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
I get the impression you may have either missed or are intentionally over looking the point being made in that pic. That verse in particular is just demonstrating the ill use of emotional pleas. Of course as it further develops it will begin to look more human like as that's what it's developing into. But it ain't there yet. Even at these stages where it begins to take on a more human appearance there is no real brain activity. These human features you are toting there is only about a weeks difference between the two when they first begin to appear.
I was talking about your second picture, the 11 week one. It looked the same as mine, so you are using an argument that when the two babies look exactly alike one is more developed. And you said there are no brainwaves, so, why does that mean it is not living, and what if we can't just detect them?
If abortion is so wrong, then why do you allow it that a big part of the pregnancies abort naturally, at different stages?
I never said there was nothing wrong with natural abortions, just the artificial ones, if you want the world population to go down. you could just stop having sex.
if you want the world population to go down. you could just stop having sex.
You're either extremely naive, or extremely disillusioned and not yet older than 14.
Also, again. Condoms. That's what they're for.
And you said there are no brainwaves, so, why does that mean it is not living, and what if we can't just detect them?
It's not that it is not living, the "no brainwaves" means that it is just an organic lump under development. Until it does have brainwaves, it is literally the same as a tumor, feeding off the body in order to grow.
I've already gone over how "what if" arguments are very bad to use. That goes for this as well. Anyone can turn a "what if" argument around to mean the opposite of what you used it for.
"What if" our current methods are wrong and brainwaves don't start until later? (Not very likely)
I never said there was nothing wrong with natural abortions, just the artificial ones
So you do think there's something wrong with natural abortions?
I don't understand, how come some stupid animal is considered a person, while a human being is not, please enlighten me.
It's not?
did you listen to what i said, i said there is nothing wrong with natural abortions, just artificial ones.
I did listen to what you said.
"I never said there was nothing wrong with natural abortions, just the artificial ones"
Double negative, you never said nothing was wrong, implying that you think something is wrong with it but never said you did.
if you do the math, according to this thread, the percent of the population that believes in abortion could be only 40.2%
Okay then. They don't have to get an abortion if they get pregnant then.
Why don't you do a poll on the thread seeing how many females posted and what their opinions are vs how many males posted and what their opinions are? I think that would be interesting.
Please respond to these other points as well, you tend to ignore 3/4 of what I say.
"Also, again. Condoms. That's what they're for."
"It's not that it is not living, the "no brainwaves" means that it is just an organic lump under development. Until it does have brainwaves, it is literally the same as a tumor, feeding off the body in order to grow."
"I've already gone over how "what if" arguments are very bad to use. That goes for this as well. Anyone can turn a "what if" argument around to mean the opposite of what you used it for."
Apparently he thinks that what we're saying about a little cellular blob also applies on fully grown humans... though I don't get the thing about animals being considered persons either.
Please respond to these other points as well, you tend to ignore 3/4 of what I say.
Add to your list the thing about the women's right to decide, he tends to ignore this as well.
I was talking about your second picture, the 11 week one. It looked the same as mine, so you are using an argument that when the two babies look exactly alike one is more developed.
It looked a bit more developed than that picture to me is all. This wasn't an argument.
And you said there are no brainwaves, so, why does that mean it is not living, and what if we can't just detect them?
It means it has no consciousness, no personhood. Such traits have not developed yet.
I don't understand, how come some stupid animal is considered a person, while a human being is not, please enlighten me.
Well depends on the animal. A fully developed animal can express emotion and conscious awareness i.e. personality, personhood. "The term person may designate any human (or non-human) agent which: (1) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and (2) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them."
A fetus has not possessed continuous consciousness over time, is not capable of framing eve a single representation about the world and is incapable of formulation plans and acting on them.
Others argue for individuality as a criteria rather than that of performance. Given the fetus's requirements to be literally bonded to the mother it lacks some fundamental individuality. It's only individuality at this point is that it possesses some different genetic features to that of the mother solely.
One of the more accepted criteria for personhood is based on desires. The desire to do or not do one thing or another. The ability of reflective self evaluation. Again lacking brain activity the fetus isn't going to possess desire of any sort.
The only one I can find for the argument of person hood is claiming the capacity of doing the above. But if we are to apply this to a fetus as it being possible for it to eventually be capable of doing these things as the criteria for personhood than we must also apply this to sperm given it's nothing more than an earlier stage to a person as well.
also, again. condoms. they were invented to avoid responsibility.
It's not that it is not living, the "no brainwaves" means that it is just an organic lump under development. Until it does have brainwaves, it is literally the same as a tumor, feeding off the body in order to grow.
So you are saying that everyone who still lives with their parents is a tumor?
I've already gone over how "what if" arguments are very bad to use. That goes for this as well. Anyone can turn a "what if" argument around to mean the opposite of what you used it for.
you have used what if arguments to, ex. what if having the baby kills her. so what if it saves her life?
Add to your list the thing about the women's right to decide,
Tell that to her child. Also, if she didn't want a baby, very simple way to avoid that, abstinence.
@magegraywolf, i am pretty sure it was you who said they have a nervous system, all a brain is made of, a bunch of nerve cells clustered together.
On the natural abortion topic, i didn't really pay attention to what i was writing, so that is why it turned out like that instead of like this.
I never said there was something wrong with natural abortions, just artificial ones.
also, again. condoms. they were invented to avoid responsibility.
How so? Condoms are made to keep people from having children when they don't want children. You are extremely naive if you think people just aren't going to have sex, or that abstinence works, or that people only have sex to make babies. It has nothing to do with "avoiding responsibility" and is being responsible by using them if you don't want to have a child.
So you are saying that everyone who still lives with their parents is a tumor?
And you accuse me of not reading.
"he "no brainwaves" means that it is just an organic lump under development. Until it does have brainwaves, it is literally the same as a tumor, feeding off the body in order to grow."
You have used what if arguments to, ex. what if having the baby kills her. so what if it saves her life?
I've used those as possible plausible situations as some of the reasons which one would have for abortion. I'm not saying that every baby is going to kill the mother in-utero or on birth. They aren't really "what if" arguments, just examples.
Tell that to her child. Also, if she didn't want a baby, very simple way to avoid that, abstinence.
Again, extreme naivety. People are going to have sex. Abstinence doesn't work, it only creates more children. If you want there to be no/less abortions the only way that's happening is with birth control.
@magegraywolf, i am pretty sure it was you who said they have a nervous system, all a brain is made of, a bunch of nerve cells clustered together.
Jacen96, abstinence will. Not. Happen. There are individuals who do, but in general, asking for abstinence is escapist.
About the 'what if the baby kills the mother', this wasn't really a what if argument. There are real medicinal cases where the pregnancy and/or birth can be lethal. In fact before medical birth support, it was frequent that the mother died before or after giving birth. I never argued that you should abort to avoid these, then you'd have to abort everyone basically... I was just saying that in such cases, you need to be able to abort the foetus. The already-born baby has no influence on this argument as it does not directly threaten the mothers life.
BUT a poor mother may not be able to support a child, and in this case, she has to be able to abort too. Children are one of the biggest causes of poverty. A pregnancy also usually interrupts/ends your professional career.
Because it has so many influences on the life of a woman, she should be able to decide to abort or not. With a good reason of course. But the possibility has to be there.
It's a simple process really. If you don't want a baby, use a condom or any sort of birth control. If you're either stupid enough to avoid either or then maybe a baby is what you need in order to make you responsible. Especially teenagers. Teen pregnancy rates are through the roof and I'm just sitting here like.. WHY?
Abortion is just a coward's way out of your own mistake. The ONLY exception where I say abortion is understandable is if the female was ***** and that was the result. That's it.
