mother, there really is much less to it then abortion, making actual childbirth less risky than abortion. So why go through the trouble of killing off your unborn baby when it could bring you happiness and increase your chance of living? If you really don't want to have a child, just give up for adoption. Also, there may be a link between abortion and breast cancer, making it even more risky.
I used this site for most of my info. :P
Oh, and nice copy and paste skills Reton. You could've just directed him back to your post on Pg122...
You must be logged in to post a reply!