Abortion

^um yeah, we know. Thats kind of the point of an abortion.

 

^^But by that logic, we can't do anything...not live, not breathe, eat, sleep, nothing...as we are constantly altering the future in ways we cannot comprehend. How many potential children am I "killing" (ie. preventing from being born) by posting this? Maybe thousands. (Of course it would be like 8 million years down the road, before the so called "Butterfly Effect" would take its course).

I think you should slightly tweak your argument to somehow argue that the life 'already exists.' If it's only a 'potential human being,' then so is the sperm in any adult male. On the instance of someone murdering someone else, by your logic they are murdering billions, or even trillions of potential children.

The key is to say that the life is already something that's there, something that's tangible. Somehow argue that they are already a human being, and not just some precursor.

 

You can't kill what hasn't happened. The future might as well be set in stone because if we saw something happen we wouldn't be able to figure out the decisions leading to that future and therefore not change it unless you kill yourself. Worry about the here and now. The future can wait. It always does.

 

I know thats what he meant. The point of an abortion is to "kill the baby" even though its an unresponsive sack of cells.

 

The point I believe Zenrot is trying to make here is that the abortion being "healthy for the baby" is beside the point and thus irrelevent. The matter was whether or not the abortion was healthy for the mother. The point of an abortion is to get ride of the baby, and thus it is not designed to be healthy for it. Antibiotics are not healthy for the bacteria and such that they kill. Cancer treatments are not healthy for the group of cancerous cells that they remove. Yet these are not facts t hat we take into concideration when determining the safety of the procedure. The same rule applies to abortion.

 

I agree. Unless you get the baby out at a point were it could survive in a incubator. People do that you know.

 

Many people would disagree with this statement, possibly in several ways. Of course if you choose 'kill' to literally mean kill, stabbing someone with a knife, then clearly this is true.

But who chose to use the word 'kill' in this case then? Let's change it to 'wreck' so we don't miss out on the real point of this message. You can definitely 'wreck the future' for yourself, and your loved ones. Whether or not this was 'meant to happen' or 'fate' is irrelevant...because your actions would have caused it.

(That's an oxymoron by the way: Cells are by definition, responsive. Otherwise, they can't be cells (ie. alive)).

Unresponsive by whose standards? Today's medical technology?

EDIT: @EbAl: It's not really fair to compare abortion to antibiotics / chemotherapy, as those can (and quite frequently are) life or death situations. Abortion is quite rarely a life or death situation...if it were (I know you advocate this case), then your comparison works...but you've already argued well enough for that (rare) situation where the mother's life is in danger.

Otherwise, abortion is just for aesthetics as far as I'm concerned. Health is at the heart of the matter. It's moreso to be likened to cosmetic plastic surgery, in that it's a medical procedure that won't save anyone's life, and is dangerous. If you come across a doctor who doesn't warn you of the health risks of cosmetic plastic surgery, then they should have their license revoked.

Here's one other argument I don't recall anyone making:

If I killed a pregnant woman and her fetus died...I would have two charges of first degree murder on my hands. However if, let's say 20 minutes before, she commited an abortion...then I killed her...I would only get one.

Who gets the other first degree murder charge? Why the double standard?

 

I made it, but it was a while before you got involved. Way back on the second page. That little legal scneario has driven me nuts for years. Make up your minds. If killing a pregnant woman is two counts of murder because of the baby, than abortion should be concidered murder as well. However, if abortion is legal, than the second count of murder should be removed. The two laws are contraditory, and it really should be fixed, one way or the other.

And as for the health argument, I was simply stating that the procedure is not intended to be healthy for the baby. The argument was whether or not the procedure was even healthy for the mother. Thus its irrelevent how healthy it is for the baby. For the sake of the entire debate perhaps, but for that individual arguement, the point is, to me, irrelevent.

Mike also reminds me of another interesting little point. The fetus is in fact alive. You can argue over whether or not you can concider it a human being at that point, but cells are alive, and thus anything made of cells is alive. Thus the point to prove is not whether or not you're killing a living being, but whether your killing a person. And further, whether it matters, morally, if that living creature is a person or not.

 

well i simply believe if a women thinks a childs life isnt worth the pain and cost of pregnancy and labor then let her abort
btw i found this and it really is unecasary and idiotic but w/e

 

well what happens when there is a microscopic hole in the condom? Its completely unplanned and unwanted. If she doesn't want it then get rid of it. Also, getting abortion banned is ridiculous, because its not your right to decide for someone else.

 

It's also not your right to be killed without being born. A microscopic hole in the condom is hardly a good enough reason to abort...sex's purpose is procreation, that's why foolish teenagers these days keep finding themselves pregnant.

With whom does responsibility lie?

(And also just to ask again) A fetus is unresponsive by whose standards or measures?

 

I suppose by the standard of brain/organ activity, clearly in the early stages the fetus hasnt even formed.

 

But whose standard is that? Yours? Medical science's?

 

Medical Science, thats what's been proven.

 

im sorry but mike seeing as your not one of the pregnant teens you have no reason or right to tell them they cant get rid of the life growing in them if they want to be idiotic shits who want sex as pleasure rather than for its true purpose and screw up and get pregnant then its there choice to abort
its there body its like with any operation its the patients decision whether or not the have the abortion
in many ways abortion is unethical because you are killing a potential human but at the same time that means menstruation and male masturbation is killing potential life

 

So you're telling me with absolute certainty that medical science will never improve? (Because if that's what you're saying...then it's a pretty foolish thing to believe) There's no such thing as 'proof.'

Five hundred years ago, it was 'proven' that the sun revolved around the earth...this has since been disproven. So again...there is no such thing as proof. Seeing is believing, but when you can't see something, you can't prove or disprove anything about it.

See Shrodinger's Cat: Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though this is a reference which discusses the 'weirdness' of a universe that is quantum mechanical in nature, it also illustrates my point.

By your logic, no one has the right to tell me not to commit murder. (You're not even arguing against the fact that it's killing something you shouldn't be killing...you're claiming they have a right to do whatever they want)

I say you have no right to take that which is not yours. This life growing inside them has a different set of DNA and lives independent of its host. Its life is not theirs, it is an independent life.

Can you argue any better than me not having the right to tell them what to do? Because otherwise we're at a deadlock on this conflict (ie. we're both pointing the 'you don't have a right to...' finger), and since I've posed other arguments...

I did want to say that menstruation is not killing a potential life by any possible argument as it is not in the woman's control in any way shape or form. You could argue masturbation is killing potential life (I wouldn't, but one could), but menstruation is more like someone 'tripping' falling down the stairs and succumbing to their injuries: no one directly caused it, so no one is to blame.

Also note that debunking masturbation as murder does not prove abortion is ok. Masturbation kills 'potential' life...that is, the possibility of something living...whereas abortion kills something that already exists, and is living. They're completely different scenarios with certain similarities...but one must either prove the situations are the same, or independently debunk pro-life arguments...neither of which is particularly easy to do.

 

I agree with Sma. You have no right to say you can;t get an abortion. The decision does not affect you. The fetus can not think because it is not possible to think without a brain. The thing is a vegetable. That is proven. If you want proof, yank your brain out of your skull and try thinking. It won't work but if you try I would be curious to hear you survived. We all must adhere to what we have to gain knowledge and what we have is current science. When the theory is proved, PROVED, wrong then we would all be foolish to retain this belief. I believe in possibilities. God may exist, Pigs may fly, and fetus's may think in the early stages. Until that is proven either way deciding wich way to go is irelevant.