Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
It is not "a lot of luck" that results in the zygote to becoming a fetus and eventually a human.
On average one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage. This is with modern medical treatment in play. So for the numbers to count on a zygote developing on it's own we would have to remove the improved odds from modern medical treatment and care.
If these states teens truly followed what they were taught, they would not be getting pregnent.
Yeah and if people behaved differently communism would work. The biological imperative doesn't allow for abstinence only.
Same comment goes to Mage - thanks for providing the facts but we must be thinking on a different path ?
Yes you're taking it from an idealist perspective that doesn't take into account the way people behave.
Have the baby and adopt it out. People know the risks that comes with Sex.
We don't have the ability to support such numbers. There is also the stigma involved that would need to be dealt with that would drive a woman to not want others to know she is pregnant to begin with.
Because this cell has the potentional to naturally develop into a person. I don't see it as a right to be able to take a life away, be it a fetus or a fully developed person (excluding other animals).
So what if it has the potential? The argument that it's alive doesn't matter as noted previously it's all life.
When it all boils down, you are denying a developing human being a right to life.
You're preventing a potential human to develop into a human. It's potential only.
No that is too many pages sorry if I repeated stuff from unknowing.
he didn't ask that you read all the pages, just the first 3rd to get a grip on the arguments so we can curve these repeated statements that have been brought up and shot down at least three or four times by now.
also if financial is so bad why do people accept foster kids????
Many foster parents tend to be financially secure first, thus leaving them in a position to b able to take on the burdens of a child.
Well you are wasting our (or...should I say their time...since I am just a mere observer who chimes in every now and then) time by bringing up an argument that has been shot down multiple times
*sigh* Yes, ultimately, that too. So what? Still not enough to ignore the mother's decision. The mother is not potentially human she is a human!
It is not "a lot of luck" that results in the zygote to becoming a fetus and eventually a human.
Hmmm..
"Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[12] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman." Source
Team abortion, i thinks it became "Hit hte pro" threan, not a discuasine anymore. We dont argue wiht a person, we explaine ourselfe over and over. I almost belive that people open users just to fight us.
ill say, copyyour argument and past them when someone say 'murder'. I can swear that you kasic explained that over 5 times to 5 diffrunte peoples.
Reasons that abortion should not be banned: 1. The woman MAY choose to have one, it's not like "**** it, I'm pregnant, need to get rid of the baby" Getting an abortion is a hard choice.
2. Occasionally, the developing baby poses a threat to the mother. Remember in those historical tales, the kid lives but the mother dies during childbirth? Abortion stops that unnecessary loss. This is why abortion was developed in the first place.
3. Babies have huge financial impacts, only those who have the time and the money and the capacity should go through with having a kid.
4. Abortion is the failsafe of contraception, condoms and the like should have been used beforehand, it's not like willingly having unprotected sex and then saying that you don't want the baby after all.
5. Abortion is not a MUST DO WHEN YOU ARE PREGNANT. It's by choice.
6. Following on number 5, IT IS THE WOMAN'S CHOICE. I am not saying women as a whole can decide whether it's okay, I'm saying it is THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S CHOICE. Anyone saying otherwise is denying the basic rights of a human.
Now, from now on, unless you're some kind of millionaire with tons of resources that you're willing to give to a pregnant woman who wants to abort, I kindly suggest you stop making the same, easily crushed, stupid, ill-thought-out arguments against abortion.
Notice unlawful. Abortion is legal, thus it is not murder.
A better phrasing of what he meant to say would have been: "homicidal killing," instead of murder.
You're only right Kaisic that this is not murder, if you're going by the semantics of the word "murder," (which you are).
The immensely large probability of this fetus turning into a man or woman is so extravagantly large that many people do consider human fetuses in a womb humans. I agree with that sentiment, but however for my own reasons I do think that abortion is right.
What I'm trying to say is that it isn't right to consider fetuses as non-humans .
[/quote]I'm not going to waste my time going through how a fetus younger than ~7-13 weeks is not a fully developed person, nor how it should be the would-be mother's right to choose what happens in her body.
[quote]That's akin to saying that when seniors, or men or young adults or anyone for that matter enters into a vegetative state, becomes senile, or when their mind ceases to function to a "human" degree that the government has the right to kill these people, because it is the governments land after all, they should get to choose what happens on their land right? Especially in relation to brain dead veggies (that isn't meant to be offensive, just the best phrasing I could find) that are no longer fully developed humans.
Those two last statements were meant to be flipped. Kaisic said: "I'm not going to waste my time going through how a fetus younger than ~7-13 weeks is not a fully developed person, nor how it should be the would-be mother's right to choose what happens in her body."and I responded with the misquoted text at the bottom...
A better phrasing of what he meant to say would have been: "homicidal killing," instead of murder.
That statement was pretty much a summary of previous discussion on the topic.
The immensely large probability of this fetus turning into a man or woman is so extravagantly large that many people do consider human fetuses in a womb humans.
Not so immensely and extravagantly large actually. Refer back to page 41 and Hahiha's post near the bottom.
"Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[12] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman."
What I'm trying to say is that it isn't right to consider fetuses as non-humans
It's not that they are non-human, it's that they are potential humans. Going back again to what has previously been said, if all the materials for a sky scraper are being put together, is it a sky scraper even though it's not finished? No, but it isn't not a sky scraper either, it's one in the making.
That's akin to saying that when seniors, or men or young adults or anyone for that matter enters into a vegetative state, becomes senile, or when their mind ceases to function to a "human" degree that the government has the right to kill these people
The difference being that these people are already fully developed and have formed connections with other people.
that are no longer fully developed humans.
But they are. They were just damaged. A fetus was never developed enough to physically -have- brainwaves before 7 weeks, a person who's already been alive for (presumably) 20+ years is in a much different situation.
That statement was pretty much a summary of previous discussion on the topic.
I said that because I thought that you had seemed intent on saying abortion was alright because it wasn't murder.
Not so immensely and extravagantly large actually. Refer back to page 41 and Hahiha's post near the bottom.
His link and source to that is wikipedia. That wikipedia pages source and link is another wikipedia page.
I don't really credit that as a reliable source.
It's not that they are non-human, it's that they are potential humans. Going back again to what has previously been said, if all the materials for a sky scraper are being put together, is it a sky scraper even though it's not finished? No, but it isn't not a sky scraper either, it's one in the making.
The difference is that the fetus is alive, and the sky scraper parts aren't alive. It isn't as though the fetus were cut up into a 1000 different pieces and it was completely dead.
The difference being that these people are already fully developed and have formed connections with other people.
What if this vegetative person was friendless, and family-less and no one liked him or her, would it then be okay to kill him since he is no more alive than a fetus, and all his connections were negative?
But they are. They were just damaged. A fetus was never developed enough to physically -have- brainwaves before 7 weeks, a person who's already been alive for (presumably) 20+ years is in a much different situation.
Saying they're still humans because they had previously developed into human beings is like saying a human skeleton is a human, because it had (but no longer has) developed human emotions. This is a flawed thought.
I don't really want to go looking for a good source, but here's something that isn't wikipedia.
The difference is that the fetus is alive, and the sky scraper parts aren't alive.
Why does no one understand what an analogy is supposed to do?
What if this vegetative person was friendless, and family-less and no one liked him or her, would it then be okay to kill him since he is no more alive than a fetus, and all his connections were negative?
Pretty sure in that case, they would wonder who this person was, find that no one was willing to pay for the medical bills, and if they didn't wake up within a certain time period they'd let them off life support.
is like saying a human skeleton is a human,
It was, anyways.
Take note of the name of which you are talking about. Human skeleton. We don't simply say skeleton :P
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
When the chances of a successful pregnancy are 9/10 at the highest, or 75% at the lowest, I'd say that is still a pretty large chance of the fetus turning into a human, making it that the high likelihood of the fetus turning into a person are large enough to consider it a person...
Why does no one understand what an analogy is supposed to do?
Why does no one understand not to use such vague and poor analogies where the differences are to large, and the similarities to small?
Pretty sure in that case, they would wonder who this person was, find that no one was willing to pay for the medical bills, and if they didn't wake up within a certain time period they'd let them off life support.
I'll rephrase this and ask my question again: "do you think it would be RIGHT to kill a veggie who is brain dead because no one likes him or her and they're a small nuisance (on the grand scale of things) to society?
It was, anyways.
Take note of the name of which you are talking about. Human skeleton. We don't simply say skeleton
Ah, so you consider a human skeleton a human and a person? You would walk up to a human skeleton and say "what's up?"
You consider anything that was a human and developed a connection with people humans?
I find that to be slightly flawed, if you consider a brain dead veggie a person, you should consider a fetus a person. I don't think that to be a person you must have had, had connections or relationships with other humans.
That's akin to saying that when seniors, or men or young adults or anyone for that matter enters into a vegetative state, becomes senile, or when their mind ceases to function to a "human" degree that the government has the right to kill these people
Another difference here is with a person in a vegetative state there was previous consciousness over a period of time thus constituting personhood. Where as with a fetus there was not.
His link and source to that is wikipedia. That wikipedia pages source and link is another wikipedia page.
I don't really credit that as a reliable source.
Perhaps you should consider checking the source citation before dismissing it.
Annas, George J.; Elias, Sherman (2007). "24. Pregnancy loss". In Gabbe, Steven G.; Niebyl, Jennifer R.; Simpson, Joe Leigh. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (5 ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0-443-06930-7.
The difference is that the fetus is alive, and the sky scraper parts aren't alive. It isn't as though the fetus were cut up into a 1000 different pieces and it was completely dead.
I can remove cells from my body that are just as alive as that fetus, but we wouldn't call those cells a human. Just because it's living human cells doesn't mean it's yet become a human.
Saying they're still humans because they had previously developed into human beings is like saying a human skeleton is a human, because it had (but no longer has) developed human emotions. This is a flawed thought.
The human skeleton was just one part of a human. Not a human in and of itself. It might be more akin to calling an intact corpse a human. Of course here we are subtracting the living aspect, thus making it a former human.
When the chances of a successful pregnancy are 9/10 at the highest, or 75% at the lowest, I'd say that is still a pretty large chance of the fetus turning into a human,
It's a high-ish chance, yes. It's not certain though by any means that, once pregnant, that fetus will be born eventually. Especially if you take into account stupid arguments like "condoms can fail!" in contraception debates, and their lowest number is higher than that.
where the differences are to large, and the similarities to small?
In the terms of the point I was making, the differences were minute. Yes, a building isn't living. Yes, a fetus isn't composed of distinct separate parts. That's not the point of the analogy.
I'll rephrase this and ask my question again: "do you think it would be RIGHT to kill a veggie who is brain dead because no one likes him or her and they're a small nuisance (on the grand scale of things) to society?
No, not for those reasons alone.
Ah, so you consider a human skeleton a human and a person?
No, I consider it to be something which -was- a -part- of a human.
You would walk up to a human skeleton and say "what's up?"
I wouldn't, but what do you call visits to the grave?
You consider anything that was a human and developed a connection with people humans?
Did I ever say this? No, so please, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
you should consider a fetus a person.
I consider it a possible person to be. This isn't the same as saying it's not a person at all, or has no rights.
I don't think that to be a person you must have had, had connections or relationships with other humans.
I don't think that either. This is just one difference between a fully developed person and a fetus.
For the sake of clarity...
I do not advocate abortion as something to be considered easily, nor do I advocate it on any one reason. My reasons for saying that it should be legal are numerous, some of which alone would not be sufficient.
