Abortion: Right or Wrong? - Armor Games Community

637	118498

offline

Sonatavarius

1,322 posts

Farmer

Posted August 12, '10 2:38am UTC

a newborn doesn't know who its parents are for a long time... is it ok to spank the child, get it to breathe, and then decide you don't want it?

you're not fully "developed" and matured till after puberty is over.

the question is... "is it ok to abort a human or not?"

a human... in whatever stage of devolopment is still a human. You could always test the DNA of the "growth" and see what it is... it'll probably test positive for a human. If the DNA result doesn't match up to any other human on earth than it must belong to a human that is unique from all others. therefore it is human

the word tadpole is just a name given to the devolopmentary stage of a frog/toad.... its still a frog/toad in that stage of development. A monarch butterfly in its larval form, a caterpillar, is still a monarch butterfly. A maggot is still a fly. an embryo/fetus is still a human whether it is self aware or not. I'm aware that the i didn't use the egg/pre-birth stages of these creatures... my comparison still fits. it was done this way b/c u wouldn't accept it anyway if done that way.

being alive means:
-that you are composed of atleast one cell...
-you take in nutrients in some way and use it in the repair/construction of your body/cell
-once matured you,as a species, have some means of reproduction.(either through division, sexually, asexually, etc)

side note.... to be alive you do not have to be self aware.

i guess there's a misunderstanding here. I believe that killing a human...or anything else for that matter... for the sake of just killing it is wrong. That is my argument.

urs... I believe, is that if you kill it before birth than it is ok. (i use kill b/c the ending of life (fetus fits the bill as being alive by scientific standards) would be used to accomplish your goal) I see your side as getting a new computer built for you, maybe as a surprise and later finding out before its built, and then smashing it before it is completed. ***side note- the computer learns and grows***- It just wasn't the best time in your life to have such a computer. There is alot of time and effort you'd need to put into it that you just don't have at this time. You can always get another one later on in life.

that was a somewhat condensed version...

now i have at least proven to myself that fetuses are alive and that they are human. A computer is not. To me you are saying that killing a human before it has started the learning/growing process that occurs after birth is justifiably ok. I say that killing a human in any way is wrong. I doubt we'll reconcile our differences on a flash game site. Our customs and beliefs are too different. Doing this anymore is just blowing smoke and looking stupid. maybe i'll see u guys in another thread one day. laters

a newborn doesn't know who its parents are for a long time... is it ok to spank the child, get it to breathe, and then decide you don't want it?  \r\n\r\nyou're not fully "developed" and matured till after puberty is over.  \r\n\r\nthe question is... "is it ok to abort a human or not?" \r\n\r\na human... in whatever stage of devolopment is still a human.  You could always test the DNA of the "growth" and see what it is... it'll probably test positive for a human.  If the DNA result doesn't match up to any other human on earth than it must belong to a human that is unique from all others.  therefore it is human\r\n\r\nthe word tadpole is just a name given to the devolopmentary stage of a frog/toad.... its still a frog/toad in that stage of development.  A monarch butterfly in its larval form, a caterpillar, is still a monarch butterfly.  A maggot is still a fly.  an embryo/fetus is still a human whether it is self aware or not.  I'm aware that the i didn't use the egg/pre-birth stages of these creatures... my comparison still fits. it was done this way b/c u wouldn't accept it anyway if done that way.\r\n\r\nbeing alive means:\r\n -that you are composed of atleast one cell...\r\n-you take in nutrients in some way and use it in the repair/construction of your body/cell\r\n-once matured you,as a species, have some means of reproduction.(either through division, sexually, asexually, etc)\r\n\r\n\r\nside note.... to be alive you do not have to be self aware.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\ni guess there's a misunderstanding here.  I believe that killing a human...or anything else for that matter... for the sake of just killing it is wrong.  That is my argument. \r\n\r\nurs... I believe, is that if you kill it before birth than it is ok.  (i use kill b/c the ending of life (fetus fits the bill as being alive by scientific standards) would be used to accomplish your goal) I see your side as getting a new computer built for you, maybe as a surprise and later finding out before its built, and then smashing it before it is completed. ***side note- the computer learns and grows***-  It just wasn't the best time in your life to have such a computer.  There is alot of time and effort you'd need to put into it that you just don't have at this time. You can always get another one later on in life.\r\n\r\nthat was a somewhat condensed version... \r\n\r\nnow i have at least proven to myself that fetuses are alive and that they are human.  A computer is not.  To me you are saying that killing a human before it has started the learning/growing process that occurs after birth is justifiably ok. I say that killing a human in any way is wrong. I doubt we'll reconcile our differences on a flash game site. Our customs and beliefs are too different.  Doing this anymore is just blowing smoke and looking stupid. maybe i'll see u guys in another thread one day. laters

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted August 12, '10 2:55am UTC

a newborn doesn't know who its parents are for a long time... is it ok to spank the child, get it to breathe, and then decide you don't want it?

Nope-that is why you are doing it before they are born or can even think.

you're not fully "developed" and matured till after puberty is over.

But you can think, witch gives you "valuable life". Without the ability to think, you could be broccoli for all I care.

a human... in whatever stage of devolopment is still a human. You could always test the DNA of the "growth" and see what it is... it'll probably test positive for a human. If the DNA result doesn't match up to any other human on earth than it must belong to a human that is unique from all others. therefore it is human

So according to you, wearing a condom is also bad? Sperm have human DNA and your killin' the poor fellas.

The rest of your argument can be summed up by saying

WE REALIZE THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED ALIVE! But not all life is valuable. You kill millions every time you move your hand. Every time you eat you are killing something that was once living. Fetus may be living, but they are just as living as a cabbage. And I would destroy a cabbage for the benefit of a human, especially if science benefits from it as well. Even if you consider that sack of cells "human" you can't consider it a &quoterson" until it is able to think, the only thing that gives life value.

[quote]a newborn doesn't know who its parents are for a long time... is it ok to spank the child, get it to breathe, and then decide you don't want it?  [/quote]\r\n\r\nNope-that is why you are doing it before they are born or can even think.\r\n\r\n[quote]you're not fully "developed" and matured till after puberty is over.  [/quote]\r\n\r\nBut you can think, witch gives you "valuable life". Without the ability to think, you could be broccoli for all I care.\r\n\r\n[quote]a human... in whatever stage of devolopment is still a human.  You could always test the DNA of the "growth" and see what it is... it'll probably test positive for a human.  If the DNA result doesn't match up to any other human on earth than it must belong to a human that is unique from all others.  therefore it is human[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo according to you, wearing a condom is also bad? Sperm have human DNA and your killin' the poor fellas.\r\n\r\nThe rest of your argument can be summed up by saying\r\n\r\nWE REALIZE THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED ALIVE! But not all life is valuable. You kill millions every time you move your hand. Every time you eat you are killing something that was once living. Fetus may be living, but they are just as living as a cabbage. And I would destroy a cabbage for the benefit of a human, especially if science benefits from it as well. Even if you consider that sack of cells "human" you can't consider it a "person" until it is able to think, the only thing that gives life value.

offline

Sonatavarius

1,322 posts

Farmer

Posted August 12, '10 4:02am UTC

u haven't read the other posts i've made sir. i addressed the menstrual cycle and what you are saying about the sperm. I don't see how you connected those two statements. i'll explain

The two separate reproductive cells are just that... cells. They belong to the respective owner just as much as their arm or leg. I would rather you not go and cut off your appendages but that is your decision.

You are talking about hypothetical children. A hypothetical child isn't a child. Just because a child could have been conceived if the egg and sperm had met doesn't mean that you have killed an organism if you prevent them from meeting. You can only abort/kill a real creature/organism if that creature did in fact exist.

if the two reproductive cells never met then it is the same concept as scratching off skin cells that are still alive and just discarding them. they were only ever a part of you and if you tested the dna you would find out that they match half of your genome (i don't want to explain meiosis... i'm assuming u know it). once coupled the DNA test would show that the new organism is half you and half your partner. that doesn't mean that it is still you or your partner. That means that it is its own new organism.

with a condom you are just discarding a part of you... with abortion you are ending the life cycle of a completely new creature.

i also told my opinion of death with a purpose in the same long message i already referred to.

i said that i thought abortion was ok and necessary to save a woman "carrying her own coffin". I don't see why 2 should die when only one has to. if u can't afford it then give it to adoption. If you can afford to birth it then you should've been more careful with your contraceptives. If you don't want to have to deal with the possibility of a child than maybe you shouldn't have partaken in intercourse and abstained up until the time you were ready to accommodate such a situation.

as for experimentation... i don't think there is any reason to argue that we could use aborted fetuses for research when stem cells are found in umbilical chords and their fluid... (the organism doesn't need to die to obtain it)

i know i'm random with some of my statements... but so are you. I try to cover different things that you might randomly bring up before you have to tax ur energy with typing out such a question

u haven't read the other posts i've made sir. i addressed the menstrual cycle and what you are saying about the sperm.  I don't see how you connected those two statements.  i'll explain\r\n\r\nThe two separate reproductive cells are just that... cells.  They belong to the respective owner just as much as their arm or leg.  I would rather you not go and cut off your appendages but that is your decision. \r\n\r\nYou are talking about hypothetical children.  A hypothetical child isn't a child.  Just because a child could have been conceived if the egg and sperm had met doesn't mean that you have killed an organism if you prevent them from meeting.  You can only abort/kill a real creature/organism if that creature did in fact exist. \r\n\r\nif the two reproductive cells never met then it is the same concept as scratching off skin cells that are still alive and just discarding them.  they were only ever a part of you and if you tested the dna you would find out that they match half of your genome (i don't want to explain meiosis... i'm assuming u know it).  once coupled the DNA test would show that the new organism is half you and half your partner.  that doesn't mean that it is still you or your partner. That means that it is its own new organism.  \r\n\r\nwith a condom you are just discarding a part of you... with abortion you are ending the life cycle of a completely new creature.\r\n\r\ni also told my opinion of death with a purpose in the same long message i already referred to.\r\n\r\ni said that i thought abortion was ok and necessary to save a woman "carrying her own coffin".  I don't see why 2 should die when only one has to.  if u can't afford it then give it to adoption.  If you can afford to birth it then you should've been more careful with your contraceptives.  If you don't want to have to deal with the possibility of a child than maybe you shouldn't have partaken in intercourse and abstained up until the time you were ready to accommodate such a situation.\r\n\r\nas for experimentation... i don't think there is any reason to argue that we could use aborted fetuses for research when stem cells are found in umbilical chords and their fluid... (the organism doesn't need to die to obtain it)\r\n\r\ni know i'm random with some of my statements... but so are you. I try to cover different things that you might randomly bring up before you have to tax ur energy with typing out such a question

offline

rafterman

600 posts

Nomad

Posted August 12, '10 5:02am UTC

u haven't read the other posts i've made sir. i addressed the menstrual cycle and what you are saying about the sperm. I don't see how you connected those two statements. i'll explain

Its your opinion that life starts, you used science to find the earliest stage in a development that fits your description of life, not everyone shares that opinion.

once coupled the DNA test would show that the new organism is half you and half your partner. that doesn't mean that it is still you or your partner. That means that it is its own new organism.

Kind of like a parasite?

if u can't afford it then give it to adoption.

Would you adopt said baby? Putting it up for adoption does not mean it will be adopted, considering that there are millions of unadopted orphans still, well, unadopted.
Yes, you could say to put it up to adoption, but its best to be reasonable and suggest something that will work.

with a condom you are just discarding a part of you... with abortion you are ending the life cycle of a completely new creature.

A condom ends the life cycle as well, it starts with sperm and egg.

If you can afford to birth it then you should've been more careful with your contraceptives.

Contraceptives are not perfect, they can and do fail, and with hormones and what not, your not going to stop people from having sex.

Until it has some sort of sentience or something to distinguish it, its not much different from another cell in your body.

ps. its not a fetus until 9 weeks after fertilization, its not a fetus right when sperm and egg meet.

[quote]u haven't read the other posts i've made sir. i addressed the menstrual cycle and what you are saying about the sperm.  I don't see how you connected those two statements.  i'll explain\r\n[/quote]\r\nIts your opinion that life starts, you used science to find the earliest stage in a development that fits your description of life, not everyone shares that opinion.\r\n\r\n[quote]once coupled the DNA test would show that the new organism is half you and half your partner.  that doesn't mean that it is still you or your partner. That means that it is its own new organism.  [/quote]\r\nKind of like a parasite?\r\n\r\n[quote]if u can't afford it then give it to adoption.[/quote]\r\nWould you adopt said baby? Putting it up for adoption does not mean it will be adopted, considering that there are millions of unadopted orphans still, well, unadopted.\r\nYes, you could say to put it up to adoption, but its best to be reasonable and suggest something that will work.\r\n\r\n[quote]with a condom you are just discarding a part of you... with abortion you are ending the life cycle of a completely new creature.[/quote]\r\nA condom ends the life cycle as well, it starts with sperm and egg.\r\n\r\n[quote]If you can afford to birth it then you should've been more careful with your contraceptives.[/quote]\r\nContraceptives are not perfect, they can and do fail, and with hormones and what not, your not going to stop people from having sex.\r\n\r\nUntil it has some sort of sentience or something to distinguish it, its not much different from another cell in your body.\r\n\r\nps. its not a fetus until 9 weeks after fertilization, its not a fetus right when sperm and egg meet.

offline

Sonatavarius

1,322 posts

Farmer

Posted August 13, '10 7:07am UTC

until the two fuse the egg and sperm aren't a
fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever u want to call it. I still stand by my statement that a contraceptive, a condom, is no different from discarding cells from your body of any other type. i don't think we need to start the argument about each individual cell is a seperate life and entity that needs to be protected.... that's stretching the argument a little much i think. A somatic sex cell is haploid (n) and represents half of your genetic code. It is not a human. Another somatic sex cell (n) is required to create the first diploid (2n) cell of the new creature... it is only upon ending the development of that diploid cell or the zygote it becomes that abortion has taken place.

Catholics would argue otherwise but that's how i see it. A girl that has gone through her menstrual cycle and not conceived a child has not performed an abortion on a potential child. The child/fetus/progeny has to exist before it can be aborted. Sex cells do not equate to something that can devolop on their own so therefore contraceptives are not abortion when they have prevented coupling of the two.

that being said. i still believe abortion is wrong.

until the two fuse the egg and sperm aren't a \r\nfetus/embryo/zygote/whatever u want to call it.  I still stand by my statement that a contraceptive, a condom, is no different from discarding cells from your body of any other type.  i don't think we need to start the argument about each individual cell is a seperate life and entity that needs to be protected.... that's stretching the argument a little much i think.  A somatic sex cell is haploid (n) and represents half of your genetic code.  It is not a human.  Another somatic sex cell (n) is required to create the first diploid (2n) cell of the new creature... it is only upon ending the development of that diploid cell or the zygote it becomes that abortion has taken place.  \r\n\r\nCatholics would argue otherwise but that's how i see it. A girl that has gone through her menstrual cycle and not conceived a child has not performed an abortion on a potential child.  The child/fetus/progeny has to exist before it can be aborted.  Sex cells do not equate to something that can devolop on their own so therefore contraceptives are not abortion when they have prevented coupling of the two.\r\n\r\nthat being said. i still believe abortion is wrong.

offline

Leviathan019

39 posts

Nomad

Posted August 13, '10 11:44am UTC

Even if you consider that sack of cells "human" you can't consider it a &quoterson" until it is able to think, the only thing that gives life value.

What is your definition of "think"? Can we apply this argument to brain damaged patients, and elderly people with Alzheimer's? And what about the autistics?

You made a distinction between "human" and &quoterson". What's the difference?

offline

mdv96

1,017 posts

Nomad

Posted August 14, '10 6:26pm UTC

i still believe abortion is wrong.

but what if somehow you knew that your child will have to suffer in agony for 2 years and then die. Would you abourt then because it seams that it would be better for it to never feel that pain. Im on the fence with this one.

offline

slayguy8

718 posts

Peasant

Posted August 14, '10 6:29pm UTC

im with mdv96 im on the boarder

offline

FallenSky

1,813 posts

Peasant

Posted August 14, '10 6:52pm UTC

In my opinion, abortion is fairly right until the foetus is emitting brain waves, which comes at about 5 months if my memory's correct.

What is your definition of "think"? Can we apply this argument to brain damaged patients, and elderly people with Alzheimer's? And what about the autistics?

The only difference is that those have already lived; not a foetus. I firmly believe that abortion should be accepted everywhere. Think about all these young girls and boys to be parents everywhere, and how it could ruin their studies, thus their life. They should have a kid because they made a mistake?...Sincerely, I'm not okay with such a system. Moreover, you're not qualified to raise a kid when you're one yourself. Anyhow, my point is; to a certain extent, abortion is reasonnable. Abortion when a foetus is able to ''think'' is another debate though...

offline

wajor59

909 posts

Nomad

Posted August 14, '10 7:57pm UTC

There's a big difference between abortion being right and wrong, a moral issue versus legal and illegal, a social issue.

Personally, as a woman and mother, I view abortion as wrong, morally. I also view that abortion though should be legal. To make this illegal puts America back into the 18th century where women take to the streets to find some psycho butcher to remove the "stain of humanity" from her soiled reputation.

offline

AnaLoGMunKy

1,573 posts

Blacksmith

Posted August 14, '10 9:07pm UTC

One thing that is commonly said against abortion, that child could have been the next Einstein, or for a counter argument, that child could have been a hitler. Im sure everyone knows this argument. I believe this to be a paradox that makes no sense and folds in on itself. I could easily say, what if killing that child before birth caused the mother to have a much smarter child later, or to counter, what if she had a hitler?!? What if's forever and ever...

I would say there is no need for such an argument. Humanity is still growing smarter and bigger and shows no signs of stopping.

To personally view abortion as morally wrong but to still accept others might not feel the same and recognise it as neccessary is what more people need to do.

offline

mdv96

1,017 posts

Nomad

Posted August 18, '10 10:00pm UTC

I don't care if you are aithiest or christain. You should give the unborn a chance to live. Dont be stupid and have a pregnacy you dont want. But then agian, what if somehow the doctor found out that the chilid has a rare disabillity and will live in pain for 2 weeks and then die. i think that it would cruel to let it live.... im still on the fence i cant seam to pick one side

offline

AnaLoGMunKy

1,573 posts

Blacksmith

Posted August 18, '10 10:28pm UTC

Dont be stupid and have a pregnacy you dont want.

If only life was that simple. What if its rape, the comdom burst, you were inebriated, were told you couldnt have kids, were told the kid, as you said, had the 2 weeks to live in pain and suffering.

Where do we draw the line. What about people with a disability that renders them a vegetable and has become a drain on the people around them. Do we give them a chance to "live".

What about wasters and druggies or people who are insane and can not tell reality from drug or delusion. Do we let them "live"

I understand why you are sitting on the fence here. But you dont have to pick a side........ ever.

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted August 18, '10 10:35pm UTC

But then agian, what if somehow the doctor found out that the chilid has a rare disabillity and will live in pain for 2 weeks and then die.

Your thoughts on this matter, I think, are similar to many in the debate. But we really need to make something clear:
No one actually thinks abortion is the "right" thing to do

Instead, here's how we need to think of the 2 extremes:
Pro-Life (PL): Abortion is never morally permissible, therefore abortions should not be allowed to be performed legally.
Pro-Choice (PC): There are cases in which abortion is morally permissible, thus abortions should remain legal.

Notice that PC here is not suggesting that abortions are the morally correct choice - only that there are situations in which a mother who gets an abortion should not be morally blamed.
There are some within the PC camp who say that a mother should be able to do with her body what she will, and that any abortion should be allowed (with or without caveats).
This all-out version of PC doesn't seem right to me. Clearly, abortion shouldn't be used as a means of birth control. But what is really at issue here? Is it the fact that the mother in this case is having her fifth abortion? Or is it simply we feel the mother to be morally blameworthy by not using other means of contraception?
My suggestion is that it's the latter interpretation that makes more sense. After all, it's not really the number of abortions that we take into consideration - it's the circumstances of needing the abortion. Consider a woman who's having her fifth abortion because she doesn't like how condoms feel versus a woman who's having her fifth abortion because that's the 5th time she's been r-aped.
It's hard to hold the latter woman morally blameworthy for having the abortion, at least compared to the former case. So it's not really about the number of abortions - or really the act of the abortion at all. As I said, it's about the circumstances that make having an abortion in the first place.

This is why I reject the extreme notion of (PL). Intuitively, it seems like we need another premise to get to the conclusion that all abortions are wrong. This premise would presumably have something to do with an inherent right to life possessed by all humans, or even all living things. It would likely also need to defend premises that could define an unborn fetus as living.
Not only does a moderate version of (PC) seems more palatable, but the extreme version (the only version) of (PL) seems too hard to defend.

[quote]But then agian, what if somehow the doctor found out that the chilid has a rare disabillity and will live in pain for 2 weeks and then die.[/quote] \r\n\r\nYour thoughts on this matter, I think, are similar to many in the debate. But we really need to make something clear:\r\n[b]No one actually thinks abortion is the "right" thing to do[/b] \r\n\r\nInstead, here's how we need to think of the 2 extremes:\r\nPro-Life (PL): Abortion is never morally permissible, therefore abortions should not be allowed to be performed legally.\r\nPro-Choice (PC): There are cases in which abortion is morally permissible, thus abortions should remain legal.\r\n\r\nNotice that PC here is not suggesting that abortions are the morally correct choice - only that there are situations in which a mother who gets an abortion should not be morally blamed.\r\nThere are some within the PC camp who say that a mother should be able to do with her body what she will, and that any abortion should be allowed (with or without caveats).\r\nThis all-out version of PC doesn't seem right to me. Clearly, abortion shouldn't be used as a means of birth control. But what is really at issue here? Is it the fact that the mother in this case is having her fifth abortion? Or is it simply we feel the mother to be morally blameworthy by not using other means of contraception?\r\nMy suggestion is that it's the latter interpretation that makes more sense. After all, it's not really the number of abortions that we take into consideration - it's the circumstances of needing the abortion. Consider a woman who's having her fifth abortion because she doesn't like how condoms feel versus a woman who's having her fifth abortion because that's the 5th time she's been r-aped.\r\nIt's hard to hold the latter woman morally blameworthy for having the abortion, at least compared to the former case. So it's not really about the number of abortions - or really the act of the abortion at all. As I said, it's about the circumstances that make having an abortion in the first place.\r\n\r\nThis is why I reject the extreme notion of (PL). Intuitively, it seems like we need another premise to get to the conclusion that all abortions are wrong. This premise would presumably have something to do with an inherent right to life possessed by all humans, or even all living things. It would likely also need to defend premises that could define an unborn fetus as living.\r\nNot only does a moderate version of (PC) seems more palatable, but the extreme version (the only version) of (PL) seems too hard to defend.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted August 18, '10 10:48pm UTC

@Moegreche

I think you may have nailed it with that one. Maybe PC should stand for Pro-Circumstances?

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Abortion: Right or Wrong?