Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 11:27:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What are your feelings on abortion? I am currently leaning pro life because of this argument a) How is a fetus different from a baby just out of a womb in a coma? Of course, there is the mother unwilling argument, which is in a large part why I am not steadfast in either belief.

What are your opinions?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 11:46:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 11:27:23 PM, seraine wrote:
What are your feelings on abortion? I am currently leaning pro life because of this argument a) How is a fetus different from a baby just out of a womb in a coma? Of course, there is the mother unwilling argument, which is in a large part why I am not steadfast in either belief.

What are your opinions?

Well, I'd ask in response to your first argument: how is a embryo that comes about via fertilization different from one that comes about via de-differentiation (turning an adult cell back into an embryonic stem cell). Both produce viable human beings.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 12:52:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 11:27:23 PM, seraine wrote:
What are your feelings on abortion? I am currently leaning pro life because of this argument a) How is a fetus different from a baby just out of a womb in a coma? Of course, there is the mother unwilling argument, which is in a large part why I am not steadfast in either belief.

What are your opinions?

Are you differentiating between morality and legality?
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:18:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 11:46:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:27:23 PM, seraine wrote:
What are your feelings on abortion? I am currently leaning pro life because of this argument a) How is a fetus different from a baby just out of a womb in a coma? Of course, there is the mother unwilling argument, which is in a large part why I am not steadfast in either belief.

What are your opinions?

Well, I'd ask in response to your first argument: how is a embryo that comes about via fertilization different from one that comes about via de-differentiation (turning an adult cell back into an embryonic stem cell). Both produce viable human beings.

I don't exactly know what de-differentiation is, so I'll have to ask some questions. Are embryos from de-differentiation allowed to mature? If the answer is no, I think that they are different because they are not in the womb and will not become a viable human being, though I am not sure about it.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 12:13:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I hate babies, and a fetus is like a baby version of a baby.

I say every pregnancy should end in an abortion. I call it the final solution to the baby problem.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 4:04:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:18:07 AM, seraine wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:46:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:27:23 PM, seraine wrote:
What are your feelings on abortion? I am currently leaning pro life because of this argument a) How is a fetus different from a baby just out of a womb in a coma? Of course, there is the mother unwilling argument, which is in a large part why I am not steadfast in either belief.

What are your opinions?

Well, I'd ask in response to your first argument: how is a embryo that comes about via fertilization different from one that comes about via de-differentiation (turning an adult cell back into an embryonic stem cell). Both produce viable human beings.

I don't exactly know what de-differentiation is, so I'll have to ask some questions. Are embryos from de-differentiation allowed to mature? If the answer is no, I think that they are different because they are not in the womb and will not become a viable human being, though I am not sure about it.

Think of it this way.

You can turn a stem cell into any cell you like, like a liver cell. When the stem cell goes from "can be anything" to "is cell type x" it's differentiation.

Now, if I took a liver cell and treated it under the right chemical bath, I could de-differentiate it so that it becomes a stem cell.

Certain/most sources of stem cells couldn't produce the equivalent of an embryonic stem cell, but there are possiblities.

If you take the de-differentiated stem cell and put it into a womb a la in vitro fertilization, you would get a baby (albeit, with the state of current tech it probably wouldn't live long and would appear age faster than normal).
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 4:13:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 12:13:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I hate babies, and a fetus is like a baby version of a baby.

I say every pregnancy should end in an abortion. I call it the final solution to the baby problem.

And subsequently, humanity.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 8:14:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I take a neutral stance in this issue. I do believe its your choice but I myself don't want to abort any future children of mine. My wife feels the same way. If I should get someone else pregnant, God forbid, and she wanted an abortion, I'd pay her any amount of money for her to carry it to term. I waste enough of ky seeds into gym socks and toilet paper. No use killing the ones that actually make it
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Pacey5714
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 6:01:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am in favor of woman's rights. I personally believe she entitled to her own body and has the right to do with it a she pleases as long as it is dealt with in a well thought out mature manner. The way I see the fetus is, is a under developed grouping of cells that lacks the ability to maintain life on its own without the mother. Up until 9 weeks it lacks a heartbeat, most of it organs are not developed.

I do oppose late term abortions with the exception of a few extreme cases.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 6:03:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 6:01:04 PM, Pacey5714 wrote:
I am in favor of woman's rights.

Calling it "woman's rights" gives the wrong connotation to the problem, as if there were sexism involved. Pro-life isn't at all intended to discriminate against women; if men could give birth, pro-lifers would hold the same position.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 6:06:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 6:01:04 PM, Pacey5714 wrote:
I am in favor of woman's rights. I personally believe she entitled to her own body and has the right to do with it a she pleases as long as it is dealt with in a well thought out mature manner. The way I see the fetus is, is a under developed grouping of cells that lacks the ability to maintain life on its own without the mother. Up until 9 weeks it lacks a heartbeat, most of it organs are not developed.

I do oppose late term abortions with the exception of a few extreme cases.

define "maintain life."

A 6 month old cannot maintain life for any extended period of time, and a 4 week embryo cannot either. The only option is to place a subjective value on "extended period of time" (while an embryo may "live" for a few minutes, a 6 month old may live for a day or two).

The closest thing one can do to an objective standard is to say that a person has a right to life that takes precedence over one's right to choice of their property (in this case body), but even then, we have a subjective definition to "person," is it DNA, is it the ability to rationally think, is it something else?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Pacey5714
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 8:31:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 6:06:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/28/2011 6:01:04 PM, Pacey5714 wrote:
I am in favor of woman's rights. I personally believe she entitled to her own body and has the right to do with it a she pleases as long as it is dealt with in a well thought out mature manner. The way I see the fetus is, is a under developed grouping of cells that lacks the ability to maintain life on its own without the mother. Up until 9 weeks it lacks a heartbeat, most of it organs are not developed.

I do oppose late term abortions with the exception of a few extreme cases.

define "maintain life."

A 6 month old cannot maintain life for any extended period of time, and a 4 week embryo cannot either. The only option is to place a subjective value on "extended period of time" (while an embryo may "live" for a few minutes, a 6 month old may live for a day or two).

The closest thing one can do to an objective standard is to say that a person has a right to life that takes precedence over one's right to choice of their property (in this case body), but even then, we have a subjective definition to "person," is it DNA, is it the ability to rationally think, is it something else?

What this argument ultimate boils down to is what a individuals views on what "life". For myself, life is when the child in conceived or a fetus is fully developed as a human and able to function on its own. For yourself it seems as though it may be at conception, and that is fine if that is what you believe.

I feel the woman's well being (emotionally, physically and financially) is not subject to being out of her control by being forced to fully mature and give birth.
I also believe that no group or individual has the right to tell a person what they can choose to do with their own body. It being their own body as the fetus is unable to function on its own as we have previously established.

Again though, all a matter of perspective and personal definition.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 11:49:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 6:01:04 PM, Pacey5714 wrote:
I am in favor of woman's rights. I personally believe she entitled to her own body and has the right to do with it a she pleases as long as it is dealt with in a well thought out mature manner.:

If husbands killed wives to lessen their marital burden, would you call it "men's rights?" No, of course not, because it's a specious argument that places one life over another. Well, you say that you're against late-term abortions, so on some level you understand that we aren't exactly dealing with Jell-O. On some level you recognize that there is a human being in the womb, otherwise it wouldn't matter the stage of gestation.

The fundamental question that HAS to be answered is "what constitutes life?"

Until you answer that basic question, the term "women's rights" is nothing more than a gimmick.

The way I see the fetus is, is a under developed grouping of cells that lacks the ability to maintain life on its own without the mother. Up until 9 weeks it lacks a heartbeat, most of it organs are not developed.

I do oppose late term abortions with the exception of a few extreme cases.:

On what basis? What is the definitive line of demarcation where we say this is just a clump of cells and when you say this is a clump of cells that composes a human being with inalienable rights?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 11:55:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 11:49:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fundamental question that HAS to be answered is "what constitutes life?"

specifically what constitutes human life since no one has much trouble about killing animals to serve human purposes.

The way I see the fetus is, is a under developed grouping of cells that lacks the ability to maintain life on its own without the mother. Up until 9 weeks it lacks a heartbeat, most of it organs are not developed.

I do oppose late term abortions with the exception of a few extreme cases.:

On what basis? What is the definitive line of demarcation where we say this is just a clump of cells and when you say this is a clump of cells that composes a human being with inalienable rights?

viability? before that time its not only an undeveloped clump of cells but it literally cannot continue to exist without sucking resources from the mother. if she wants, she can stop contributing her resources.

after its viable, it continues to need resources from SOMEBODY but it can be somebody other than the mother. so the case can be made that if the mother wishes to withdraw her resources at that point she has a responsibility to find someone else who can provide them, since that has become possible.

similarly women can give their babies up for adoption or even abandon them at fire stations, but they can't just leave them in dumpsters.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ieyeb
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 12:00:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
... Abortion happens..so it suppose to happen!! ... why use labels to define what clearly is?? now YOUR interpretation of what reality is to HIM, is valid somehow??? Blah, blah, blah, blah,....
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 12:15:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 11:55:59 AM, belle wrote:
At 7/30/2011 11:49:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fundamental question that HAS to be answered is "what constitutes life?"

specifically what constitutes human life since no one has much trouble about killing animals to serve human purposes.:

That's true, and there are good arguments in defense of animal rights and good arguments in favor it. The point is, the fundamental question has to addressed or the debate will continue to go around in circles. All arguments in favor or against abortion invariably end up here.

viability? before that time its not only an undeveloped clump of cells but it literally cannot continue to exist without sucking resources from the mother. if she wants, she can stop contributing her resources.:

Infants, outside of the womb, are completely and utterly dependent upon other people to help them live. But would you agree that it's considered immoral behavior to neglect a baby? If so, the viability argument is moot.

after its viable, it continues to need resources from SOMEBODY but it can be somebody other than the mother.:

What relevance does that have?

similarly women can give their babies up for adoption or even abandon them at fire stations, but they can't just leave them in dumpsters.:

Right, so adoption is a win/win/win situation. Baby lives (win), mother regains her independence (win), adopting parents get the children they always wanted (win).
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 12:27:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 11:55:59 AM, belle wrote:
At 7/30/2011 11:49:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fundamental question that HAS to be answered is "what constitutes life?"

specifically what constitutes human life since no one has much trouble about killing animals to serve human purposes.

Nobody has any trouble killing people either, as long as they have been found guilty of a capital offfense, it is a time of war, they feel like their own life is being threatened, or they can get away with it indirectly by hoarding resources for petty needs while others starve.

Life? Who cares.
Human Life? Who cares.
Personhood? Circumstantial at best.

If pro-lifers really, and I mean really gave any type of a sh*t about anyone else, and they weren't just trying to fulfill their selfish agendas, then they would be out there speaking out against all types of things like unnecessary deaths from curable diseases in other countries and the problems with homelessness and despair in this country. Pro-lifers are just religious whackos who have an axe to grind because they are seeking religious purity, which is no different in principal to what the Nazis were seeking in terms of purity with Aryanism. Nothing they do would lead a person to believe they are sensitive to the plights of others.
Rob
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 12:28:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 12:15:48 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/30/2011 11:55:59 AM, belle wrote:
At 7/30/2011 11:49:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fundamental question that HAS to be answered is "what constitutes life?"

specifically what constitutes human life since no one has much trouble about killing animals to serve human purposes.:

That's true, and there are good arguments in defense of animal rights and good arguments in favor it. The point is, the fundamental question has to addressed or the debate will continue to go around in circles. All arguments in favor or against abortion invariably end up here.

viability? before that time its not only an undeveloped clump of cells but it literally cannot continue to exist without sucking resources from the mother. if she wants, she can stop contributing her resources.:

Infants, outside of the womb, are completely and utterly dependent upon other people to help them live. But would you agree that it's considered immoral behavior to neglect a baby? If so, the viability argument is moot.

after its viable, it continues to need resources from SOMEBODY but it can be somebody other than the mother.:

What relevance does that have?

dude... you cut out the part of my reply that answers that question:

so the case can be made that if the mother wishes to withdraw her resources at that point she has a responsibility to find someone else who can provide them, since that has become possible.

in other words, once the fetus is viable, she can have it removed from her uterus and the hospital can take care of it until it can be adopted. before that point she can still have it removed from her uterus, but it just so happens that doing so kills it because even with medical intervention it can't survive outside the womb.

its the difference between needing care from a specific individual and not being able to get it from anyone else no matter what and needing care from someone, but it not much mattering who that someone is.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 12:54:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 12:28:26 PM, belle wrote:
in other words, once the fetus is viable, she can have it removed from her uterus and the hospital can take care of it until it can be adopted. before that point she can still have it removed from her uterus, but it just so happens that doing so kills it because even with medical intervention it can't survive outside the womb.

If the fetus meets the standards of being "human" and it's held to have the rights which follow from being human.. then I'd suggest that the mother ought not be able to simply toss it from her womb if it Must rely on her to survive.

Yes, the babe's precarious position is an imposition upon the mother but who's responsible for that?.. surely it's not the babe's actions (or lack thereof) which landed it in such a spot.. it has come to be, and come to be in the circumstances it's in, because of the actions, or lack of actions of the mother.

Having sex the mother realizes she may get pregnant... In the US she clearly has the ability to use contraception, As Well as the ability to monitor whether or not a baby is on its way to coming to be inside of her, and aborting the pregnancy before this happens.

She realizes that her actions (combined with a lack of actions) may result in a human being existing in a situation in which it's Completely reliant on her for every aspect of it's life... (in the vast majority of cases) She participated in starting the process that will end in another person being so dependent upon he, and She has opportunities available to prevent this from following from her previous acts if she so wishes.

if she doesn't wish to have a person so dependent upon her (which she knows may Very Well follow from her previous acts) than she can prevent her actions from having such results by means of aborting the pregnancy before such a predicament ensues.

Her acts set the process in motion into developing into a situation where someone is Utterly dependent upon her, and She could have prevented this situation from ensuing if she so wished.

Between her knowing the possible consequences of her actions, and Neglecting to act to prevent a Hairy situation for someone else ensuing from her actions..

I would say she's responsible for aiding the person in the situation that they're in being that it's due to Her.

it's like if I was in a space ship hovering over the Mohave with a Giant Scoop and I was scooping up sand...
I know it's possible (though perhaps unlikely) that I could scoop up a little person along with the sand... and If I did I should think it would be On Me to provide the guy with his requirements for life... Not just to shoot him out of my space vessel into empty space.

Now, perhaps in order to Avoid the situation of having a guy wholly dependent upon me for life.. I could have better screened the sand before I scooped!(contraception)... I could have realized the situation developing After I had initiated the process/scooped, and set him back down before I pulled away from earth, and he was dependent upon me for an appropriate atmosphere (had an early abortion)...

However If I just scoop and pull away from earth, and then get a dude in my spaceship... well.. Booting him out into empty space would be a dick move.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 1:03:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just to be clear I mean she has the chance to abort the pregnancy before the Fetus reaches "personhood"...

Before the logical conclusion of her previous actions, that of a person being wholly dependent upon her for it's survival, comes about.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 2:22:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 12:27:29 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 7/30/2011 11:55:59 AM, belle wrote:
At 7/30/2011 11:49:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fundamental question that HAS to be answered is "what constitutes life?"

specifically what constitutes human life since no one has much trouble about killing animals to serve human purposes.

Nobody has any trouble killing people either, as long as they have been found guilty of a capital offfense,

Which is completely different from killing an innocent fetus.

it is a time of war,

Killing enemy combatants is usually the point of the war.

they feel like their own life is being threatened,

If I try to kill you in self-defense of my life, the prerequisite is that you're trying to kill me.

or they can get away with it indirectly by hoarding resources for petty needs while others starve.

When's the last time someone starved to death in America within reach of civilization? Besides, churches rather often set up soup kitchens and such things to feed the homeless, often in spite of the government. See video.

Life? Who cares.
Human Life? Who cares.
Personhood? Circumstantial at best.

If pro-lifers really, and I mean really gave any type of a sh*t about anyone else, and they weren't just trying to fulfill their selfish agendas, then they would be out there speaking out against all types of things like unnecessary deaths from curable diseases in other countries

Speaking out against disease? That accomplishes a whole lot, right?

and the problems with homelessness and despair in this country.

Because the war on poverty is so effective, right?

Pro-lifers are just religious whackos who have an axe to grind because they are seeking religious purity, which is no different in principal to what the Nazis were seeking in terms of purity with Aryanism. Nothing they do would lead a person to believe they are sensitive to the plights of others.

Because they never organize charities and other services to benefit the poor by asking for voluntary funding instead of coerced funding, right?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 2:25:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
belle, you're basically saying that if a child exists that can rely on anyone to survive, there is an obligation for someone to maintain its life (implying a right to life), but if only the mother can sustain it, then she can choose not to (implying no right to life). It's a contradictory and arbitrary position.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:40:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 2:25:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
belle, you're basically saying that if a child exists that can rely on anyone to survive, there is an obligation for someone to maintain its life (implying a right to life), but if only the mother can sustain it, then she can choose not to (implying no right to life). It's a contradictory and arbitrary position.

you have no right to life until you're not parasitic on another person's body? how's that arbitrary?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:51:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:40:05 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/30/2011 2:25:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
belle, you're basically saying that if a child exists that can rely on anyone to survive, there is an obligation for someone to maintain its life (implying a right to life), but if only the mother can sustain it, then she can choose not to (implying no right to life). It's a contradictory and arbitrary position.

you have no right to life until you're not parasitic on another person's body? how's that arbitrary?

also i would stipulate that if no one around the mother has the resources to care for the baby/fetus/whatever that its ok to let it die. same goes for the newborn. i don't rest my case on an absolute right to life on the part of a baby/fetus. thats an absurd notion that people make up and defend viciously for various reasons, none of which are enough to fully support it imo. anyways, i rest my case on the notion that preserving life is a good thing, but that already existing independent life takes precedence over soon-to-be independent life.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 2:44:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 11:55:59 AM, belle wrote:
At 7/30/2011 11:49:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

On what basis? What is the definitive line of demarcation where we say this is just a clump of cells and when you say this is a clump of cells that composes a human being with inalienable rights?

viability? before that time its not only an undeveloped clump of cells but it literally cannot continue to exist without sucking resources from the mother. if she wants, she can stop contributing her resources.


I'm not sure why I should accept such an arbitrary demarcation point. Viability is largely contingent on technology. A fetus that's not viable in a third world country is viable here. It makes no sense to say a fetus at some developmental stage here is a human being while a fetus at the same developmental stage is not a human in another country. And this leads to even more absurd conclusions where if a pregnant woman were to travel around the - say, by plane - world the fetus she is supporting would alternately switch between being human and non-human depending on which country she's in. I don' think there's any reason to accept that a human beings' persistence conditions are that malleable.

after its viable, it continues to need resources from SOMEBODY but it can be somebody other than the mother. so the case can be made that if the mother wishes to withdraw her resources at that point she has a responsibility to find someone else who can provide them, since that has become possible.

similarly women can give their babies up for adoption or even abandon them at fire stations, but they can't just leave them in dumpsters.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:25:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 11:27:23 PM, seraine wrote:
What are your feelings on abortion? I am currently leaning pro life because of this argument a) How is a fetus different from a baby just out of a womb in a coma? Of course, there is the mother unwilling argument, which is in a large part why I am not steadfast in either belief.

What are your opinions?

Since when do you decide whether a child is alive or not based on the mothers rights?
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:32:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 8:31:08 PM, Pacey5714 wrote:
At 7/28/2011 6:06:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/28/2011 6:01:04 PM, Pacey5714 wrote:
I am in favor of woman's rights. I personally believe she entitled to her own body and has the right to do with it a she pleases as long as it is dealt with in a well thought out mature manner. The way I see the fetus is, is a under developed grouping of cells that lacks the ability to maintain life on its own without the mother. Up until 9 weeks it lacks a heartbeat, most of it organs are not developed.

I do oppose late term abortions with the exception of a few extreme cases.

define "maintain life."

A 6 month old cannot maintain life for any extended period of time, and a 4 week embryo cannot either. The only option is to place a subjective value on "extended period of time" (while an embryo may "live" for a few minutes, a 6 month old may live for a day or two).

The closest thing one can do to an objective standard is to say that a person has a right to life that takes precedence over one's right to choice of their property (in this case body), but even then, we have a subjective definition to "person," is it DNA, is it the ability to rationally think, is it something else?

What this argument ultimate boils down to is what a individuals views on what "life". For myself, life is when the child in conceived or a fetus is fully developed as a human and able to function on its own. For yourself it seems as though it may be at conception, and that is fine if that is what you believe.

I feel the woman's well being (emotionally, physically and financially) is not subject to being out of her control by being forced to fully mature and give birth.
I also believe that no group or individual has the right to tell a person what they can choose to do with their own body. It being their own body as the fetus is unable to function on its own as we have previously established.

Again though, all a matter of perspective and personal definition.

Clearly you don't have the right to your own body you may not maim yourself or commit suicide, why should this be different.
The question of the mothers rights is irrelevant.
If its a life the mother has no right to hurt another even if its her own body.
Can Siamese twins hurt each other?
If its not a life I don't think anyone will object to aborting it.
Its not a rights question, its a question of whether its a life or not.
Bringing up a woman's right is avoiding the problem and creating emotional propaganda.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:52:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Clearly you don't have the right to your own body you may not maim yourself or commit suicide, why should this be different.
You may maim yourself and you may kill yourself

Can Siamese twins hurt each other?
I wouldn't arrest them for such a thing, that's for sure.

If its not a life I don't think anyone will object to aborting it.
Its not a rights question, its a question of whether its a life or not.
Rats are life, no one objects to you killing a rat except PETA.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.