Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314919 |
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
Funny I think the same thing of you. If you just read what I said you would find your arguments unsound.
See, there's that juvenile streak again.
Your argument is actually nonsensical, in order to have a fetus a sperm is required. I can't understand this illogical way of thinking.
In order to have a human, a female host is required. I can't understand this illogical way of thinking.
FireflyIV didn't argue my point, he called me juvenile and stated I had some inability to read.
Repeating the same argument over and over again, as well as ignoring responses to it led me to believe that is true. So far you have not convinced me otherwise. Either you simply cannot read and understand my argument, or you are being childish and ignoring it. So which is it?
-A fetus is a developing human. as agreed with by Merriam Webster's dictionary (maybe not the best source. Note that it doesn't argue that a fetus IS a human, but it does show a fetus is a developing human by definition which is unlike a sperm, this adds to the difference between killing a sperm and a fetus.)
Let me clarify my argument in relation to yours. You are arguing that because a fetus has the potential to become a human, it should be illegal to kill a fetus. I am arguing that other entities, like sperm and ovum also have the potential to form human life, and therefore to create a law against abortion on this basis would require practices like masturbation to be prohibited too.
Note I am not saying that masturbation is the same as abortion. No one is actually arguing that. What I am saying is that the principle behind why you think abortion is wrong should also apply to masturbation.
In what legal statute therefore do you get the assumption that developing humans should enjoy full human rights?
But cocaine use did drop after the crack epidemic ended. And the link also said:
Those are both opinions of individual criminologists. They are by no means gospel.
And I feel as if those four points (especially the one about more jobs) are more convincing.
I think the point about the economy is a good one too, but I think it is more of a subsidiary one. Also, the point about getting guns away from kids is pretty weak, as gun crime remains to this day a massive issue for America. I find it hard to believe that dealers in the US find it hard to get their hands on guns.
War is different from revolution. Take, for example, the French Revolution. It was very violent, and the people were bickering amongst themselves as what to do and such. I don't think violence all around the country is going to lower crime rate.
This point is null and void for one reason (well two). The decree to outlaw abortion was made in 1966. 20 years after this, it was 1986, 3 years before your revolution. Another reason would be that this revolution was nothing like that of the French. It was a popular uprising againsta tyrannical leader. Feelings of engenderment towards your common man were bound to be spread whilst fighting this common enemy.
1) The problem with that is that not everybody is where you're from. That's like saying just because one store is giving out free energy drink samples, stores all around the world are getting the same free samples.
The same applies to you. Not every country charges for abortions either. Either way it's a minor point.
2) Abortions can range anywhere from $300-$5000. That's pretty expensive to me.
$300-500 is not that expensive, even for people from deprived backgrounds. It would have such inelastic demand that people would go to great lengths to afford to pay for one, taking out loans, borrowing money from friends etc. In any case, the millions of women who do get abortions ever year, mostly from poorer backgrounds shows this to be false. Considering it's pretty serious surgery $300-500 really is very cheap.
If they were that stupid, they shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.
Well since they already did your argument makes no sense. Saying they shouldn't have been so stupid in the first place doesn't answer the question of whether they are fit to have a baby - from their actions, clearly not.
Most people, as they don't want to die, would say they pick the nine months of pain, for the same reason hostages comply to what their captors say.
As deserteagle said, it's not the mothers who die, so that doesn't really apply.
More like 68,0000 die annually
Mostly in poorer countries with poorer medical treatment, or back alley illegal abortions. The proportion of women who die in certified clinics in the western world is very low indeed. You are more likely to die during childbirth.
The decree to outlaw abortion was made in 1966. 20 years after this, it was 1986, 3 years before your revolution
Which is just enough time for the un-aborted children to be at least close to adulthood, so they were the ones leading/supporting the revolution. It's dealing with the same generation, and as this was the era of revolution, those un-aborted children couldn't help when they were born, and if it wasn't in a revolutionary period crime rate may not have been raised, but it could have.
Another reason would be that this revolution was nothing like that of the French
Actually, they were quite similar. The French were revolting against Louis XVI, and the Romanians were going against CeauÅescu. Both grew more and more violent as time progressed on. Both figures being attacked were executed.
The same applies to you. Not every country charges for abortions either. Either way it's a minor point.
On average, there are more places that you will have to pay for abortions rather than get them free. And yes, it is a minor point, as it varies from person to person.
$300-500 is not that expensive, even for people from deprived backgrounds.
Think you missed a '0' there. It can range anywhere from 300 to 5000. But that is usually determined by how long you wait to get your abortion. $5000 is quite a bit of money.
As deserteagle said, it's not the mothers who die, so that doesn't really apply.
And like I said, abortions still can kill the mother, making it perfectly applicable.
Mostly in poorer countries with poorer medical treatment, or back alley illegal abortions. The proportion of women who die in certified clinics in the western world is very low indeed. You are more likely to die during childbirth.
And these back alley illegal/unsafe abortions account for 50% of all abortions worldwide. And yes, in the western world there are rarely unsafe abortions. Also, in general, the chance of dying through childbirth in developed countries is 1 in 1800, and in the U.S. it's 1 in 3700, which is still ridiculously low. There is no general statistic for undeveloped countries, as it depends on how bad off the country is (whether they have good hospitals or not, general sanitation, etc.) and the individual person.
Which is just enough time for the un-aborted children to be at least close to adulthood, so they were the ones leading/supporting the revolution.
Your point?
and if it wasn't in a revolutionary period crime rate may not have been raised, but it could have.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The French were revolting against Louis XVI, and the Romanians were going against CeauÃ...�escu.
Hmm, revolting against 2 popular leaders. They must have been identitcal then! Dont'e be ridiculous, that probably accounts for the vast majority of revolutions. That doesn't mean they were similar, at all.
Both grew more and more violent as time progressed on.
As is the nature of any revolution. It gathers pace slowly, and then there is a spark leading to more violence. This doesn't mean they were similar. The carnage of the French revolution was far far greater than that of the Romanian one.
Both figures being attacked were executed.
Just like in almost any successful revolution. Doesn't make them similar. In fact the French Revolution is one of the most unique of its kind. The Romanian revolution was fairly straightforward by comparison.
Think you missed a '0' there. It can range anywhere from 300 to 5000. But that is usually determined by how long you wait to get your abortion. $5000 is quite a bit of money.
Or the quality of the clinic. That said, $300-500 is the price range the majority of people who get abortions would pay, since the majority are from poorer backgrounds. Why would they pay $5000 if they could pay much less than that? In addition the financial cost of raising a child is far far greater than $5000, so it doesn't really work to argue against abortion because of the money involved.
And like I said, abortions still can kill the mother, making it perfectly applicable.
Not really.
If someone pulled on a gun on you and said "Live nine months in pain, or die." what would you do? Most people, as they don't want to die, would say they pick the nine months of pain, for the same reason hostages comply to what their captors say.
You make it seem like if they don't choose the nine months of pain they will die. You don't say 'ossibly die', or anything of nature, but say 'will die'. I stand by the fact that statement you made is an extremely innacurate portrayal of the risk associated with abortion.
There is no general statistic for undeveloped countries, as it depends on how bad off the country is (whether they have good hospitals or not, general sanitation, etc.) and the individual person.
Since the majority of people worldwide who have no access to any sort of medical care whatsoever, I'd say the chance of dying from childbirth would be no greater than their chances of dying from an abortion, even a back alley one.
Your point?
The point was that it's usually adults/older teens that do the crimes that significantly raise the crime rate; not 9 or 10 year olds.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It's more of a hypothesis than claim.
Why would they pay $5000 if they could pay much less than that?
Because sometimes they don't realize they are pregnant until the fetus is at a more developed stage, making it a lot more complicated than killing a small clump of cells.
You make it seem like if they don't choose the nine months of pain they will die.....I stand by the fact that statement you made is an extremely innacurate portrayal of the risk associated with abortion.
If you go deeper into the analogy, you'll see that it gets more accurate. For instance, the gun couldn't even be loaded, the bullet fired could be a dud. Also, you are forgetting that analogy aren't supposed to necessarily be an accurate/realistic comparison. It's like comparing the size between Iceland and Russia to the difference in size between a bacteria and the Sun. It get's the same message across. I can see that if you just read it by skimming over it and not thinking to deep into it that it would make abortion look like a 100% of fatality, but that's obviously not the case. As far as I know, there is no 100% chance of death in any medical procedures.
Since the majority of people worldwide who have no access to any sort of medical care whatsoever, I'd say the chance of dying from childbirth would be no greater than their chances of dying from an abortion, even a back alley one.
It largely depends on the country and the person that is performing the abortion. If it was an unqualified med school drop out, the chance of a safe abortion drops. They would both have a chance for infection, though I think the childbirth would actually be safer in this case, as plenty of people have been born without the use of anaesthetics, and the mothers haven't died. But again, it largely depends on the situation.
Agh, forgot about the comments on the revolution. >.>
That doesn't mean they were similar, at all....Just like in almost any successful revolution. Doesn't make them similar.
The Romanians were the only people to have a violent revolution and execute the ruling power in all of the former Soviet states in eastern Europe. And you basically just contradicted yourself, pointing out similarities and then saying they aren't similar.
A country must be very retarded for not allowing abortion but it cant be seen as a contraceptive method.
Im completely in favor of abortion (and euthanasia too).
I'm saying the two are not comparable.
They both end potential life, but not necessarily human life. Masturbation ends sperm life, abortion kills fetus life(aborted embryos are often saved, not killed, so abortion of embryos isn't technically inhuman moat of the time because it puts potential humans in suspended animation of sorts).
Also, fetuses aren't 100% guaranteed to develop correctly anyway. But either way, while it is destroying a potential human, the cells being destroyed are physiologically part of the mother. Just as people have the right to remove their own arms, mothers have the right to have fetuses removed. The fetus is, at the moment of legal abortion, a clump of stem cells inside a mother. Part of the mother just as much as the mother's arm or head is. But unnecessary and sometimes dangerous.
The abortions that should be illegal are partial-birth abortions and abortions more than a few days past the first trimester - 2nd and 3rd trimesters are where the clump of cells becomes a human clump of cells. The earliest viable preemie ever born was born at I think 4 or 5 months, which is 2nd trimester - which then makes it a reasonable assumption that fetuses become more human around that time. The consensus among most doctors is 24 weeks, right in the 2nd trimester. 1st trimester, the fetuses are simply clumps of growing cells, and they become something much more later.
The point was that it's usually adults/older teens that do the crimes that significantly raise the crime rate; not 9 or 10 year olds.
Since it was 20 years later, the children would be 20, not 9/10...
It's more of a hypothesis than claim.
A hypothesis isbased on empirical evidence. Conjecture has no place in a debate.
Because sometimes they don't realize they are pregnant until the fetus is at a more developed stage, making it a lot more complicated than killing a small clump of cells.
Within the legal time frame for abortion, fetuses are nothing more than clumps of cells. Abortions are a flat rate. The price doesn't differ due to the stage a woman is at, but the quality of the care and the skill of doctors involved.
If you go deeper into the analogy, you'll see that it gets more accurate
No it doesn't, since you never mentioned any of that in your original analogy.
If someone pulled on a gun on you and said "Live nine months in pain, or die." what would you do?
Don't try to incorporate extra details now. Your analogy was clearly very flawed. Deal with it.
Also, you are forgetting that analogy aren't supposed to necessarily be an accurate/realistic comparison.
Not perfectly, but your wasn't even close to accurate.
They would both have a chance for infection, though I think the childbirth would actually be safer in this case, as plenty of people have been born without the use of anaesthetics, and the mothers haven't died.
You can get infections during childbirth. Plus, if there are any complications for a woman having a baby and there is no doctor at hand, as would be in most third world nations, they are pretty much screwed sadly.
The Romanians were the only people to have a violent revolution and execute the ruling power in all of the former Soviet states in eastern Europe.
You probably haven't heard of the Hunagrian revolution then. They didn't succeed, but they did have a violent, anti communist revolution in the 50s, therefore to say the Romanians were a unique case is not true.
Either way this doesn't show how they were similar to the French Revolution. They were instigated by groups with completely different aims, and most importantly, occured within massively different historical context. Comparing an anti Feudal revolution to an anti communist one is a pretty fruitless endeavour.
And you basically just contradicted yourself, pointing out similarities and then saying they aren't similar.
They were similar in the way that all revolutions are similar - a popular uprising against a hated leader. That's akin to saying that The Greek Civil War and WW1 were similar wars, because they involved separate geo-political bodies fighting for dominance over a particular territory. Essentially it means nothing, because that is what all wars entail. You described no similarities other than those which exist in order for it to be defined as a revolution. Nothing specific to either one that couldn't be applied to any revolution.
Since it was 20 years later, the children would be 20, not 9/10...
I know, that's what I said. >.>
A hypothesis isbased on empirical evidence. Conjecture has no place in a debate.
A conjecture is basically an unproven hypothesis. Anyways, this is completely off-topic.
Don't try to incorporate extra details now. Your analogy was clearly very flawed. Deal with it.
If you actually read a few pages back, I brought up these extra details earlier. Specifically the part where deserteagle was confused about what I thought.
Not perfectly, but your wasn't even close to accurate.
Let's see: -Has a choice, check.
-9 months of pain, check.
-Chance of death, check.
Seems pretty accurate to a mother with a pregnancy and both of her choices.
if there are any complications for a woman having a baby and there is no doctor at hand, as would be in most third world nations, they are pretty much screwed sadly.
If there were no doctors at hand in the first place, abortion isn't an option, unless you try to do it yourself, which is almost certain to fail.
You probably haven't heard of the Hungarian revolution then. They didn't succeed, .......Either way this doesn't show how they were similar to the French Revolution........They were similar in the way that all revolutions are similar - a popular uprising against a hated leader.......You described no similarities other than those which exist in order for it to be defined as a revolution. Nothing specific to either one that couldn't be applied to any revolution.
I have heard of it, but because it didn't succeed, it's not as similar to the French revolution as the Romanian revolution. And they are a unique case, not in the violence aspect, but in the execution of the ruling figure. America didn't go murder the George III when their revolution succeeded. And of course the French and Romanian revolutions aren't similar to the point of 90%, but they certainly do have more similarities than say the Chinese revolution and the French. Civil wars are also considered revolutions, and they aren't against a single hated ruler. Also, the original point was not the similarity between the French and Romanian revolution, but that during revolution violence increases, and crime rate follows close behind. Either way, this is also extremely off topic.
Let me clarify my argument in relation to yours. You are arguing that because a fetus has the potential to become a human, it should be illegal to kill a fetus.
No. I am against abortion. I don't believe that a fetus has potnetial for life, I believe the fetus has life.The fetus already has life and what it's doing is developing. I also believe that a sperm has no potential for life alone and only in the sense that it can't do anything in its natural state to become any more developed than a sperm. A fetus, in its natural state in a womb can and does develope further. The argument for me isn't that of potential but of developement in it's natural state.
You are arguing that because a fetus has the potential to become a human, it should be illegal to kill a fetus.
No, I haven't been arguing this at all. I felt inclined to state my belief that I am against abortion in most of my posts, which may have lead people to believe I was arguing reasons why abortion should be illegal. But this is not what I have been arguing.
I'm trying to say that abortions and masturbation are far separate things. Masturbation kills a sperm and abortion kills a fetus. SOme people were stating the ends of abortion are the ends of masturbation. Although in both cases we are left with no baby, you are also left with no baby after other activities like watching T.V. and peeling an orange. The ends of masturbation kills a sperm or just gives one pleasure, the ends of abortion kills an embryo or fetus. (Regardless of whether one considers the embryo or fetus living your still killing different things when comparign masturbation to abortion.)
So the end of masturbation isn't that your left with no baby its that a sperm is killed or that you pleasured yourself. The end of abortion is the killing of an embryo or fetus because thats what abortion is by defintion.
Now as to bannig abortion would require banning masturbation, possible, but not in all cases. Here are four cases of how the laws could be enacted.
Case 1: A law could be declared that fetuses (and embryos) are human and therefore abortion is the killing of a human. Abortion is banned. Masturbation would not be banned because masturbation does not kill fetususes.
Case 2: A law could be declared that killing a fetus (and embryo) is illegal. Abortion is banned. Masturbation is not banned.
Now this law would be a bit strange because fetuses weren't declared human by the law (this makes Case 2 different than Case 1) making it hard to see why the ban was made.
Case 3: A law declaring anything with the potential for life should not be killed. A second law is then inacted stating abortion and masturbation are banned. However other things might need to be banned in this case because the potential for life is not defined by this law.
Case 4: A law is enacted declaring anything with a certain potential for life is not be killed. A second law is then enacted declaring how much potential for life certain items have and under what criteria the items were based (items like an ovum, sperm, embryo, fetus). A third law is encated declaring embryo's and fetuses have enough potential to be considerd crimainal if terminated. A fourth law is enacted declaring that abortions are banned. Masturbation is not banned.
I am arguing that other entities, like sperm and ovum also have the potential to form human life, and therefore to create a law against abortion on this basis would require practices like masturbation to be prohibited too.
I was never arguing this point or basing abortions be illegal on potential for life. I Stated my belief that I am against abortion and then pointed out that masturbation and abortion are not the same and are barely if at all comparable. Maybe I shouldn't have done both in one post.
Note I am not saying that masturbation is the same as abortion. No one is actually arguing that. What I am saying is that the principle behind why you think abortion is wrong should also apply to masturbation.
People were arguing that thee two were comparable and that the had the same ends. I was trying to point out that the two are barely comparable and have different ends. I was not at any point saying abotion is wrong because you kill the potential for life. This isn't even the reason behind why I believe abortion is wrong.
I am against abortion because I believe that an embryo and fetus are already 100% living and also human life. Not potential lives. I did state this before.
A conjecture is basically an unproven hypothesis. Anyways, this is completely off-topic.
Wrong.
Let's see: -Has a choice, check.
-9 months of pain, check.
-Chance of death, check.
Seems pretty accurate to a mother with a pregnancy and both of her choices.
Except abortion typically does not end the mother's life, whereas putting a gun to the mother's head and pulling the trigger *does.* Also, in your analogy, the main risk of death is placed on the mother, not the fetus. Abortion is not like playing with a gun, it's like cooking bacon and deciding you don't want some right after you put it on the skillet. If *might* kill you, it probably won't, and the only guaranteed loss is the bacon.
I know, that's what I said. >.>
Really? :
The point was that it's usually adults/older teens that do the crimes that significantly raise the crime rate; not 9 or 10 year olds.
Why are you even talking about 9/10 year olds then? It is the children of the generation of children who couldn't be aborted who were of the right age to commit these crimes. 9/10 year olds do not come into it.
A conjecture is basically an unproven hypothesis. Anyways, this is completely off-topic.
No, conjecture is based on a proposition, merely an idea with no basis, expressed as truth.
-Chance of death, check.
Seems pretty accurate to a mother with a pregnancy and both of her choices.
In no way, shape or form did you indicate the woman had a chance of death. The woman had only two choices in your analogy; death, or 9 months of pain.
If you actually read a few pages back, I brought up these extra details earlier. Specifically the part where deserteagle was confused about what I thought.
The ideas you brought up do not reflect your original analogy, which only gave the woman the choice between death and 9 months of pain, not a very slim chance of death and 9 months of pain.
Either way arguing against abortion on the basis it could kill the woman is ridiculous. We might aswell prohibit any medical procedure that risks the life of a person, seeing as the chances are so slim.
abortion isn't an option, unless you try to do it yourself, which is almost certain to fail.
Gruesomely, it is an option, and was a fairly large black market business before abortion was legalised. There are also certain more primitive methods for people in third world countries, which I shan't go into on a PG site, but rest assured, they exist.
but because it didn't succeed, it's not as similar to the French revolution as the Romanian revolution.
So any revolution that succeeds is similar to the French Revolution. Interesting logic.
but in the execution of the ruling figure. America didn't go murder the George III when their revolution succeeded.
Seeing as he was on another continent, that wasn't really an option, so that analogy doesn't really work.
In any case, there are plenty of revolutions in which the deposed leaders were subsequently executed; the English revolution, the Russian revolution, Iraqi Revolution, Angolan Revolution, Bangladeshi Revolution. The list goes on.
but that during revolution violence increases, and crime rate follows close behind.
During war time, crime rates actually drop. Either way, the revolution started 3 years after the 20 year marker.
Sorry Reton, I posted before your post appeared.
I don't believe that a fetus has potnetial for life, I believe the fetus has life
Since when does everything with life deserve full human rights?
I also believe that a sperm has no potential for life alone and only in the sense that it can't do anything in its natural state to become any more developed than a sperm.
Fair enough, but keep in mind a sperm is also still technically alive, so why shouldn't it have the same rights as a fetus, if we are to give human rights to everything which is alive?
A fetus, in its natural state in a womb can and does develope further.
But before it does develop further, to the point where it could be considered sentient, why should it have any rights at all?
Case 1: A law could be declared that fetuses (and embryos) are human and therefore abortion is the killing of a human. Abortion is banned. Masturbation would not be banned because masturbation does not kill fetususes.
Since fetuses have no sentience at all, that really lowers the bar for what deserves human rights. Operating on that principle, we would need to give anything that is alive human rights. Clearly there's a problem there.
A second law is then enacted declaring how much potential for life certain items have and under what criteria the items were based (items like an ovum, sperm, embryo, fetus).
I am against abortion because I believe that an embryo and fetus are already 100% living and also human life.
That's the crux of the argument though. Whether or not you consider a fetus as human life. You cannot treat such a subjective, contentious issue as an objective logical standpoint. Laws are not based on opinions. This would give the state the right to dictate what a female should do with her body, before any current law would consider the fetus human. To me, that is an unjustifiable breach of freedoms of the individual.
That's the crux of the argument though. Whether or not you consider a fetus as human life.
Yup.
Firefly, thanks for reading my posts, sorry are I got mad there a few posts back.
You must be logged in to post a reply!