Abortion

but they do, it happens everyday. Its sad but true

 

No one should have the right to kill innocent babies.

 

The way I see it, abortion is just an easy way out of one of the difficulties of life. People shouldn't take the easy way out; life is full of challenges.

 

falling at the first hurdle eh,it's mainly the mothers fault (not always) and so yeah just taking the easy way out,if you can't afford a baby then just don't have one.

 

First demon and Roxas, THEY ARE FETUS'S! Second, some people really don't try to have babies. Sometimes they just get them on accident. Sad but true. So it's not getting out of a difficulty, it's just cleaning up a mistake. And the Fetus is not dead or alive. It's just a part of the body for a while, and then becomes its own entity. It's not alive in my book unless it can survive outside the body. Top that =).

 

umm that's like saying that bacteria aren't alive.

 

The fetus isn't exactly part of the body. Since it has different DNA than the mother, that makes it a different organism. And how can you say a baby was a mistake? How would you feel if your parents told you you were a mistake?

 

Haha, Zerieth, it's actually surprisingly easy to top that....well, not exactly 'topping' it, more like refuting it with Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Fair enough, we call them fetuses...but all this is, is semantics. In the name of semantics, let's pretend there's some magical label that we give to the elderly...I dunno, something sciencey, like 'oldus.' I mean heck, freedom of speech entitles me to say whatever I want, so for the purposes of this post "I" am refering to these people as 'olduses.' Many people can (and infact, will) disagree with my label, just as I disagree with your label of 'fetus.' (EDIT: and note that I don't believe people SHOULD be labelled olduses...I'm just arguing a point here)

To be more precise, these are the elderly who say, can no longer breathe under their own power, and must live via life support. When you grow old, there's some magical line you cross, where you're now considered an 'oldus' and not a person. (This is precisely what you're claiming by in reverse: There's some magical line you cross and all of a sudden you're not a fetus, you're a person) "Life is like a parabola" in a literal sense.

What keeps me from executing these inconveniences who can no longer survive without a life support machine? By your logic, they cannot survive without latching onto some host piece of machinery (or organism), and since we're claiming they are not people (they're 'olduses') so they should be wiped to spare others the discomfort.

Of course we know that this is not the case...I mean you all probably have loved ones, grandparents for interest, who may or may not be in the best of health...it's hard to think of them in this way.

And yet...logically, they are identical (so-called 'isomorphic') scenarios...so where does the flaw in this argument lie?

There are 2 possibilities:
1) Labelling them as olduses (ie. fetuses also) means nothing and we still have no right to execute people.
2) They are actually different from people, and yet we still have no right to think of them as different due to their potential to be human beings (ie. a fetus developing into a human being, vs. an oldus recovering from their ailments). Life is like a parabola.

Or I suppose there really is a third possibility

3) The olduses have no right to life, and thus we have the right to execute them. (As we would with a fetus)

But I don't agree with that, and I'm not sure how many people here would.

 

You call a baby a mistake. In God's veiw a baby is created at the moment of conception. The baby has a soul and so if someone gets an abortion it is murder. If I knocked a girl up and she got an abortion I could never forgive her for killing our baby. People take responsibility and raise the baby, be a parent and take pleasure from every moment you spend with that child. That is a true blessing. People lets grow up and stop killing our babies. I am so ashamed of the mothers who have aborted there own innocent baby.

 

I agree completely.

 

This is directed at the Demon, and Roxas. Then you had better be just as pissed with yourself, because it's your fault she got knocked up. And before you refut, what did she do if it wasn't your fault, pull down your pants and tie you to a chair? Get real, it's just as much your fault as hers.
As for the Fetus, v.s. olduses, do you know how rare it is for people that old to go on life support for so long? And there are some like that, we call them vegetative state guys. You know, the ones who can't do anything but breathe, pass waste, and keep their hearts beating? They don't generally get better, so i don't see why were prolonging the inevitable for them. They have no chance left, and in natures view, are already dead without there bodies knowing it. The body tries to live, but theres nothing there. Fetus's, and i am NOT the one who came up with it and if yo got a problem you can take it up with the scientists who see it as a problem, can be aborted before a brain or any organs develop. A scerem is injected into the area around them which generally kills the fetus off. I think thats the first trimester one. The type of abortion im against, and i am against at least one, is the one that takes place by the doctors making it come out and suck out its brains. It's a stupid one and by that point it should be put up for adoption. And we have already seen what happens when we take away the right to an abortion, and thats women doing it themselves. Me, i would rather them do it somewhere safe with a person who knows what he/she is doing, and not have them trying it themselves. Thats asking for trouble.
Finally to knock down the bacteria deal, those are a single celled organism. Humans are complex, multi celled organism's, which means that while a human fetus can't survive out side of the body of its mother, the bacteria doesn't need to worry about it.

 

And yet, despite being an isomorphic scenario to the abortion issue (as I think I established pretty well in my previous post, you haven't claimed otherwise), Euthanasia is against the law.

Why the double standard? Those in the logic business call double standards 'contradictions.'

Scientists have freedom of speech as much as I, or any hobo walking the street have. So for the duration of this discussion, I'm going to assume some filthy hobo came up with the term fetus, as terminology means nothing. When we claim some all powerful scientist came up with a term, we fall into the trap of being gullible/submissive...so I merely choose to imagine a hobo coined the term.

Here's a quick factoid for you: did you know a fetus has a heartbeat (and thus, some form of heart) approximately 20 days after conception? This is before a pregnant woman misses her first period, and likely before many women even know they're pregnant. A brain and primitive spinal cord appear soon after...One can claim that yeah, I can use the coat-hanger method after every 'jam session' to ensure I don't get into this mess, but no one does in reality. It's like saying cancer can be avoided; in ideal living circumstances it can, but it happens anyway.

Besides, I can throw your definition of 'organs' into question. The precursor cells to the heart/brain exist from conception (this is kind of a vacuous truth, but bear with me). If I were to claim that this cell constitutes a 'primitive heart' which no man, woman, scientist or hobo could argue against me with since we lack the knowledge base, then no, we can't abort a fetus before it has any sort of organ.

What about the type where the "fetus" (which completely resembles a baby by this point) is ejected, then stabbed in the neck with a pair of scissors? I hate to say I had the priveledge of seeing video footage of such an abortion...I almost threw up, it was quite gorey.

Quite frankly, this is an instance of Natural Selection. If someone is going to be dumb enough to put their own life at risk merely to avoid raising a child, then they deserve the risks they take. It may sound cold, but if these girls were worried about unsafe medical procedures, they just wouldn't get it done at some back alley clinic.

I'm not 100% sure what their logic was with the whole bacteria thing...but I'd like to point out that if you consider a human body to be the body of its 'mother' (ie. a host), then a (certain type of) bacteria cannot survive outside the body of its mother. As I discussed before, a bacteria is like an 'oldus' in this way, it needs either a piece of machinery or organism to latch onto in order to survive.

Now this certainly isn't true for all bacteria, but even the existence of one such type (and there are many many such types) should add plausibility to whatever argument they were making.

 

I was the one that said about bacteria...Sorry about that it was just the closest I could get.I'm not as smart as you two...Anyway,what I was trying to say is that bacteria is still a living thing as well as your self labeled "olduses" the ones that can't live ithout machinery/life support etc.These people are still alive they still have a mind,feelings,and in all a life and, as Mike said soon will a fetus,they have a heartbeat and therefore a future life.this is how I've always looked at it,if your mother were to have aborted you then you would not be here debating about it.(If I've made no sense whatsoever then just ignore me.)

 

It was a little confusing chocobo, but "olduses" are pretty soon to die. And they CAN'T get better. You don't recover from old age. And them getting hooked up to life support is a rare occurence.
The bacteria thing is as good as dead, because a bacteria HAS no mother, if you don't count the bacteria that divided. And bacteria depend on us and other things for survival just as we depend on them. Its a symbiotic (spelled that wrong) relationship, meaning that we both work together to survive.
The problem is that a LOT of people are dumb enough to try that. They get desperate and want to do anything to get out of that situation. If your gonna make them do it anyways, then so long to half of america. I know thats an exageration but people would die or become incapable of having a child when they are ready for one.
As for the brain thing, it hardly knows it's alive when it first gets a brain. And they can be aborted before a brain develops. Heart aint got nothing to do with it, because that is forced to beat from the mothers body.
The problem is a scientist DID coin the term fetus. A hobo probably couldn't care less.
Euthanasia isn't against the law everywhere. And i should think the oldus's thing in that post spoke for itself. I thought it was a load of bunk.
Finally to add to my argument, what about the worlds population? Have you ever heard of Carrying Capacity? It means the maximum amount of an animal that can be sustained with out ruining a resource. Guess what? We are above and BEYOND our carrying capacity. Our world is to over populated for us to afford adding un wanted children into the mix.

 

But what about the soul? If it has a soul then it's murder.

 

To be technical, that's nowhere in our assumption. Infact, an 'oldus' getting better is roughly equivalent to a fetus coming to term early (ie. 'premature' babies). It's definitely possible, but irrelevant since premature babies aren't a problem in this debate.

(Note: Remember why I introduced 'olduses' in the first place...it was to create an identical scenario which can be compared with the abortion issue. Since we don't need the concept of a premature birth, we don't need the concept of an oldus recovering...but it doesn't mean either can't happen).

A surprisingly large number of people are on life support at some point in their life. Fewer, but still a large number, recover (from say, a coma) and go on to live the rest of their lives. But again, this is an irrelevant detail, as I mentioned above.

I don't know why you're so bent on attaching the notion of a biological mother to the word 'mother.' If a baby grew in a cocoon (like say, an insect), what is its 'mother' that it depends on for life support? It's the cocoon, not its biological predecessor.

In other words, if you were to perform some sort of 'insect abortion' its 'mother' is not even involved in the process: You'd just squish the cocoon. So having or not having a 'biological mother' is irrelevant when you make this comparison...there's still no problem with the bacteria analogy.

The irony is, Symbiotic is spelled correctly, haha. But yes, there are certain types of bacteria who share a symbiotic (ie. 'win-win') relationship with us...take for instance the bacteria in the small intestine, who help us digest food.

However, there are a whole slew of 'parastic' (ie. win-lose) bacteria also, the kinds we don't benefit from...like the bacteria causing strep throat, or the flesh eating disease. This is more like the relationship a fetus has with its (biological) mother.

This doesn't challenge my point: it's still foolish. If you do something, anything in life, and it's risky...you're taking the risk of doing it. Be it smoking drugs, doing a daredevil stunt, or having a backalley abortion.

If you're 'not supposed to' have abortion, and you go to a backalley clinic, you're essentially breaking the rules...so it's kind of a 'tough nuts' situation.

(In other words, the argument that 'if it were illegal, then everyone would just break the rules and that's unsafe' isn't a valid argument. I'm not claiming this is a reason to be anti-abortion or anything, I'm just saying this one argument doesn't go anywhere.).

Neither you, nor I, nor any scientist understands what a grown adult's brain is, how it works, or how to determine one's memories/thoughts from a brain scan/analysis. The same holds true for a fetus...you don't know for certain that it hardly knows it's alive. All you know is that you don't remember what you knew as a fetus...I mean you can't even claim that no one does...but if someone did claim to remember, they'd have a tough time proving it.

Many people taking the pro-life stance do so for this exact reason: they don't want to mess with something we don't understand.

No, the heart beats because of a primitive form of the SA and AV nodes (as our hearts do). The difference is that the baby's heart sort of 'piggybacks' onto the mother's heart in terms of function. The mother's heart does the oxygen filtration, and the baby's heart just pumps it.

It's actually quite interesting, if you look at a picture of our heart:

http://www.amplatzer.com/portals/aga/images/uploaded_images/1009/1013/normal_heart.gif

The little 'barrier' which separates the right and left ventricles (ie. the 'septum') is not a solid wall in a fetus...so the blood in the right and left ventricles mixes...so the mother's heart ensures that only oxygenated blood enter's the fetus's heart.

A term is a term is a term. It doesn't matter where it came from. The actual scientific distinction between a fetus and a baby is a 'grey area' of science (I mean heck, if it weren't, abortion would be undoubtedly ok. The mere fact that abortion is still a debate at all, is evidence that there's a lot of grey area). The fact that some hobo chose to call the younger form a fetus says nothing about what the younger form actually is...you're falling into trap I pointed out in the last post (ie. 'proof by intimidation').

Please let me know what you mean...I don't see any bunk in my post, and from what you've posted here it's not clear what you're refering to. Give me a quotation, and I'll rebut.

Carrying Capacity is a NATURAL phenomenon. It's the untimely reduction of a population of a certain species because their population grows beyond the number of resources available to sustain them. This has nothing to do with artificial death, such as hunting, or abortion. If a species goes extinct, does it have to do with its carrying capacity? No...chances are, people artificially reduced their population. (Of course there are other reasons...such as changes in the atmosphere, etc. but they're not relevant here. I mean, abortions don't occur because of the atmosphere or changes in ecology, they happen because of conscious human decisions)


Our world is also not beyond its carrying capacity. We are not suffering due to a lack of resources, we are suffering due to a misproportion in the resources...the 80/20 rule:

20% of the world controls 80% of its resources.

There is definitely enough to go around for starving Africans etc. We just don't want to even the score.

Abortion is an artificial (conscious human decision) scenario...so unfortunately, "carrying capacity" is irrelevant to this discussion.


And besides, if you honestly think overpopulation is a problem, start castrating males...that will put a halt to it. But so long as people **** around, there will be pregnancy and birth. Abortion won't (and shouldn't) be the solution to that issue.

If you have sex when you're unprepared for a child, that's your own fault. Again, it deals with consequences, and taking risks.

 

Abortion is wrong and anyone who goes gets an abortion should be punished as brutally as possible. The doctor and the mother are both murderers.

 

THATS MY POINT!!! We have to many people to allow the balance of predator vs. prey. Loot at this way.
Lets use the Wolf vs. Deer vs. grass example, since i live in a state that has this problem. The deer require the grass to live, but the deer don't over populate and eat the grass because they have wolves eating the old, sick, young, and just plain stupid deer. Because of this the ones that get away can look forward to a meal later on.
Now lets take the wolf, the deers natural predator, out of the mix. Suddenly the deer popuation explodes and eats all the grass. Since most of them don't have enough grass they have to starve. So the deers population is regulated in a worse fashion by the amout of grass instead of the wolves.
The deer reached there carrying capacity when they had just enough so that they could eat grass and still look forward to another meal. They went above it when their were more deer than grass. That means that eventually the deer will die out, but at least the grass will grow (thanks to seeds in the ground and grass is a hardy little bastard, pardon my french)
Humans are like this in one aspect, we have NO natural predators. We are at the top of the food change, so our population exploded (the baby boom in the u.s.) Now other species are dieing out because we need to kill them and take their habitat so we can survive. So what happens when we run out of space and things to eat? We die. No we don't go to another planet or something like that, we just simply die.

To combat that castration point, do you know how much that hurts? We use bands on our sheep farm to do it, much better than clipping, and they STILL have to lie down for an hour till the blood stops flowing. You want something like that to happen? You first buddy.

The problem with people having sex is that it is supposed to be an act of love, we just have some that want the sex because it feels good. People don't think about the consequences of their actions, they just do crap and wait to find out what happens. If we thought about the consequences of what we do, we wouldn't be in economical trouble.

Woot! I can spell symbiotic!

Bacteria that damage our bodies do NOT behave like a fetus does. One side benefits so thats parasitic. Fetus's help our bodies a little bit with extra heart and other such things, that makes it symbiotic. 2 entities, living with each other and benefiting from one another.

 

I've just decided i'm going to run for president and get a congress that agrees with me so I can amened the constitution and make it to where abortion is illegal and anyone who gets one will be punished like a first degree murderer.

 

I agree totally with you demon. It is shold be illegal because you are killing a human being. Its a murder in other words because your actually destroying a baby's future and stoping it from experiencing the world.