Is abortion wrong?

Posted by: ark200

Jesus never mention the word abortion in his sermon on the mount. But christians treated abortion like a crime. So there is a contradiction. Paul also did not say anything about abortion.

Vote
1136 Total Votes
1

No

475 votes
43 comments
2

Yes

372 votes
47 comments
3

It is completely the woman's choice. I do not have a say in what she does with her own body

68 votes
6 comments
4

Yes abortion is murder, but it's not anyone's choice but the woman's to decide what to do with her body.

58 votes
5 comments
5

Yes but if it's to save the persons life it could be acceptable other than that no.

43 votes
4 comments
6

Debatable ... Early on, no. Later in pregnancy, yes. There is a grey area inbetween. Women should not be persecuted for what is a horrible decision to make.

36 votes
2 comments
7

I don't know

14 votes
5 comments
8

Unless the baby is already dead, or giving birth will kill the mother, yes.

14 votes
2 comments
9

What if a woman was raped and she did not want the baby?

12 votes
0 comments
10

When its to save the mother's life no or any other medical necessiy no.

10 votes
0 comments
11

No, and it's completely up to the woman to decide.

7 votes
0 comments
12

Abortion is wrong (I prefer unjustified) in most cases. However there are some extreme cases where it might be justified (legally if not morally.) To save the mother's life, for example.

6 votes
1 comment
13

Everything is wrong

5 votes
0 comments
14

KILLTHEFETUSES

5 votes
0 comments
15

I'm not sure, but because the life of a baby could be at stake, I am opposed.

4 votes
0 comments
16

If you don't like abortion, then don't get an abortion!

4 votes
0 comments
17

The baby is technically a parasite until it leaves the womb, therefore it is the women's choice as the baby is not independent - Although it is sentient so it's still murder.

1 vote
0 comments
18

No because stem cell research has been proven to help cure and save lives of people with muscle cancer losing tissue or anything like that

1 vote
0 comments
19

Confession is not a crime

1 vote
0 comments
20

1

0 votes
0 comments
21

Chief, This aint it

0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Invisiblemystery says2013-09-18T19:16:08.4932613-05:00
The Bible says "Thou shall not murder". Christians treat abortion like it is a crime because abortion is murder, which is a crime. Murder is wrong. It' s really simple. Silence in the Bible does not necessarily mean contradiction. The Bible speaks against murder. Now if somewhere in the Bible it said the exact opposite then it would be a contradiction. Since the only command given on the topic of murder is that is wrong, than one should understand murder to be wrong. Again, Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong. Therefore, Abortion is wrong.
Jingram994 says2013-09-19T02:20:03.1051835-05:00
But that's a fallacy unto itself. 'Murder', first of all, is 'the illegal killing of another person'. As abortion is legal, it isn't murder. Also, a fetus does not possess the qualities necessary for person-hood until at least the 26 week point in pregnancy. That is, a subjective mind and consciousness, and self-awareness. A functioning higher brain, in the real world, is required to have any of those qualities. As a human fetus does not have a functioning higher brain until 26 weeks, defining it as a 'person' before that point is literally incorrect. Due to those two factors, equating abortion with murder is simply not correct. Therefore, abortion is not wrong. Also, what any given book has to say about any given topic has no bearing on the moral or ethical nature of that topic. The bible is no different.
Rafe says2013-09-19T07:13:04.1970440-05:00
Abortion is murder. That "non human bunch of cells" is genetically human since the second the sperm cell merges with the egg. They are clearly marked as a human being from the biologic side. Being human is not about having a functioning brain. Animals have functioning brains, but are they human? Some species of monkeys are self aware, does that mean they are human?. It is also genetically different from the mother, so anyone saying it is part of her body is ignoring biologic and scientific facts. This means it is murder, as the baby is clearly human from the moment it exists. Saying we should be allowed to murder non born babies because it is dependant of the mother is opening the topic to a lot of abuse. Should we also be allowed to kill minors, because they are dependent of their parents? How about killing non working women who depend on their husbands? And what about blind people? They are pretty dependent too. How about poor people who depend on the state to get food and clothes? Hey, I have an idea. Let's kill every non self reliant person in the world, including employees, as they depend on their boss economically. Let's kill all presidents, as they depend on voters to get there.
Jingram994 says2013-09-19T07:23:35.5172746-05:00
'Human' does not automatically equate to 'person'. The two are not synonymous. All developed humans with functioning, undamaged higher brains are persons, but that's as far as the correlation goes. Even if my higher brain is removed or sufficiently damaged to prevent my mind from functioning, and me from ever again being alive, I'm still human, despite being dead for all intents and purposes save organ donation. Trying to say that my technically-living corpse is in some meaningful way 'still me' is absurd. All animals are still conscious and aware, as are infants, and I'd hope all voters as well; thus, it is wrong to kill them. A human fetus is literally physically incapable of being accurately described as a 'person' before 26 weeks, as it has exactly zero capacity for consciousness or awareness of *any* description until then. 'Dependency' has nothing at all to do with anything; you're missing the point.
Rafe says2013-09-19T07:39:00.2485831-05:00
I think you are missing the point. Killing our own species because we invent terms and accomodate language to justify murder does not make it right. Abortion also affects the mother heavily, and is always, even when legal, more dangerous than carrying a pregnancy to term. I'm not talking just about physical consequences. There are emotional and psychological consequences, and they are severe and last for years (I'm talking about several years, not just 1 or even 5), possibly her whole life. All of this can be avoided by just waiting a few months and giving up the baby. To simplify it a bit for you: What would you prefer for a woman? Fifteen years of counseling (and turning into a heavy burden for her whole family) until she stops having nightmares and wanting to kill herself, and still having other unresolved lesser problems, or nine months of pregnancy until she can put the baby up for adoption?
Jingram994 says2013-09-19T07:42:12.5842361-05:00
Right, but that doesn't happen in cultures where women aren't lied to and told that their attempt to keep control of their lives and make decisions in their own favor is 'murder'. It's a cultural phenomenon, and simply doesn't occur in countries where abortion is accepted. Your argument defeats itself, sir. And no, 'person-hood' is a hard, real concept with concrete requirements. It's not just a way of wording things so people don't feel bad for killing humans that 'aren't people'.
Rafe says2013-09-19T07:54:26.5953736-05:00
I recommend you to read about dred scott v. Sandford case. In case you feel lazy, it ended with the court decision that blacks were not human. Does that mean that veredict is true? The funny thing about this, is that the same court is now saying nonborn babies are not human. (roe v. Wade) Another funny thing is that you completely ignored my argument about the problems that women have to face after an abortion, problems that might, or might not, end several decades after it happened, and just resorted to say my argument "defeated itself" without even challenging it.
Jingram994 says2013-09-19T07:59:03.4978149-05:00
Did you even read my first and second responses here? 'Human' is not the relevant concept. Of course 'fetus' are human; one needs only to examine their DNA to see that is the case. Being human does not instantaneously mean one is a 'person'. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Personhood For example, if I were to become brain dead, I would no longer be a person, as I would have permanently lost my ability to be conscious and self-aware in any respect. Being asleep or in a coma are different to being actually brain-dead, just so that's clear. Also, supposed 'post-abortion syndrome' is nothing more than culturally heaped-on guilt. It's just not a real thing, and simply is not applicable at all in countries where abortion is accepted. Look it up.
Jingram994 says2013-09-19T08:23:39.8249579-05:00
I posted a reply, but it was 'submitted for moderation', probably due to me linking a webpage. It does that sometimes. Give it an hour or two, and if it's still not here then I'll try and write it up again.
Jingram994 says2013-09-19T11:42:14.7788487-05:00
Never mind.
Rafe says2013-09-23T14:12:12.0975883-05:00
Post-abortion syndrome happens to women even if they are not socially rejected bcause they had an abortion. Most of them do not realize their depresion (for giving an example) is because of their abortion, until years had passed and every other potential cause is ruled out. About being human not meaning one is a person, I already answered that: Accomodating language to suit you can't turn a wrong into a right. I could accomodate language to explain why slavery should come back. Would you accept my point if I made a complicated argument with lots of legal terms, ending in fabricated "facts" proving this or that social group is not deserving of most human rights? I know you are not going to read the whole answer, so let me state it again: ----Accomodating language to suit you can't turn a wrong into a right.-----
Jingram994 says2013-09-23T23:55:40.4445000-05:00
That's not a language difference, that's the hard, legal and mental requirements for one to be considered to be an actual person as opposed to a mindless body with human DNA. Screwing around with the terms involved does not then mean that your argument is 'correct', sir. The simple fact of the matter is that, regardless of how one changes the language, you can't use a difference like that to 'justify' slavery, seeing as those being enslaved meet all the same requirements for actual person-hood as those enslaving them. A human is not necessarily a person as well. The reverse is also applicable. A brain dead corpse, with no ability to have a conscious mind at all is *still* just as 'human' as I am. Saying that the inert, mentally dead lump that used to be 'their' body is still 'them' in some real sense is fallacious. Stating that they are also a 'person' in any meaningful sense is beyond ridiculous. 1) http://www.Scu.Edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/personhood.Html 2) http://www.Howstuffworks.Com/personhood.Htm 3) http://mixingmemory.Blogspot.Com.Au/2005/04/higher-brain-death-and-personhood.Html And no, post abortion syndrome is not a real thing. Thousands of women get abortions. Simple law of averages states that some are probably going to regret that decision. This number is much higher in countries where women are constantly told that abortion is 'wrong' or 'murder'. *Some* women feeling guilt over their decision to have an abortion does not then mean that abortion itself inherently leads to psychological damage. I've been over this before. Individual women feeling bad about their having had an abortion does not mean that abortion leads to emotional damage. An *enormous majority* of women who have had abortions feel nothing even close to what you're describing. 'Post-Abortion Syndrome' is simply not a real thing, Rafe. 1) http://www.Womenshealthspecialists.Org/our-services/abortion/abortion-myths 2) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health 3) http://www.Huffingtonpost.Com/sarah-erdreich/post-abortionsyndrome-the_b_3742606.Html 4) http://www.Guttmacher.Org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.Html And that same rule with the URL's likely applies here, as well; new tab, copy-paste directly, delete capital letters and replace them with lower case versions. Sorry it keeps doing this.
Jingram994 says2013-09-24T00:17:39.2556129-05:00
I'd also like to apologize for the apparent lack of formatting in that post. It was supposed to be separated into three distinct paragraphs, and it appeared as though it was at first. Upon reloading the page, however, this turned out to not be the case. I have no idea why it did that, sorry.
Rafe says2013-09-24T08:24:45.8575990-05:00
By that same rule, I could acommodate language and claim blacks can't be considered persons, because their dna is 3% different than ours, and giving that other primates have only a 1% difference and they are clearly not part of our species, human, or persons, blacks can't be given human rights either. Since most owners will not feel bad about having slaves when they see how much their lives improve, this would mean slavery is the right thing to do. See what I'm doing here? Do you think this is a valid stance? I'm giving you biological proof. (I have to state here, before someone gets offended, I do not actually support slavery nor do I think blacks are inferior. I'm just using a clearly fallacious argumment to prove unborn babies are being unfairly treated and massively oppressed because language can, and is being, abused to manipulate people into doing wrongs)
Jingram994 says2013-09-24T08:47:20.3490544-05:00
No, you couldn't, for all the reasons listed above. Well, technically I suppose you could, but it's like if I started to define 'boulder' as 'yellow, curved fruit'. It simply is not what the *actual* definition of the word in the English language is, and is entirely incorrect. The object or concept exists independently of the given word used to describe that object or concept. As stated, genetics themselves are irrelevant to the concept of whether one is a 'person' or not. Admittedly, all grown humans are 'persons' barring very serious brain disorders or severe brain trauma. However, any sapient being roughly on par with humanity mentally would also be a 'person' despite not being human. One *cannot* be seriously be said to be a 'person' if their brain is physically incapable of supporting their mind or consciousness, which is a *requirement* for one to be a person in the *actual* scientific and philosophical meaning of the word. Both brain dead individuals and human fetus' before the 26 week mark are not persons in the *actual* meaning of the word. Black people are, barring huge brain trauma, so your analogy just doesn't work the way you think it does.
Rafe says2013-09-24T08:59:23.7082145-05:00
Well, the human brain is not fully developed until they are 25 years old. It all depends on where you set the limit, actually. You are basing your entire argument in political correctness, which is proven to be subjetive, and is being used by political lobbies to modify people's ideas. You say that all grown humans are persons. That justifies infanticide, as minors (including teens) are not grown ups. Also, you claim that because it is modern, it is good. Well, that justifies -every- current way of thinking anywhere in the world. Including women being considered inferior in some places. Until you stop using questionable and elitist arguments, there is nothing else to say.
Jingram994 says2013-09-24T09:16:30.2632588-05:00
Not in fact true. A human brain is developed to the point of being functional, and thus supporting an independent, subjective mind and consciousness, by 26 weeks. Before that there is no consciousness at all. I should likely have said 'born' rather than 'grown', with regards to persons. My apologies. And I never claimed it to be 'good' because it is 'modern'; I claimed that the modern scientific definition of the word is the correct one to use, as it takes the *actual* meanings and factors involved into account; rather than 'whatever meaning I care to put in place of that word', which is what you are doing. Putting it very simply for you, it's not a matter of being 'fully' developed at all; if that's what you took away from what I wrote, then either I'm horrible at wording or you didn't read it correctly. It is a matter of being developed *to the point* of actually *having brain function* capable of supporting one's mind. A fetus DOES NOT HAVE THAT until 26 weeks. A *brain dead* person DOES NOT HAVE THAT. That's why they aren't 'persons' despite being genetically human. Until you start *reading* what I write, there is nothing else to say.
Rafe says2013-09-24T09:33:17.5498860-05:00
Since the baby does not gain full conscience until they are a few years old, infanticide would not be inmoral. Saying that you gain all your barin functions at the same time, in a single second, and to make it worse, comparin a developing baby with brain death (death is the end of life, not its start) is proof enough you are resorting to fallacies to prove your point.
Jingram994 says2013-09-24T09:45:44.5961944-05:00
But that simply isn't true. As in, at all. Whether or not it has *developed* it's consciousness to the point of being able to meaningfully understand and communicate with the outside world is irrelevant. Once again, you miss my point completely in a blind attempt to discredit me. And of course, whether or not you like the fact that I'm comparing TOTAL LACK OF CONSCIOUSNESS in cases of brain death *and* before that consciousness could have ever been there in the first place is beside the point. In both cases, consciousness is absolutely lacking, and it is simply not possible for it to be present at all, as the brain in both cases is physically unable to have such properties as required to functionally create consciousness. You don't gain 'all your (sic)barin functions' at the same time; not all your brain functions are actually 'necessary' for your consciousness, however. If your trying to say that the brain stem, which controls autonomic bodily functions, is a part of you 'as a person', then you are completely mistaken. There is actually a single, hard point at which 'absolute lack of consciousness' must cross over into 'consciousness', however; if there weren't, then 'brain-death' simply wouldn't be a 'real thing' at all except in cases of total brain destruction.
Rafe says2013-09-24T09:54:05.2336237-05:00
You keep doing arbitrary comparations. The concept of death excludes any actual functions development after it, which means comparing it with any developing organism is not a valid point. Babies, I repeat, do not gain any real conscience until they are a few years old. Denying it is prrof of ignorance. This is not me "not liking" your comparations. This is me proving your arguments are arbitrary and subjetive, lacking any scientific validity. I'm afraid that my comment would be up for moderation if I paste a link here, so I will put it in a separate one.
Rafe says2013-09-24T09:55:51.7972237-05:00
As I said, conscience is not magically gained at birth. In the times where birth was considered the start of life, it was so because of the lack of health care and the high chance of death at a young age. It is not like that anymore. Http://www.Scientificamerican.Com/article.Cfm?Id=when-does-consciousness-arise
Jingram994 says2013-09-24T10:14:51.2699468-05:00
'Possibility' is entirely irrelevant to the question of 'person-hood'. Any developments made *after* the fact of comparison is irrelevant. First of all, one is not considered 'brain-dead' unless there is actually *no* possibility of recovery; secondly, a fetus simply DOES. NOT. HAVE. The neural structure that is *required* to have consciousness and be considered a person. How 'developed' this consciousness is, as I have already stated three times now, has no bearing on whether there *is* consciousness. At any rate, even if your belief that babies don't 'really' have consciousness until they are 'a few years old' were correct, that would do nothing more than actually justify infanticide before that point. If there is no consciousness, there is no person. If there is no person, no person can be killed. Simple as that. Consciousness is created by and housed in the higher brain; if the higher brain is functioning, one is conscious, regardless of the 'state' of their consciousness. As the higher brain begins functioning at 26 weeks, then the fetus is conscious and a 'person' only after that point. If the higher brain stops functioning, then one is brain-dead and no longer conscious *at all*, as they simply no longer have the physical ability for such.
retroman000 says2013-09-24T20:06:00.2876761-05:00
I hope you know that there's no such thing as "post-abortion syndrome". Yes, some women regret their decision, but they are the vast, vast, VAST minority. As for your claim of abortion being dangerous, 0.0006% of women die during a legally surgical abortion. Compare that to the maternity death rate as of 2008, being at 0.167% when it comes to childbirth.
Eliteninja says2013-09-24T20:34:03.5465323-05:00
Thank you retroman000. Excuse me, a fetus is just a clump of cells that has no logic. I was about to say that. Many women who has done abortion get a sense of relief. Banning abortion will the women find DANGEROUS loopholes around it and get an abortion Rafe. The only way they will not be able to get this loophole is if there's someone always watching them, and that is totally impossible. The maternity death rate is pretty high, in America, something like 2-3/1000 births. Cubans have a lower rate and they're poor. Even the Nazis support abortion, but in the bad way. I support abortion because it gives the women a sense of relief. PHEW!!!!!! Ban abortion and get more women dying. There are places where abortion is illegal and women there are finding dangerous loopholes.
Eliteninja says2013-09-24T20:34:06.0643831-05:00
Thank you retroman000. Excuse me, a fetus is just a clump of cells that has no logic. I was about to say that. Many women who has done abortion get a sense of relief. Banning abortion will the women find DANGEROUS loopholes around it and get an abortion Rafe. The only way they will not be able to get this loophole is if there's someone always watching them, and that is totally impossible. The maternity death rate is pretty high, in America, something like 2-3/1000 births. Cubans have a lower rate and they're poor. Even the Nazis support abortion, but in the bad way. I support abortion because it gives the women a sense of relief. PHEW!!!!!! Ban abortion and get more women dying. There are places where abortion is illegal and women there are finding dangerous loopholes.
Eliteninja says2013-09-24T20:34:34.8939223-05:00
Glitch caused it to submit it twice. My apologies.
retroman000 says2013-09-24T20:46:28.3236554-05:00
Actually, the maternity death rate is 16.7 per 100,000, the highest out of all developed countries. It's literally twice that in the U.K.
retroman000 says2013-09-24T20:47:09.4525861-05:00
I mean twice what it is in the U.K. Just now realized that wording could cause confusion.
Greematthew says2013-09-24T20:57:35.1978677-05:00
Abortion is WRONG. Whoever says the fetus is not alive is WRONG. It is alive. That is a developing human being, yes but it is WRONG. Since when has our fear of our financial lives and emotional stability overruled our morality? What has our nation become when it comes down to that? Why does executing a potential wonderful person have to be so "right?"
retroman000 says2013-09-24T21:03:22.1227785-05:00
Actually, any given person is more likely to be put in prison then contribute any significantly positive thing to the world. As well, you seem to be forgetting both the rights of the mother and of the child. What happens when that child is added to the 400,00 and growing number of kids in foster care? Don't they have a right to a stable home?
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T02:00:48.6799102-05:00
Also, see: everything I've written on this page. Whether or not it is 'alive' on a cellular level is simply completely tangential to the point. As it has no higher brain function whatsoever until 26 weeks, it is simply *not* a person at all, regardless of what you may want to believe. If my higher brain were removed, and I were put on life support, would I still be 'me'? Or would I be, as I highly suspect to be the case, dead? Whether or not my brain may be capable of 'regrowing' itself doesn't matter; the functioning brain that housed 'me' is gone, and any new consciousness given 'birth' by new brain growth and activity would not be me. As such, a human fetus is not a person in *any* sense of the word until 26 weeks, and as such no person is being killed by abortion. The person it *might* one day become is irrelevant; not only does that person not actually exist, but their 'potential' existence is nothing more than an idea held in the mind, a thought and nothing more. I have the 'potential' to one day become a brilliant, millionaire playboy. Does that make me a genius millionaire playboy? And retroman000 is correct; the adoption system is stressed to the breaking point, and any given child is far more statistically likely to have a 'bad' upbringing and life than a 'good' one. Going by the logic of 'potential people', we *should* in fact kill them before they have a chance to be brought up badly and thrown in prison.
Rafe says2013-09-25T07:05:22.1596639-05:00
Comparing a developing person with an intact brain to a dead person with no brain is the worst argument I ever heard.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T08:25:58.4345766-05:00
Intact, but not actually grown to the point of being functioning. A dead person doesn't have 'no brain', they have no brain *function*. This is the thing that qualifies them as 'dead', sir. There is no functional difference between a fetus before 26 weeks, and a brain dead corpse. You keep making that same statement, and the same arguments to try and back it up, and every time I shoot that down you try wording it a different way. That's not how this works, Rafe. Please explain how it's a 'bad' argument, without using a fallacious appeal to emotion or trying to 'extrapolate' slavery and infanticide from what I'm saying.
Rafe says2013-09-25T08:41:46.8841562-05:00
I will just ignore your accusations, as you are doing the same thing you accuse me of. Well, children do not gain higher brain functions until they are a few years old. Therefore, why would we give them full rights before that age? The only argument abortionits have is some corrupted language explaining why these unborn children are in fact fishes, or some other weird thing, growing inside a human woman, argument that is proven fallacious just by looking at ultrasounds or better yet, 3d images. Discriminating by size is a very dangerous game, because it is a subjetive limit that depends where we set the limit. We could easily claim no one bellow 1,80 m should be allowed to live. Abortion is genocide, and a product of misinformation.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T08:54:50.5700719-05:00
No, you're wrong. Neither size, nor psychological or emotional development, nor dependency, are related to what we're discussing in even the barest manner. Have you even *READ* what I've been writing? 'Consciousness' is a result of higher brain function; we can TELL when there is higher brain functioning and when there is not. Higher brain function BEGINS at the 26 week mark. When it ENDS, you are DEAD. Your basic argument that "Well, children do not gain higher brain functions until they are a few years old" is just plain wrong. They DO have higher brain functioning, and so ARE conscious and self-aware, and therefore PEOPLE. What part of this are you not getting? Or are you just so upset by abortion that you feel the need to ignore my arguments and just make s**t up? What a fetus LOOKS LIKE doesn't matter. What a DNA test shows it to be, genetically, DOES NOT matter. My brain-dead corpse will still look JUST like me right now, except 'sleeping', and it will still genetically show as 'Me'. Your entire argument is little more than a list of fallacies, sir. And I would just *love* it if you could point out an actual example of me 'using a fallacy' in support of my argument.
Rafe says2013-09-25T09:02:14.6665761-05:00
You sure are an angry person. Have you ever seen an actual abortion? There is something you can do, since you will most likely not be allowed inside the back room of an abortion clinic while they perferom one. Watch "the silent escream", where you are shown the details of a baby development and how abortions are done, down to detail when they squish the baby's head with a scissor's like instrument to get it out. You can even see the baby trying to defend himself against the vacuum they get into the woman's uterus.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T09:14:21.5653363-05:00
And again, appeal to emotion. Logical fallacy. Disregarded. Make a real argument, that *actually* refutes mine, or stop trying to make your arguments sound more valid than they really are. And yes, I *am* actually getting a little angry. You know why? Because you just Keep. Making. The. Exact. Same. Arguments. Over and over, despite me proving why they are incorrect. Despite me pointing out how your fallacious attempts to disprove what I'm saying are not worth a damn. And autonomic reflexive actions are not indicative of conscious intent to perform those actions. 'The silent scream; is pro-life propaganda, Rafe. The ultrasound is deliberately played at varying speeds to give the impression that the fetus, which I must remind you by that point does not have any higher brain function, is 'thrashing around' in 'agony' or 'terror', rather than making slow movements indicative of *discomfort*. There is also no actual 'scream' as such; the 'mouth' in the film is the empty space between the chin and chest. The fetus is also magnified to appear as though it's nearly a full-term baby; it's under two inches long and less than twelve weeks old. That film is absolute s**t, and everyone with a medical degree or a brain realizes it.
Rafe says2013-09-25T09:18:35.2306125-05:00
Well, show me a source debunking the whole documentary. And control your emotions.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T09:28:11.1625799-05:00
You make it very hard to do that. Again, "Because you just Keep. Making. The. Exact. Same. Arguments. Over and over, despite me proving why they are incorrect." Every time I disprove your latest accusation of somehow supporting 'slavery' or 'infanticide', or how 'my standards' are 'arbitrary' despite being nothing of the sort, you *ignore* what I've said and move on to trying to prove me wrong on unrelated grounds yet again. If you can start making rational arguments rather than acting indignantly and applying logical fallacies as the majority of your argument, I'll keep it more civil than I have been. Sorry. Also, here you go: 1) http://www.Plannedparenthood.Org/files/PPFA/Facts_Speak_Louder_than_the_Silent_Scream_03-02.Pdf 2) http://prochoicechristian1.Blogspot.Com.Au/2010/01/more-on-silent-scream.Html 3) http://www.Holysmoke.Org/fem/fem0541.Htm and also in here, somewhere: 4) http://community.Babycenter.Com/post/a31655335/myths_of_abortion_debunked
Greematthew says2013-09-25T09:35:49.8240743-05:00
Well Jingram, I hope you're for the death penalty then.
Rafe says2013-09-25T09:36:59.0257440-05:00
I will start stating planned parenthood is not a reliable or unbiased source, as most of their income comes from abortions. Let's talk about these facts one by one. How exactly is "harmful" in any way to not have an abortion done?
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T09:52:39.0215309-05:00
Greenmatthew: Nope. There's a difference. Read my statements. A person is a person. Self-explanatory, right? A fetus, however, is NOT a person, in even the slightest meaning of the word, until *at minimum* 26 weeks. Saying that it is meaningfully 'alive' the same way that, *FOR EXAMPLE*(so nobody gets the wrong idea AGAIN) and adult human is, is simply not true. No higher brain function inherently = no consciousness, inherently = no person. I am against the killing of people; I am for abortion. Both deal with completely different concepts. Just because one is 'alive' at a cellular level, and have human DNA, does not mean they are 'alive' the same way(*FOR EXAMPLE) an adult human is. Rafe: Planned Parenthood is actually legally a non-for-profit organization, and actually less than 35% of their income comes from abortions. They redirect their 'customers' to licensed abortion specialists, and the referral fees are what goes to Planned Parenthood. Most of this 'profit' then goes back into funding their contraception and informational services. 1) http://www.Plannedparenthood.Org/about-us/who-we-are-4648.Htm 2) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#Services_and_facilities And, I presume by your question, you are meaning "how is NOT having an abortion harmful"? If that's what you are asking, then, to start, the woman will be forced to carry and give birth to a baby that she doesn't want. In itself, that is *way* more emotionally and psychologically traumatizing than abortion could ever hope to be. Then, there's the fact that she'll have to go through childbirth, which is about six times as dangerous as legal abortions are. Even assuming everything goes perfectly, and she's able to cope very well with having her right to her own body taken away from her, that's still 9 months of her life involuntarily restricted and taken from her, and her body is irrevocably changed. Also, I've figured out the URL thing! Put a 1) or 2) or whatever before the URl; make a list out of them. Perhaps try copying the post to word before submitting it; then you can just paste it and edit it if it doesn't go through. That's what I do.
Rafe says2013-09-25T09:59:23.3537328-05:00
Ok, here is is 1)http://www.Lifesitenews.Com/news/doctors-slam-abortion-safer-than-childbirth-study/ Also, I hope you have better sources than planned parenthood and wikipedia.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T10:23:51.2346946-05:00
Firstly, that argument is mostly not discussing physical dangers or actual related mortality rates, it's talking about supposed "...There is a much higher rate of risk-taking behaviors, including suicide attempts and substance abuse". Psychological harm, or 'Post-Abortion Syndrome Lite', if you will. There is *no way* to, with even a little bit of accuracy, correlate, or show causation for, potential bad life *choices* up to twenty(!) years after the abortion and the fact that they had an abortion. And where they actually *are* talking about potentially relevant factors, they use the example of "...Damage to reproductive organs that has been strongly linked to subsequent pregnancy complications or even sterility", never mind the fact that the potential risk of this is approximately nil when you are dealing with an actual licensed professional. Admittedly, there is always risk of unforeseen damage to internal organs during any kind of surgery, but honestly the risk of damage bad or specific enough to impact on fertility *at all* is basically zero. And as to "...Abortion’s link to increased risk of breast cancer, and childbirth’s protective effect against cancer", well, there is no actual 'link' between abortion and cancer. In fact, there have been studies showing that childbirth and raising can actually lead to higher risk of contracting breast cancer. Although admittedly, there have also been studies showing that 'late' childbirth can lead to breast cancer. And studies showing that beginning menstruating earlier than normal can lead to breast cancer. 1) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis 2) http://aje.Oxfordjournals.Org/content/153/11/1079.Full 3) http://www.Cancer.Gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage 4) http://www.Cancer.Org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer And I'll admit that directly citing the Planned Parenthood website may not be the best strategy for finding 'real' facts about them. But Wikipedia? Do I need to get my 'Copy-Paste' response out again?
Rafe says2013-09-25T10:34:35.3310209-05:00
Wikipedia is not the more accurate site out there, so yes, get you copy-paste again. Wikipedia can be a victim not only of trolls, but political correctness, intellectual fashions, and lobbies, just to name a few. After all, everyone can edit it. Since you trust clearly unreliable sources repeatedly, I have my doubts about the truthfulness of your whole argument.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T10:39:29.5182555-05:00
"You do realize that Wikipedia is managed by a team of hundreds of professional moderators, a majority of which are holders of PhD's or other higher academic accreditations in their respective fields? You also realize that, in order to edit Wikipedia, one must register as a member, and consistently editing in incorrect or totally unverified information will result in one being permanently banned from ever joining or editing again, along with all edits one has made being removed? You do also realize that all information contained within Wikipedia must also be referenced using reliable, fully cited sources, yes?" 1) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines 2) http://www.Livescience.Com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.Html 3) http://news.Cnet.Com/2100-1038_3-5997332.Html 4) http://library.Blogs.Delaware.Gov/2013/05/05/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source/ I use Wikipedia as a *starting point* to show the way to other sites, as well as a general source to get basic information on a given topic on. I do not use it as an absolute truth indicator of a given topic. You're doing that thing again. You know, that thing where you ignore my argument in an attempt to make my argument look stupid? The mere fact that I cite Wikipedia as *one* of my several sources has little to no impact on the validity of my argument as a whole.
Rafe says2013-09-25T11:00:34.3631225-05:00
It might not have an impact on the validity of your arguments, but it -does- you make look bad. Again, wikipedia is a source where common people edit it in accord to what is considered acceptable by the majority. About the academic career of their moderators, I doubt the best thing highly educated people has to do with their time is dealing with trolling and looking over thousands of edits a day one by one in a community webpage. The people that usually has that kind of time on their hands are children and teens, and I have to clarify that very few of them could have the kind of education you stated, which, of course, leads me to inform you these bright children have very little free time and are not likely to spend it clicking on buttons repeatedly.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T11:19:23.0612577-05:00
Again, standards and policies. Wikipedia is a professionally managed site, and cared for by both professional moderators *and* those who do happen to have the time on their hands. Not an awful lot is required to obtain privileges to edit pages, but it is *very* easy to lose those privileges, permanently. One cannot be a moderator and also be the sort of immature child who's first impulse is to (try to) wreck the website. Those people get permanently banned along with the rest who do so. And remember, there are a *lot* of these moderators (1438, on top of 140 paid staff) ; all together, they *do* have the time to painstakingly go over each and every edit to ensure nobody is screwing with the website. As proven by my other sources on the topic, Wikipedia is actually *very* accurate as far as websites go. 1) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators 2) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Foundation *Moving On*, however. I believe you stated there were other points we would go over?
Rafe says2013-09-25T11:24:13.7402354-05:00
Your source to prove a website's credibility is that exact same website? This debate is meaningless, as the sources you use, even when they have the potential to be good and credible, are badly used.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T11:33:01.6394820-05:00
Those sources are just information on moderator and paid staff numbers. The 'credibility' stuff was in my post *above* that. We aren't actually debating Wikipedia here, anyway. However, I will humor you.... With the exact same three non-Wikipedia sources I have already used to prove that Yes, in fact, Wikipedia *is* reliable. 1) http://www.Livescience.Com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.Html 2) http://news.Cnet.Com/2100-1038_3-5997332.Html 3) http://library.Blogs.Delaware.Gov/2013/05/05/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source/ I use the sources as a link to *further* information than my own argument; I'm not putting an essay together here. I'm arguing a point of view. My sources are not required to absolutely support my specific point of view, merely substantiate claims made with relation to my point of view. For example, brain activity in fetus' before about 26 weeks. There isn't any. I have stated this, and given links to sources that verify this. You may either take my statement at face value, or look at my sources, or go find your own. But you cannot simply change the entire thing we're debating here from 'abortion' to 'Wikipedia' because I cited it one or two times. I get that you may actually not be intentionally doing this, but our discussion *is* still getting bogged down because, essentially, you don't like Wikipedia.
Greematthew says2013-09-25T14:32:18.2477895-05:00
I don't understand how someone can sit here and say that the basic execution of a human fetus is acceptable and okay. It is inhumane, cruel, and awful, especially the way the procedure is carried out. It's on youtube, look it up, i'm sure based on your words, it's not bad to watch. I am pro choice because I am not a woman and I will not tell them what to do with themselves, but I still think it is a terrible terrible thing. If it is not in any case of incest or rape, I believe the choice of abortion is selfish. If you screw up and forget to protect yourself, own up to the responsibility. Financial burden and stress does not overrule morality.
Rafe says2013-09-25T14:40:33.5143739-05:00
The real victim of rape here is the baby. Making them pay for something it is not their faul is wrong any way you try to see it. Even if they are product of incest. It is genocide no matter how the baby was conceived. You say you are pro choice because you are not a woman. Please. It is nothing but a pathetic excuse to walk away from the topic. Be a man.
Greematthew says2013-09-25T14:51:19.2885020-05:00
To most pro-choicers, an abortion would be okay if it was one day before the baby was due. Yet, if a girl discarded of the baby one day after it was born, she would be charged with homicide and thrown in prison.
Rafe says2013-09-25T14:57:32.9322923-05:00
What is the difference? The baby did not make any meaningful change physically or in psyche. What is their claim based on? A baby is the same one hour before being born and one hour after it.
retroman000 says2013-09-25T17:11:25.5709911-05:00
"To most pro-choicers, an abortion would be okay if it was one day before the baby was due." I hope you know that that's simply not true, right? There's a reason that there's a time-frame in which someone can get an abortion.
Jingram994 says2013-09-26T01:03:28.6456802-05:00
As this will be a 'large' post, and as formatting doesn't work properly on the poll section yet, I will separate my paragraphs' with a long line of '###' to try and split it up into readable sections. Sorry for any inconvenience. It's becoming clear to me that you don't quite understand the complexities of how human development actually works, nor do you understand the relation of the higher brain to the mind. A fetus *IS NOT* a person before 26 weeks. At 26 weeks, the higher brain begins functioning and the fetus becomes conscious and self aware. After that point, it *is* a person, and killing it would be murder. It is *literally* entirely impossible for a fetus to be 'murdered' before the third trimester. Even after this mark, the existent life of the mother is *far* more important than the life of the unborn fetus growing inside her. Putting it very simply, abortion before 26 weeks *IS NOT* murder. ######################### Then there's also the fact that, even if the idea holds true that 'human life' truly does begin at conception, then the idea must also hold true that 'brain death' simply is not a 'real thing', and that 'I' am still 'alive' as long as there exists even a single cell with my DNA. Which, again, is a patently ridiculous idea. If we instead take the belief that 'life begins at conception' to it's logical endpoint, then technically 'human life' begins with the sperm and egg separate; both are just as 'human' as an early zygote, and both have the same 'potential' to 'become a person' as a fertilized egg. ######################### It's also very obvious you fail to understand the issue of bodily autonomy for continuing to make such a fallacious argument as this. As her bodily autonomy is not being infringed on *AFTER* the fetus is born, her 'murder' of it would be entirely unjustified, and her killing of it would be unfounded and wrong. And you do understand that 'abortion' after the point of viability legally requires an attempt be made to save the life of the fetus and ensure it survives, right? So 'abortion' after 26 weeks would be nothing more than early induced birth. Add on to that the fact that less than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester, and you start to get a picture of just how 'inhumane' it really is(n't). ########################## I'm trying to paint a clear picture for any who might not 'get' it. A fetus just doesn't have any of the qualities we associate exclusively with actual 'human life' as opposed to 'cellular animal life' until 26 weeks. The statement that abortion before this point is murder is simply not true.
Jingram994 says2013-09-26T01:28:27.1132829-05:00
It's becoming clear to me that you don't quite understand the complexities of how human development actually works, nor do you understand the relation of the higher brain to the mind. A fetus is *not* a person before 26 weeks. At 26 weeks, the higher brain begins functioning and the fetus becomes conscious and self aware. After that point, it *is* a person, and killing it would be murder. It is *literally* entirely impossible for a fetus to be 'murdered' before the third trimester. Even after this mark, the existent life of the mother is *far* more important than the life of the unborn fetus growing inside her. Putting it very simply, abortion before 26 weeks could not possibly be considered 'murder'. Then there's also the fact that, even if the idea holds true that 'human life' truly does begin at conception, then the idea must also hold true that 'brain death' simply is not a 'real thing', and that 'I' am still 'alive' as long as there exists even a single cell with my DNA. Which, again, is a patently ridiculous idea. If we instead take the belief that 'life begins at conception' to it's logical endpoint, then technically 'human life' begins with the sperm and egg separate; both are just as 'human' as an early zygote, and both have the same 'potential' to 'become a person' as a fertilized egg. It's also very obvious you fail to understand the issue of bodily autonomy for continuing to make such a fallacious argument as this. As her bodily autonomy is not being infringed on *AFTER* the fetus is born, her 'murder' of it would be entirely unjustified, and her killing of it would be unfounded and wrong. And you do understand that 'abortion' after the point of viability legally requires an attempt be made to save the life of the fetus and ensure it survives, right? So 'abortion' after 26 weeks would be nothing more than early induced birth. Add on to that the fact that less than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester, and you start to get a picture of just how 'inhumane' it really is(n't). I'm trying to paint a clear picture for any who might not 'get' it. A fetus just doesn't have any of the qualities we associate exclusively with actual 'human life' as opposed to 'cellular animal life' until 26 weeks. The statement that abortion before this point is murder is simply not true.
Sitara says2013-09-26T19:24:19.9490575-05:00
In response to the it's legal argument: Never forget that everything Hitler did was once legal. -Dr. King
retroman000 says2013-09-26T19:28:54.3877674-05:00
Many of the rights we have today were also once illegal. Women voting, black people voting, christians marrying non-Christians, children actually having protection from abusive parents, and so on and so forth.
Sitara says2013-09-26T20:01:45.4624476-05:00
Agreed. It is amazing how things change.
Sitara says2013-09-26T20:01:48.7295541-05:00
Agreed. It is amazing how things change.
racha3lturlte says2013-10-17T14:21:48.8082706-05:00
Abortion is wrong but people make mistakes.
John_Marshall says2013-10-28T04:30:01.2927891-05:00
It’s disappointing that abortion is being misrepresented as a Christian issue.
thisisbob says2013-11-26T19:00:23.4188556-06:00
People in the Bible did not talk about abortion because... PEOPLE DID NOT DO ABORTIONS.
thisisbob says2013-11-26T19:00:27.1472556-06:00
People in the Bible did not talk about abortion because... PEOPLE DID NOT DO ABORTIONS.
Space_Milk says2014-01-01T18:45:03.7958997-06:00
I feel like the pro lifers in these comments slept through their biology class.
Space_Milk says2014-01-01T18:45:12.3137605-06:00
I feel like the pro lifers in these comments slept through their biology class.
Space_Milk says2014-01-01T18:46:03.6845605-06:00
And AIDS, if they have AIDS abort them both.
Space_Milk says2014-01-01T18:46:23.0909605-06:00
And AIDS, if they have AIDS abort them both.
Space_Milk says2014-01-01T18:46:39.1589605-06:00
And AIDS, if they have AIDS abort them both.
Jingram994 says2014-01-02T00:40:53.1054225-06:00
What do you mean, 'abort them both'? Surely you aren't advocating for murdering the mother because she has a disease?
thisisbob says2014-01-05T14:31:18.3407179-06:00
He is doing exactly that. Evil human being.
Jingram994 says2014-01-05T19:34:54.4768631-06:00
Adorable.
dmartin says2014-01-06T14:45:10.7272413-06:00
@Rafe: If you were a woman(since I'm not sure you could be transgender, gay, etc) and you got raped by a man and he impregnated you with a baby that you, could say, not afford to have or could not give a good life to, still have that baby? It's easier to answer if you are a mom currently. If you have not had a child then this question can't exactly apply to you. I still persist that you go and answer it though. Thanks
Volcanoes13 says2014-01-14T19:32:06.3731973-06:00
124 people make me sick... Abortion is completely wrong, baby nazis think it isn't wrong to kill your own baby! ABOLISH ABORTION!
bubbatheclown says2014-01-14T20:09:20.4595989-06:00
B.A: Shuddup, Murdoc! You ain't comparing no baby to a brain dead dude, you crazyfoo! Da baby's gonna have a dang good brain in a few years, but da brain dead dude probably ain't ever gonna wake up! Dat's the difference! I ain't wanna hear no more of yo' jibber jabber!
bubbatheclown says2014-01-14T20:22:25.0922877-06:00
Also, not talking like B.A. Baracus this time, the New Testament did not mention abortion because it wasn't a problem at the time.
Jingram994 says2014-01-14T22:02:36.3470211-06:00
Cute, Mr. T. The comparison is quite apt, regardless of what you might like to think, however; neither has an actual, functioning brain at that time, and the fact that one or both *might* in a few months is not relevant at all. Groundbreaking new medical technology *might* give us the ability to repair and 'jump-start' the brains of brain-dead individuals in a few years, which may 'resurrect' the person in question, or might simply use their brain and body as raw materials for the creation of an entirely new person, depending on the technology and the philosophical perspective. The possibility of this technology existing at some time in the future doesn't make it 'wrong' to pull these bodies off of life support *right now*, when the technology *isn't* available. A human fetus does not have any higher brain function, due to it's higher brain not being developed to the point where this is possible, until 26 weeks; it is neither legally, medically nor philosophically a 'person' until and unless it has this ability, so it is not actually 'murder' to 'kill' it (more specifically, to remove it from the only environment that is capable of sustaining it) until this point, which is actually after the point of legal abortion in most cases and most countries that allow abortion.
bubbatheclown says2014-01-16T18:35:06.6593180-06:00
But fetuses do have some brain functions, even at their early stages of development. This should gain them at least an animal amount of respect. Also, since we're arguing about this, it means we have not confirmed whether or not a fetus should count as a person. If you don't know that somebody's dead, you don't bury them. (I said this on another thing but I can't find it)
Jingram994 says2014-01-16T21:00:04.7144962-06:00
From a certain point of view, that could be correct, I suppose. But do consider the fact that all other (complex; ie. Microbes don't count, mammals, reptiles etc. do) animal species, when born, do actually have fully-developed brains, including higher brain functions that actually give them capacity (to a lesser degree than in humans) for consciousness, self-awareness and actual thought (presumably not actual rational thought in most species), and it can quite clearly be seen that they are aware of their own existence and have a large number of traits generally associated with complex life that fetuses still lack. It *is* still the case that brain function is the determinant for being 'alive' at all in medical terminology, and in scientific terminology unless specific forms of life with no central nervous system (microbes, plants) are being discussed, and that higher brain function to a certain degree (all born humans, barring severe physical trauma or extreme defects, meet this limit, whereas almost no, if any, other species do) is the determinant for being a 'person'; being a 'person' requires that one has several traits that we know are a result of higher brain functioning, at least in humans.
Rafe says2014-01-25T17:10:12.3273391-06:00
Jingram994, you can't be seriously saying that we lack higher brain activity one minute before birth and gain it a moment later.
Jingram994 says2014-01-27T08:39:47.1862786-06:00
That's not what I said. Read. We lack it until about 26 weeks, before which we simply have not developed to the point where this is physically possible. After this point, where the fetus is actually an independent 'person' with it's own mind and subjective existence, I think there should be a cutoff for non-critical abortions where there is no risk to the mother. I am also open to making exceptions to instances where it was simply not physically possible to receive an abortion before this point, as well, but really by that point it's only an extra 2-3 weeks until they could receive an 'abortion' and also not kill the developing fetus, which by that stage is a 'person', anyway. Also, is it just me or has it actually been ages since you were on here last?
bubbatheclown says2014-01-28T16:49:04.8288022-06:00
Well, since the baby after it is born still does not fit the definition of "intelligent," and that's supposedly what matters here, why not legalize infanticide then? Just use a humane method and the matter of suffering wouldn't be a problem. Heck, why not euthanize anyone who is severely mentally handicapped? And no, I am not actually advocating euthanasia and infanticide. I am making a point.
Jingram994 says2014-01-29T03:13:58.2645192-06:00
"Well, since the baby after it is born still does not fit the definition of "intelligent," and that's supposedly what matters here, why not legalize infanticide then?" Yet again, someone who does not read. This doesn't have anything to do with 'intelligence'; a fetus before 26 weeks does not have higher brain activity, in any manner whatsoever. As you by definition require higher brain activity for consciousness, self-awareness and *CAPABILITY FOR* rational thought, you could not possibly have any of those things without higher brain function. These are also the things that 'person-hood' is dependent on; if you do not have consciousness, self-awareness or ability for rational thought, you could not possibly be a 'person'. This is why a newborn is a 'person', same as the average adult. So no, the 'point' you are trying to make does not work when you actually read my comments.
isaacjo says2014-01-29T10:36:38.8355761-06:00
@jingram994 you define a human life as having "higher brain activity for consciousness, self-awareness and *CAPABILITY FOR* rational thought". The following definitions are from the New Oxford American Dictionary. Consciousness - "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings". Self-awareness - "knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires". Rational thought - "based on or in accordance with reason or logic" Ok. A newborn has should meet all three criteria to be considered human: conscious, self-aware, and the capability for rational thought. Conscious? Check. Self-aware? Kind of, so let's assume thats another yes. Capability for rational thought? No, not at its current state. It cannot base anything off logic. Because one of these definitions do not work and you said human life(higher brain activity) is reliant on consciousness AND self awareness AND capability for rational thought, by Boolean logic, your whole definition is invalid and must be redefined. Also, a mentally challenged individual may not possess all three of these criteria and by your reasoning, should be euthanized. I'm not talking about a brain dead person, I know people that are are barely conscious if you can even call it that since they are not aware of their surroundings. Definitely not self aware or capable of rational thought. So my question is, what differentiates a fetus baby from a mentally challenged or newborn?
Jingram994 says2014-01-30T00:20:18.8068448-06:00
@isaacjo: (line of ##### denotes are between paragraphs) I prefer the following definitions; 'Rational Thought (capability for; remember that it is the capability for it that is a criteria, not the rational thoughts themselves)': 'Rationality is the quality or state of being agreeable to reason. An action, belief, or desire is rational if we ought to choose it.'[1] OR '1. The state or quality of being rational. 2. The possession of reason. 3. Agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.'[2] ################################################ 'Consciousness(In the broader sense, not simply 'waking consciousness'; one still qualitatively has consciousness whilst they are asleep/'unconscious'/in a coma/etc.)': '1. The state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. 2. The thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.'[3] OR 'Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.'[4] ############################################## 'Self Awareness (ie. Aware of the self)' ; 'Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.'[5] ########################################################################################################## "Capability for rational thought? No, not at its current state." Capability for. It has the capability for that by dint of having a human-equivalent, functioning higher brain. It doesn't need to literally have rational thoughts to still have that ability by dint of it's higher brain function. The rule of 'you can't have those things without a functioning higher brain' works both ways; you can't have a functioning human-equivalent higher brain, and somehow not have those things. ########################################################################## "Also, a mentally challenged individual may not possess all three of these criteria and by your reasoning, should be euthanized. I'm not talking about a brain dead person, I know people that are are barely conscious if you can even call it that since they are not aware of their surroundings." You do not need to be aware of your surrounding to be aware at all. Someone with no method of external perception whatsoever is not of necessity 'not a person', as ability for perception of the external world is not actually a criteria for 'person-hood'. No, an extremely mentally disabled person will likely not possess one of the main qualifiers for person-hood. This does mean that legally qualifying them as a 'person', with all the rights and responsibilities inherent to that, is incorrect and not a well thought-out proposition; this does not mean that they have no rights at all (non-sapient animals still have rights despite not being 'persons', due to having some of the things you need to be a 'person'), and it does not mean that it is 'okay' to euthanize them out of hand. At bare minimum they are in the same category as the most intelligent sentient-but-not-sapient animals, and given that they qualitatively hold more traits that are applicable to 'person-hood' than these animals, ############################################################################## "Definitely not self aware or capable of rational thought. So my question is, what differentiates a fetus baby from a mentally challenged or newborn?" A fetus before 26 weeks does not have *ANY* higher brain function at all; it is not even in the same category as a non-sapient insect as far as 'person-hood' and rights go. A newborn, barring extreme developmental defects that will almost certainly kill it before this point, does have higher brain function, and this function is given rise to by a brain that inherently has capability for consciousness, self-awareness and rational thought. A mentally challenged person, in most cases, will still have almost all of the qualifiers for person-hood, and in almost all cases doesn't actually completely lack any remaining qualifiers, as non-human animals do, so much as they do not have them in the same quantitative manner as most other sapient individuals do. ############################################################################# 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality 2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationality 3) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consciousness 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Jingram994 says2014-01-30T00:25:42.4918837-06:00
@isaacjo: I prefer the following definitions; 'Rational Thought (capability for; remember that it is the capability for it that is a criteria, not the rational thoughts themselves)': 'Rationality is the quality or state of being agreeable to reason. An action, belief, or desire is rational if we ought to choose it.'[1] OR '1. The state or quality of being rational. 2. The possession of reason. 3. Agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.'[2] 'Consciousness(In the broader sense, not simply 'waking consciousness'; one still qualitatively has consciousness whilst they are asleep/'unconscious'/in a coma/etc.)': '1. The state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. 2. The thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.'[3] OR 'Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.'[4] 'Self Awareness (ie. Aware of the self)' ; 'Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.'[5] "Capability for rational thought? No, not at its current state." Capability for. It has the capability for that by dint of having a human-equivalent, functioning higher brain. It doesn't need to literally have rational thoughts to still have that ability by dint of it's higher brain function. The rule of 'you can't have those things without a functioning higher brain' works both ways; you can't have a functioning human-equivalent higher brain, and somehow not have those things. "Also, a mentally challenged individual may not possess all three of these criteria and by your reasoning, should be euthanized. I'm not talking about a brain dead person, I know people that are are barely conscious if you can even call it that since they are not aware of their surroundings." You do not need to be aware of your surrounding to be aware at all. Someone with no method of external perception whatsoever is not of necessity 'not a person', as ability for perception of the external world is not actually a criteria for 'person-hood'. No, an extremely mentally disabled person will likely not possess one of the main qualifiers for person-hood. This does mean that legally qualifying them as a 'person', with all the rights and responsibilities inherent to that, is incorrect and not a well thought-out proposition; this does not mean that they have no rights at all (non-sapient animals still have rights despite not being 'persons', due to having some of the things you need to be a 'person'), and it does not mean that it is 'okay' to euthanize them out of hand. At bare minimum they are in the same category as the most intelligent sentient-but-not-sapient animals, and given that they qualitatively hold more traits that are applicable to 'person-hood' than these animals, "Definitely not self aware or capable of rational thought. So my question is, what differentiates a fetus baby from a mentally challenged or newborn?" A fetus before 26 weeks does not have *ANY* higher brain function at all; it is not even in the same category as a non-sapient insect as far as 'person-hood' and rights go. A newborn, barring extreme developmental defects that will almost certainly kill it before this point, does have higher brain function, and this function is given rise to by a brain that inherently has capability for consciousness, self-awareness and rational thought. A mentally challenged person, in most cases, will still have almost all of the qualifiers for person-hood, and in almost all cases doesn't actually completely lack any remaining qualifiers, as non-human animals do, so much as they do not have them in the same quantitative manner as most other sapient individuals do. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality 2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationality 3) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consciousness 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
isaacjo says2014-01-31T21:33:40.8111043-06:00
First of all, stop with wikipedia. Not considered a source. What changes between 25 and 26 weeks of pregnancy? Lets discuss this 1 pt at a time.
Jingram994 says2014-01-31T23:56:06.3307824-06:00
"First of all, stop with wikipedia. Not considered a source." Yes it is. At any rate, I'm simply using definitions, not actual information. "What changes between 25 and 26 weeks of pregnancy?" The higher brain develops to the point of actual functionality, which means that the fetus then has the actual physical ability for higher brain function and person-hood. Before this point, it doesn't have any physical capability for that, and so isn't a 'person'.
isaacjo says2014-02-03T18:12:18.1223261-06:00
OK. Keep citing wikipedia. You win.
Jingram994 says2014-02-03T23:57:28.3243301-06:00
I *can* cite other sites if you *really* need me to. Most of them are probably on the citation list of the wikipedia pages I'm using, even. And I will reiterate; "I'm simply using definitions, not actual information." As I am only using those definitions, being as they are likely among the most commonly used ones and the ones most applicable to what is actually being discussed, I'm well within my rights to say that we're using those definitions for the purposes of this argument, unless you can point out specific reasons, that relate to the definitions themselves and not where they come from, as to why we should not do so. I'm not trying to sound rude or act as though your input is worthless. I'm simply stating that the definitions I'm using, re. Wikipedia, are acceptable ones and unless you have a good reason otherwise I'm going to continue using them. I am willing to 'go over it 1 pt at a time', if you have other points beyond that first one.
isaacjo says2014-02-06T09:23:22.9157810-06:00
"What changes between 25 and 26 weeks of pregnancy?" was my first question. You wrote: "The higher brain develops to the point of actual functionality...The fetus then has the actual physical ability for higher brain function and person-hood..."___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________My question to you is this: What scientific method, or test, can be used to determine "higher brain function"?
Jingram994 says2014-02-07T02:25:25.8135561-06:00
"My question to you is this: What scientific method, or test, can be used to determine "higher brain function"?" Well, basically? Any form of in-depth brain scan that can reveal actual activity in the brain. The more detailed and accurate, the better, obviously. An (f)MRI, a PET scan, EEG, and so on. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_neuroimaging 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimaging 3) http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain7.htm And yes, I'm aware that you don't like Wikipedia. So use the links that are being sourced from on the page itself, instead.
isaacjo says2014-02-09T15:59:51.5031721-06:00
MRI's as well as EEG can be done as soon as 11 weeks and show brain activity. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5t6NpW73e4 ). Not 25-26. Where did you get that from?
Jingram994 says2014-02-09T23:29:04.4340310-06:00
HIGHER brain activity. Not simply any activity in the brain. There is obviously going to be some level of activity in the lower brain (actually mostly just the brain stem); this is not relevant at all. People with only lower brain activity are still brain dead. 26 weeks is when activity begins in the higher brain.
isaacjo says2014-02-12T13:57:04.4741753-06:00
My point is that MRI's or any scan can't distinguish the difference between "higher brain activity" or just "lower brain activity". At this point in time we can't tell what kind of brain activity just that there is some brain activity.
Jingram994 says2014-02-13T00:57:31.5096042-06:00
The 'higher brain' notes a different area, not just a different function; most of the brain technically constitutes 'the higher brain'. It's only the brain stem and areas directly related to autonomic functions that don't. We know that there is no ability for the areas of the brain that constitute 'the higher brain' to function until 26 weeks because most of their brain has not developed to the point where it is physically possible for it to function. The fact that any scans before, or in many cases at, this point, do not detect any activity in higher brain areas shows this to be the case.
Jingram994 says2014-02-13T08:17:12.0497607-06:00
Also, just FYI; the scans that I'm talking about CAN tell what level of activity, and in what areas of the brain, is actually occurring. We're well past the stage now that we can 'only' tell that there is brain activity, but not know anything further.
isaacjo says2014-02-13T10:19:24.1108860-06:00
Source?
Jingram994 says2014-02-13T23:43:56.8785359-06:00
For which part?
Venusara says2014-02-14T00:01:40.8604172-06:00
Forced pregnancy is in no way "right"!
Jingram994 says2014-02-14T00:23:48.0115510-06:00
Part 1 (That fetuses do not have functional higher brains until around 26 weeks): 1) http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com.au/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html 2) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/0619-1st-gazza.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 3) http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/your-baby/week-26/eyes-open.aspx Part 2 (Brain scans show areas of activity, not 'just' that there is activity): 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging 2) http://www.onelife.com/evolve/att.html 3) http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/sep2002/ninds05a.htm There are more, but those are the only ones that I can actually recall.
GUMMYBEARS says2014-03-02T20:52:51.1737783-06:00
Its mudur aginst a child that is unable to defend itself.
Jingram994 says2014-03-07T08:17:14.6710173-06:00
Uhh, no, it is not 'mudur'. Murder is by definition illegal, and can only happen to a person. Abortion, in many instances, is not illegal, and a fetus before 26 weeks is not a person. Even after that point, it is still not necessarily the case that abortion is 'murder', or that it is not justified even if it were murder.
bubbatheclown says2014-03-07T12:26:35.7364571-06:00
(Forgive me for breaking Godwin's Law) The Nazi extermination of Jews was not illegal, so was it not murder?
Jingram994 says2014-03-08T00:46:46.1128647-06:00
That's not what I said, nor what was meant to be implied. At any rate, it was still illegal according to international law, and the law of the specific country it was occurring in was coming from an illegitimate government (Any government that does not genuinely represent the views, beliefs and opinions of the population it is representing is not 'legitimate'), thus was not itself legitimate. So no, I do not believe that it was actually 'legal' according to any meaningful definition of the term, nor do I believe that it wasn't also murder even if it was. Actual people were being killed on a massive scale by an illegitimate, totalitarian government to make a racist scapegoat for the previous failings of that country. That's not even close to the same use of the involved terms.
demonlord343 says2014-03-15T10:58:30.5312322-05:00
Hey, hate to burst your bubble, but a fetus is not alive yet. Look up the definition of something that is alive. A fetus does not match all of these principles. So, how can you murder something that is not alive?
captainamerike says2014-04-28T00:35:27.9476166-05:00
Before 26 weeks, a fetus is a bunch of cells and has no sort of development personality-wise. After that, abortions become more unsafe, but the choice should still be the mother's choice. If you're going to go on about how the sperm already has human DNA well maybe male masturbation should be illegal also. Also I hope that all of you pro-lifers understand that just because a woman has a choice doesn't mean she'll get an abortion. It's having the choice that's important, not having someone else decide for her. A fetus isn't socially recognized as a person until it is successfully born, and from that point on is when it acquires rights. Not before then, while it is physically incapable of surviving without being part of the person carrying it. Just get off your high horses and think about pro-choice people as actual people, how bout, and not just murderers. Again; Just because a woman has a choice doesn't mean she will choose abortion.
ChadIrvin says2014-05-20T14:44:57.1635286-05:00
Just because something is legal does not make it right or morally sound. These laws were written by men an men are sinners. Abortion is a sin because man wrote a law giving a woman the right to murder her unborn child. The Bible forbids murder.
Jingram994 says2014-05-21T04:34:57.6628216-05:00
"Just because something is legal does not make it right or morally sound." Correct. Legal and moral are not the same thing. However, we *recognize* that abortion is not immoral on it's own grounds, and for that reason, along with the protection of the rights of the 'mother', it is legal. "These laws were written by men an men are sinners." Please verify that. And I mean *verify*; do not quote some religious book at me, because that is completely meaningless unless you can prove that this religious book is the direct word of the capital G God, and can also prove that morality and God are in some way related. "Abortion is a sin because man wrote a law giving a woman the right to murder her unborn child." That literally makes no sense. It's immoral *because* it's legal? Also, please do a bit of research first next time; a fetus is literally not a 'child' or a 'person' at all, and it is literally not 'murder' to end the life of one or prevent it from forming. Please explain, without any specifically religious ideas, exactly why it is immoral to remove a non-sentient mass of cells from within an actual living person who does actually have rights. "The Bible forbids murder." So? See above; prove the bible is literally correct on all points, is the direct word of god, that this god has anything to do with morality, and that god/the bible is actually a good source of morals.
Riifle says2014-05-21T14:15:01.0085146-05:00
Don't you technically abort when you pull out, take birth control, use condoms?!
Riifle says2014-05-21T15:01:00.8045146-05:00
Don't you technically abort when you pull out, take birth control, use condoms?!
Spec10 says2014-06-04T16:01:11.7247657-05:00
It takes a while for an embryo to develop into a human, as in early stages it will look the exact same as a lizard, chicken, pig, whale, you name it. For a while, they all look the same, you coudn't pick one from the other. Because of this, I do not believe they are humans yet. And stem cells could save thousands of lives and fix millions.
Dilara says2014-06-21T21:22:47.0435085-05:00
Jingram994 because it's not illegal it's not murderer? If killing a one year old isn't considered murderer in a certain country but someone kills it is that murderer?
Dilara says2014-06-21T21:25:21.7164531-05:00
Rifle. Dear god you are clueless. If the sperm and egg have bit come together to form a person than it is not an abortion. Abortion is when you kill something. You can't kill something when it doesn't exist yet.
Jingram994 says2014-06-24T10:19:56.9814946-05:00
"because it's not illegal it's not murderer? If killing a one year old isn't considered murderer in a certain country but someone kills it is that murderer?" To cut right to the heart of the issue; Yes. If someone killed a one year old in that country then it would not be murder according to that country's law, though it would remain so according to the laws of all rational nations, and to international law. The SOLE difference between murder and any other kind of killing is whether or not it's legal. That's it. This is obviously leaving out that it is evidently ridiculous to label abortion as being 'murder' seeing as the fetus simply does not meet requirements for 'person-hood', which you must have to be a person, which you must have to be able to be 'murdered' at all, until at least 26 weeks, and by that point 'abortion' is identical to premature birth; attempts legally *must* be made to save the fetus' life if an abortion is performed after the point of viability. Abortion does not 'kill' *anyone* before 26 weeks, because no 'person' exists which can be killed, and after 22-24 weeks, (*before* the aforementioned, you will note) they *have* to try their best to save the life of the fetus after removing it.
Cbear121 says2014-06-28T00:31:49.9644339-05:00
Everyone who was for slavery was free, everyone who is for abortion was born.
Kreakin says2014-07-10T03:47:21.2056713-05:00
Tl;dr
LogicalLunatic says2014-07-12T17:58:22.0660346-05:00
Mwahahaha! With this many people having voted on this debate, I shall put my evil plan into action!
Preston says2014-08-05T07:42:45.9895948-05:00
@kreakin BS
LogicalLunatic says2014-08-31T16:53:58.6363359-05:00
Post 1
LogicalLunatic says2014-08-31T17:01:07.6558196-05:00
Post 1
LogicalLunatic says2014-08-31T19:30:18.9987575-05:00
Post 2
LogicalLunatic says2014-09-06T15:33:58.2426802-05:00
Post 3
Faheey says2014-10-09T16:28:00.7380209-05:00
Those quoting the bible 'thou shalt not kill' ... Hmmm, does this still stand if you are homosexual? Cursing your mum or dad? Oh, and it's ok to kill or attack people who carry out abortions? All I'm saying is there are immense double standards when it comes to this commandment, so forgive me if I question the hypocracy taken on 'abortion is murder' stance.
Geogeer says2014-10-09T17:20:29.0426055-05:00
@faheey - do you really want this discussion or are you just spouting off?
Faheey says2014-10-09T17:30:24.6385171-05:00
@geogeer I just don't think the debate has a simple yes, no answer and seeing the religious view point made me question the validity of their argument. I think people who have strong opinions, particularly on the side against abortion, can have tunnel-vision and see something as just 'wrong'. My frustration comes where I see double standards of morals that are picked from the bible, but then those same ones are ignored when they undertake immoral acts themselves. If that means I'm spouting off can I also add that as a new user of this lovely site I find it truly frustrating to scroll all the way down the page to see the latest comment :)
Geogeer says2014-10-09T18:09:07.4349437-05:00
This has nothing to do with the bible. It has to do with fact. People who characterize it under a religious argument are intellectually dishonest.
Faheey says2014-10-10T20:01:14.5698442-05:00
@Geogeer Having an opinion is not being intellectually dishonest. Ignoring the facts to suite an argument is ignorance. Whenever I have read a discussion about morals people of a christian religious persuasion call upon the bible as their guide. Applying these rules to help them make 'good' decisions. However, I feel these can be randomly called upon, or chosen selectively. In the case of abortion I feel you can't just look at it purely is it right or wrong. Human life is precious, yes. When that life begins is debatable. That is the crux of this part of the debate. In my opinion I would discount a group of cells with out brain function or functioning organs as being alive. Other people clearly have a different opinion, and vehemently disagree with abortion taking place. This is normally based on religious grounds - this is just a fact. The contradiction comes for me with some of the literal instructions in the bible. If you shouldn't kill, why is it ok to be instructed to kill those who live in 'sin'? It doesn't make sense.
Dilara says2014-10-12T09:29:12.3247045-05:00
A child's right to life overrides a woman's right to choice. Done. End of debate.
Thegreatdebate98 says2014-11-03T11:54:05.9855964-06:00
This is what a pro-choice woman is like: I'm not ready to have a child, so I'm going to get an abortion because it's not a human being yet...(2 years later gets pregnant again) I'm ready to have a child now. *Feels tummy* *Talks to baby* It's a girl! :D I can feel her kicking, I'm so excited. WHERE'S THE LOGIC?
Thegreatdebate98 says2014-11-03T12:00:11.7681752-06:00
Consider this... Even if the unborn baby isn't a human, abortion is still wrong. Not that I believe that, but I know many of you do. I'm sure all of you are glad to be here, and many still are okay with the idea that their mother's could have aborted them. Is your IQ 80?! I apologize, it just doesn't seem logical. I honestly don't believe you, because one of those aborted babies could have had a huge impact on the world. Abortion also has many negative affects on the woman physically and mentally.
Kreakin says2014-11-03T17:02:21.0398164-06:00
"A child's right to life overrides a woman's right to choice. Done. End of debate." NOPE! Most people and the law disagree abortion is the womans choice..
Jingram994 says2014-11-04T01:15:55.0794188-06:00
No, abortion in itself has no negative effects that aren't also associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Ostracising, hating and tormenting women who choose to actually exercise their inviolable rights over their own body, on the other hand... Nobody here is arguing that foetuses aren't 'human'; we're simply arguing that *that isn't relevant*. A mass of skin cells is 'human life', as are sperm cells and unfertilised eggs. By that definition, 'human life' is lost whenever someone exfoliates, or ejaculates, or whenever a woman doesn't get pregnant in a given month. Nobody gets all riled up over those things, so there's a clear double standard at work. The fact remains that none of those things are *people*, which means and denotes something entirely different to the word 'human'. Foetuses aren't capable of thought or feeling, and so their own subjective existences in the manner we talk of concerning individual living beings, as their brains simply are not developed to the point where that is even physically possible until at least 26 weeks. As long as brain death remains the universal legal & medical definition of actual death, people trying to imply that foetuses are 'really people' and so have a right to life will remain objectively incorrect on this point.
Gazzer says2014-11-10T11:14:19.9059727-06:00
The current law in the UK, may nation, is you may abort a child up to 24 weeks. At this stage the baby is fully formed and is starting to think and children who have been born before this age have lived. As a result I want abortion laws to brought down to 16 weeks at a minimum.
Jingram994 says2014-11-10T18:11:38.6151179-06:00
Well no, it isn't fully formed or else it'd have all the exact same features as an actual born baby, and would be absolutely ready to be given birth to right then & there. At any rate, viability isn't relevant; a 24 week foetus still doesn't have any of the higher brain activity which is used to denote presence or absence of life in all other humans, so there's still nothing wrong with aborting at that point even if the procedure 'kills' it (which it probably won't, you know, because viability). Strictly speaking, but abortion only aborts the pregnancy, not the foetus, and abortions after the point of viability are really just premature births anyway. 26 weeks is well after this point, just FYI. As many abortions are performed because of complications and actual medical necessity, restricting abortions after 16 weeks is actually highly liable to kill far more people than (you think; foetuses don't count as 'people' at all until at least 26 weeks) it would save. Most serious, non-genetic complications in pregnancy aren't noticeable until later on, and putting restrictions on what actions women are and aren't allowed to do to attempt to save their own lives is despicable.
Gazzer says2014-11-11T09:21:22.9040244-06:00
If a child can be born the prematurely before the maximum age (which has happened) then I would say there was something wrong with the system. The child isn't the size of a child born at the right time but all the major organs are there it is not a bundle of cells, this means while they don't have the full thinking capacity as a new born they would be recognizable as a baby and are aware of it's surroundings. Your "the pregnancy is aborted not the foetus" statement seems a little strange after all what do you think happens in an abortion? The unborn baby dies. Oh and by the way I think it's ok to abort a baby if there is a high risk to the mother after all she has a family and all and if the mother dies there is a high chance of the baby dying too.
Jingram994 says2014-11-11T15:13:38.5270514-06:00
"If a child can be born the prematurely before the maximum age (which has happened) then I would say there was something wrong with the system." This means only that life support is able to keep them not-dead until they finish growing. This doesn't mean anything. "The child isn't the size of a child born at the right time but all the major organs are there it is not a bundle of cells, this means while they don't have the full thinking capacity as a new born they would be recognizable as a baby and are aware of it's surroundings." You still aren't understanding; 'thinking capacity' isn't a thing. Before 26 weeks it has NO thinking capacity, as it does not have the higher brain structure required to think, or have a mind at all. Were it an adult this would literally put it in the class of 'brain dead', therefore to all medical and legal standards actually meaningfully dead as an individual person rather than a bundle of cells. So no, you're literally totally wrong on that point; a foetus before 26 weeks is not capable of being 'aware' of ANYTHING, in the sense that we use the term for actual living beings rather than individual cells. Something like 'muscles twitching', or 'moving away from something that is a source of discomfort to an individual limb' are completely autonomic reactions; they aren't indicative of anything. They mean only that the nerves in those individual limbs work. "Your "the pregnancy is aborted not the foetus" statement seems a little strange after all what do you think happens in an abortion? The unborn baby dies." Not necessarily. Late term abortions after the point of viability are generally required to make an effort to save the foetus as well. Perhaps educate yourself about what you're even talking about. At any rate, the foetus dying isn't the INTENT of the procedure; the intent is solely to remove it from the 'mother's' body. Strictly speaking, but neither I t nor anybody else has any kind of 'right' to use somebody else's body without their consent, so if the 'mother' doesn't consent to being pregnant she's more than within her rights to evict this unwanted tenant. Property laws in the US have upheld the view that people are entitled to withhold use of their property if they wish, even if doing so may, or even definitely will, lead to the death of a person that is seeking to use that property. If the owner doesn't consent, too bad. "Oh and by the way I think it's ok to abort a baby if there is a high risk to the mother after all she has a family and all and if the mother dies there is a high chance of the baby dying too." Ok, well that's reasonable. I'm just pointing out that it's a case of either foetuses having rights, OR pregnant women having rights. With pregnancy you really can't have it both ways. She either has the right to her own body, or the state has the right to force her to carry children against her will. Life and rights of the 'mother' should always be the only priority, hands down.
Gazzer says2014-11-14T15:15:09.8177718-06:00
Trying to save the child only happens when the aim, to kill the child, fails and the baby is born, then doctor legally must try to save the child too. After all surely in most situations the reason for an abortion being chosen is the mother doesn't want the child to be born for what ever reason. If you argue about higher brain structures will you argue a new born baby isn't human therefore can be slaughtered and eaten because it has the same thinking capacity of an a chimpanzee? No people are blind to the suffering of the unborn innocent child because they don't see it die.
Jingram994 says2014-12-13T23:44:44.2898588-06:00
"Trying to save the child only happens when the aim, to kill the child, fails and the baby is born, then doctor legally must try to save the child too." First of all, it is not a 'child', it is a foetus. The words mean different things and deliberately using the wrong word to try and inspire an irrelevant emotional reaction is very intellectually dishonest. Secondly, the 'aim' of an abortion is to remove the foetus from the woman's body. Whether it lives or dies after the fact is irrelevant. Nobody goes into the reproductive health business with the intent of killing babies, genius. "After all surely in most situations the reason for an abortion being chosen is the mother doesn't want the child to be born for what ever reason." Correct. And removing the foetus from her body and disavowing parental connection and responsibility has the same effect. What exactly is your point here? Whatever their reason, those women still have fundamental rights of ownership over their own bodies, and if you don't like what they choose to do with them that's just too bad for you. "If you argue about higher brain structures will you argue a new born baby isn't human therefore can be slaughtered and eaten because it has the same thinking capacity of an a chimpanzee?" Chimpanzees have higher brain functions as well, smart guy. At any rate, you're missing the point. A foetus before 26 weeks has no more brain activity than a brain-dead corpse does, so unless you are willing to try explaining to he wider medical and legal community how exactly they are wrong to equate brain death with actual death, you're being disingenuous and hypocritical, and ignoring the actual precedent because you happen to personally dislike this one specific thing. "No people are blind to the suffering of the unborn innocent child because they don't see it die." Before 26 weeks, no individual being actually exists that is capable of actually, meaningfully (in the sense we actually use the word; cells are not complete human beings, period, and before 26 weeks a foetus is only a mass of individual cells, and does not have a coordinated central nervous system, which is the thing that 'makes' 'you'/that 'you' are. Else you would need to apply these same standards to sperm cells and unfertilised eggs, at the bare minimum) 'experiencing' anything, let alone suffering. I've already explained this. Do you not understand how the brain actually works, or how and at what point it forms certain parts? If you do not have higher brain function, 'you' do not exist. If you disagree with this, you are in direct disagreement with the universal medical and legal standards on this matter, and the unquestionable scientific observations regarding brain activity.
Dilara says2014-12-14T07:18:01.5372756-06:00
I don't think jingram 994 knows what late term abortion is. The doctor yanks out the lower half of the baby and while the upper half is still inside the mom he cuts it's brains out. If he doesn't cut the brains out before the baby is out completely it will scream and cry. Even a 13 week old baby will squirm away from the canula before it is sucked out and dismembered as silent scream shows. You should watch that movie. Abortion should be legal for the first 12 weeks.
Kreakin says2014-12-14T08:10:01.6021121-06:00
In your opininon.
Dilara says2014-12-14T20:33:58.8755253-06:00
Kreakin rape is wrong in your opinion but if someone wants to rape a women it of your business. When a baby is over 12 weeks there too old to be aborted. If you thinks it's ok watch silent scream.
Jingram994 says2014-12-14T21:55:28.6208778-06:00
"I don't think jingram 994 knows what late term abortion is. The doctor yanks out the lower half of the baby and while the upper half is still inside the mom he cuts it's brains out. If he doesn't cut the brains out before the baby is out completely it will scream and cry." First of all, no. Even if it was relevant *how* exactly the procedure is done (it isn't, and using language like that is disingenuous when the simple fact of the matter is that we are talking about a non-sentient lump if cells with an incomplete nervous system that is non-functioning as far as higher brain functions go). And no, by the way. The foetus is generally not capable of making (or 'trying' to make, as it does not have the cognitive ability to actually 'notice' things in a non-reflexive manner or 'attempt' to do anything, which implies intent and not reflexive response) any kind of coordinated movement by the point abortion is legal, and if it is (which only even occurs in extremely late-term abortions, which themselves only ever occur for medical reasons, which would make any point you are trying to make here null and void) then attempts must be made to save the foetus if it is at all medically feasible. "Even a 13 week old baby will squirm away from the canula before it is sucked out and dismembered as silent scream shows. You should watch that movie. Abortion should be legal for the first 12 weeks." No. That is a lie. For one thing, the silent scream is pro-life propaganda, and the film is deliberately and heavily riddled with outright disinformation and lies. For one thing, the foetus shown is almost double the stated age, putting it almost around the 26 week mark. The footage is also deliberately zoomed in, sped up and slowed down to give the (false) appearance that the foetus is making rapid, frantic (and, implied, deliberate) movements in an attempt to avoid the surgical equipment when the simple fact of the matter is that it is making slow, reflexive movements that all foetuses at that stage make regardless of any intruding objects in their environment. It is also untrue that a foetus at that point would even be capable if recognising, let alone acting upon, intrusions into their environment at all. There also isn't even a 'scream'; the implied mouth is undeveloped space between the head and neck. The film is complete bulls**t, plain and simple. Anyone who's ever actually researched it knows that. Try again.
Kreakin says2014-12-15T15:35:29.0272977-06:00
Dilara - I have no idea what you are even ranting about now, please at least try to be coherant. You sound a bit psychotic to be honest with your pressure of speech outbursts. It's no wonder pro lifers are labled as loons generally, the image you give is that of a loser with too much time on their hands. Why not get a job?
Kreakin says2014-12-15T15:39:00.0387415-06:00
Do you smoke alot of weed? You could be suffering cannabis psychosis..
Jingram994 says2014-12-15T22:25:45.4850543-06:00
"Kreakin rape is wrong in your opinion but if someone wants to rape a women it of your business." True. The woman has a right to her own body and life, the rapist does not. Just for comparison, foetuses (in practice, the government or whatever pro-life group happens to be in charge at the time, as foetuses are not capable of 'choosing' to do anything and objectively do not have rights or the things that qualify you for them) don't magically get rights over other people's bodies or lives just because you want them to. Hypocrite much? "When a baby is over 12 weeks there too old to be aborted. If you thinks it's ok watch silent scream." See above. Bad argument, either total ignorance or outright lie. 26 weeks is the earliest possible age at which foetal rights or morality can possibly be applied to the situation, unless you are willing to argue with the legal precedent of brain death and the universal medical standard regarding what brain death is and implies. And even then you still can't take away the woman's right to her own body and life and put it in the hands of the foetus (in practice the government or whatever large group has control over her rights to treatment and decision-making ability over abortion laws, for the same reasons listed above) just because you say so. That's still degrading and inhumane regardless of the status of the foetus.
hd1997 says2014-12-30T15:31:53.1513330-06:00
Forget the bible think about the woman does she want a child in her womb for NINE FREAKING MOUNTHS. I THINK NOT GOOD DAY TO YOU
SirTent says2015-01-02T23:09:11.3851215-06:00
It doesnt matter how long the baby is in the womb, if a woman is pregnant that means she will have a baby and if she gets an abortion that means she doesnt want the baby to be born, which means she killed it. There is no argument here. If she didnt get an abortion the baby would be born and if she killed it then, it would be murder, so it is also murder if she kills it by getting an abortion.
BDPershing says2015-01-09T01:56:01.5473145-06:00
Murder normally means an act against a person which results in death. Can a infant classify as a person? Is it "aware", can it think for itself? Does it have the mental capacity to know right and wrong? IF your going to start labeling an infant as a person deserving rights then you should give up parenting, for that is modern day slavery, thinking you have the right to possess someone as property all due to age, really? If your going to go about giving a "thing" rights then you should abandon the idea of modern parenting. Btw the best description for a infant/fetus, would be parasite, and since it lives off its host, I would say its up to the host if it wishes to carry it to term.
Jingram994 says2015-01-09T04:48:07.1700908-06:00
"It doesnt matter how long the baby is in the womb,.." Non-sequiter. Explain your reasoning. A foetus has entirely different characteristics at different stages of development. Of course it matters how long it's been in there. "..If a woman is pregnant that means she will have a baby and if she gets an abortion that means she doesnt want the baby to be born,.." Not necessarily. A late-term Cesarian section counts as a form of abortion, you know. Abortion merely means that the woman is not willing to give consent for the foetus to remain inside of her and leech off of her body. She has the right to her own body, while the foetus, just like every other person aside from the woman herself, has none whatsoever. "..Which means she killed it." No, it means that she was willing to have someone else remove it from her body. The fact that it may die after being removed is neither the point nor relevant to her right to have it removed. "There is no argument here. If she didnt get an abortion the baby would be born.." Not necessarily. She could have miscarried, or it could have been stillborn, or it could even have ended up killing her (which incidentally would make directly murdering it totally justifiable self-defense, even if we *did* decide to be idiots and equate abortion with murder). "..And if she killed it then, it would be murder, so it is also murder if she kills it by getting an abortion." You're totally ignoring the actual differences between an undeveloped foetus inside of a woman's body and a baby that is no longer dependent upon her body. Even ignoring developmental differences which preclude the foetus from being considered a 'person' or having rights, and assuming a full person is inside of her body without her consent and leeching off of her, she is well within her right to have this person removed, regardless of the potential consequences for that person. It's kind of like why you can't just go out and kidnap people for their organs even though you may be very ill and in need of them. So, to be very blunt, you are making a false equivalence fallacy, and are flatly and hypocritically ignoring the reality of the pregnant woman's own rights.
BDPershing says2015-01-14T14:57:28.2436209-06:00
*points at Jingram994* Give that man a cookie!!! http://makeameme.org/media/created/give-that-man-twb0fr.jpg
Thegreatdebate98 says2015-01-29T11:50:07.5056432-06:00
To say an unborn baby isn't living is the silliest thing I've ever heard, it's completely anti-science. I'm not pro-life for religious reasons, because we're all different stages in development. They don't automatically turn human after being born, that's just what you'd like to think! Despite the fact that they are less developed than a grown adult, is like stating that a grown adult's brain is more developed so they deserve life more. Obviously no one thinks that though.
Thegreatdebate98 says2015-01-29T11:50:38.8500480-06:00
To say an unborn baby isn't living is the silliest thing I've ever heard, it's completely anti-science. I'm not pro-life for religious reasons, because we're all different stages in development. They don't automatically turn human after being born, that's just what you'd like to think! Despite the fact that they are less developed than a grown adult, is like stating that a grown adult's brain is more developed so they deserve life more. Obviously the average person doesn't think that though.
cwt002 says2015-02-13T16:18:15.1014337-06:00
I am curious what the people who say that "Yes, it is murder".....Or "it is completely a women's choice" thinks about a women taking thalidomide (a drug which has shown to help with morning sickness but is likely to cause birth defects)
Sportsfan01 says2015-02-19T22:06:42.1610636-06:00
Why abort the baby when a mother could just put the baby up for adoption if she isn't ready or can't support it
carolunicorn says2015-03-12T01:15:52.8524771-05:00
With no religious prespective here. Yes, abortion is scientifically murder which has the definition of easing a human being's physical exsitence on deliberate act. However, It is NOT wrong. Not to mention victims of rape, human trafficking and other non-consensual intercourses that led to pregenacy. It is generally NOT wrong, a women has the ultmate say with her own life path and body. There is no point giving a baby birth knowing it will not be welcomed, properly nurtured and could potentially lead to more hardships within the family and for the baby. Having said that, abortion should avoided at all costs.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-14T13:21:53.5822085-05:00
She has the right to her own body, while the foetus, just like every other person aside from the woman herself, has none whatsoever." Her rights are gone if she intends to take another life. At that point it should be up to a jury of her peers in a courtroom. That is how we settle matters of taking a persons life in any other setting. Those people do have a say. They are the only unbiased voices for the victim. The mothers intent alone is completely biased towards her own ends. We can't expect a person in that situation to make the right decision about another's life. We can't put that responsibility in any one persons hands.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-14T13:23:14.4999272-05:00
@jingram994 "She has the right to her own body, while the foetus, just like every other person aside from the woman herself, has none whatsoever." Her rights are gone if she intends to take another life. At that point it should be up to a jury of her peers in a courtroom. That is how we settle matters of taking a persons life in any other setting. Those people do have a say. They are the only unbiased voices for the victim. The mothers intent alone is completely biased towards her own ends. We can't expect a person in that situation to make the right decision about another life. We can't put that responsibility in any one persons hands.
Jingram994 says2015-04-18T05:32:06.3014577-05:00
"Her rights are gone if she intends to take another life. At that point it should be up to a jury of her peers in a courtroom. That is how we settle matters of taking a persons life in any other setting." No, this is how we settle matters of murdering people. Killing off biologically human life does not necessarily equate to murdering a person. For example, sperm cells and unfertilized eggs are just as biologically human (and logically 'potential future persons') as foetuses are, but nobody goes to prison for menstruating or masturbating. "Those people do have a say. They are the only unbiased voices for the victim." Why do complete strangers get to 'have a say' in how a woman is 'allowed 'to use her own body, especially given that her choosing to so use it does not impact them in any way, shape or form? If you are going to make arguments dependent of foetuses being 'people' or having 'rights' you are going to need to prove that both of those are true, given that the law (and logic, as shown clearly with the example of unfertilized eggs & sperm cells being in the literal same boat as foetuses with no demonstrated higher brain activity). "The mothers intent alone is completely biased towards her own ends." Not necessarily. Deliberately bringing a person (who factually does not exist until they begin showing higher brain activity, and unless you are going to also argue for sperm cells & unfertilized eggs having rights, and therefore male masturbation and the natural human menstrual cycle being illegal, this is flatly not arguable) into existence when you know you are not going to be able to care for them (at least very well), or if doing so would mean you are unable to care for any children you already have (another point; over 50% of women who have abortions already have at least one child), then deliberately choosing to do so is completely irresponsible. "We can't expect a person in that situation to make the right decision about another life. We can't put that responsibility in any one persons hands." This argument explicitly depends upon the inherently flawed assumption that foetuses are 'people' who have 'rights' and can be 'murdered', and that is simply not true. You need to prove that it is if you want to base your argument upon it.
doctorcsss says2015-04-29T19:24:13.3095327-05:00
My argument: EQUAL RIGHTS FOR UNBORN WOMEN!!!!! AND UNBORN AFRICAN AMERICANS!!!! EQUALITY!!!! AMERICAAAAAA!!!!!
dan40000000 says2015-06-24T19:37:30.3177307-05:00
If you support abortion then you must logically support the male of choosing to kill the baby too because after all the baby is half his too. Men's body fluids are used to create the baby so shouldn't he have a say as well? Or maybe a woman should always be allowed to kill her kids since they are her creation so if you think it is wrong for a female to kill her 6 month baby then how can you think it's ok to kill a fetus? I have kids and I can tell you babies in the first few months are brain dead and do nothing. They have no ability to reason or think and don't even know they exist. Since I have heard that logic as a reason to kill a fetus it must stand true in all situations not just ones that support your desire to murder innocent kids.
falloffenix says2015-07-17T12:28:59.2792763-05:00
Myths: 1. "Women should be able to do what they want with their own bodies. Men in government shouldn't control that" What about the body in the womb? Does he/she have a choice on whether he/she gets to live or die? So please stop referring to "pro-abortion" as "pro-life." 2. "Abortion doesn't hurt anybody. After all, a fetus is just a clump of cells, not an actual person." What species is that clump of cells? You have to dehumanize the unborn baby, or else you'd feel like a murderer. Unborn babies have faces and fingers. They can feel pain. At the end of the day, aren't we all just a big clump of cells? 3. "Abortions help science" The Nazis also had specimens that were experimented on against their will. The Nazis justified it. They viewed their victims as objects. Not as people. So the real question is, are unborn babies people?
rhkid says2015-10-03T16:37:35.9313089Z
A person i a person no matter how small
Bob13 says2015-10-21T01:05:18.4294325Z
@Jingram994 What proof do you need? Since a fetus is a human, I am waiting on you to find out why it is not a person.
Bob13 says2015-10-21T01:06:13.0304825Z
@Jingram994 What proof do you need? Since a fetus is a human, I am waiting on you to find out why it is not a person.
Bob13 says2015-10-21T01:07:06.7111148Z
@Jingram994 What proof do you need? Since a fetus is a human, I am waiting on you to find out why it is not a person.
allie_harding says2015-10-21T13:15:05.4458300Z
I am very back and forth on this matter. I do believe that it is the decision of the mother whether or not she wants to keep the child or get an abortion. There are different opinions as to when a fetus is actually alive. This is normally a matter of religion over most things. There are times where I feel as though life begins when a heart beat is heard. I honestly don't feel like there is a wrong or right answer as to whether abortion is right or wrong. Some people think that it is wrong because of religion and the way that they were raised. Others feel that abortion is okay because the child isn't seen as 'alive' my some until it has exited the womb and has been born. Though I don't necessarily like the idea of abortion, I do feel like it is an individual decision. If I were to become pregnant and decide to get an abortion, that is my choice and mine alone. It shouldn't be the concern of anyone else. It is wonderful for people to have their own opinion. I just don't feel like it is fair to believe that someone should be forced to have a child when that child is only going to end up going into that adoption system. In case no one knows... There are children are never adopted. Some children never have a real family because the parent who birthed them gave them up for adoption for whatever reason. It is not fair for the child to never be able to have a real family due to the fact that an abortion wasn't done for whatever reason. Peer pressure to not get an abortion can sometimes cause more harm than good for both the mother and the child. It really is all a matter of opinion. I feel like if a pregnant woman wants to get an abortion that she should be allowed to make that decision without the input of a bunch of other people. It is her body that the child would be growing in. If she feels as though she is not ready and that she doesn't want to have to put the child up for adoption that she should be allowed to make a decision for herself. Abortion is a personal decision that should be allowed to be made based on circumstances and on knowledge. We should not forbid abortions for other people just because some of us feel as though it is wrong. We should be letting the pregnant woman decide what she wants to do with her body and with the fetus inside of her.
allie_harding says2015-10-21T13:15:57.1261782Z
I am very back and forth on this matter. I do believe that it is the decision of the mother whether or not she wants to keep the child or get an abortion. There are different opinions as to when a fetus is actually alive. This is normally a matter of religion over most things. There are times where I feel as though life begins when a heart beat is heard. I honestly don't feel like there is a wrong or right answer as to whether abortion is right or wrong. Some people think that it is wrong because of religion and the way that they were raised. Others feel that abortion is okay because the child isn't seen as 'alive' my some until it has exited the womb and has been born. Though I don't necessarily like the idea of abortion, I do feel like it is an individual decision. If I were to become pregnant and decide to get an abortion, that is my choice and mine alone. It shouldn't be the concern of anyone else. It is wonderful for people to have their own opinion. I just don't feel like it is fair to believe that someone should be forced to have a child when that child is only going to end up going into that adoption system. In case no one knows... There are children are never adopted. Some children never have a real family because the parent who birthed them gave them up for adoption for whatever reason. It is not fair for the child to never be able to have a real family due to the fact that an abortion wasn't done for whatever reason. Peer pressure to not get an abortion can sometimes cause more harm than good for both the mother and the child. It really is all a matter of opinion. I feel like if a pregnant woman wants to get an abortion that she should be allowed to make that decision without the input of a bunch of other people. It is her body that the child would be growing in. If she feels as though she is not ready and that she doesn't want to have to put the child up for adoption that she should be allowed to make a decision for herself. Abortion is a personal decision that should be allowed to be made based on circumstances and on knowledge. We should not forbid abortions for other people just because some of us feel as though it is wrong. We should be letting the pregnant woman decide what she wants to do with her body and with the fetus inside of her.
MissSukiMinteh1 says2016-02-25T16:34:04.9121250Z
I agree in ways abortion is wrong and its also could be murder. But in different circumstances like rape, there should be an option from those girls that were rape. Why would you want a female who has been raped to carry a child that was her rapist. The baby would come out looking like the rapist and she will be scarred for the rest of her looking at what happened in the pass, and that could really mess up someone's life. I just think female should have a choice. Its our bodies and yeah I don't think abortion is right but I think it should be a choice.
Elephant_Shrew says2016-03-18T09:41:49.5833167Z
Murder is not always wrong. First of all, those cells in the mother cannot think nor feel anything. They don't have a conscience. So, wouldn't ending the baby's life when it still doesn't have emotion or things it will miss be much more humane than giving birth to it and making the child realize his/her parents are having financial troubles, a divorce, et cetera for many decades of living in pain and dying in pain of hunger, the cold, or real murder? Also what moral difference is there between menstruation (releasing unfertilized cells) and abortion? In both cases, the cell(s) cannot feel anything nor even think.. There is no moral difference! If you define a abortion as murder, then menstruation would be half a murder. We menstruate once a month, so wouldn't that be equal to six murders a year?? That is so illogical. There is obviously a clear moral difference between killing a set of cells without a life (living, but without a life other than the mother's womb), people that would grieve for them (other than the parents... Of course abortion should be done with the mother &/or father's consent), a home to care for, et cetera and the murder of a person with a loving family, many friends who would burst in tears hearing of his/her death, a job in society, and many more. A set of cells has no value in society unless it grows up. You are not born with any value other than physical, you earn it through hard work in life (learning in school, college, gaining experience in the work force, with people...).
kennykenkenken says2016-04-29T00:04:43.4007542Z
As fetuses are not sentient, abortion is not wrong until the child is sentient, and even if he/she is sentient to save the parent abortion could even be right.
maslow says2016-08-01T01:50:42.9983111Z
Abortion is not a religious issue nor a government issue. It is a medical issue of the woman who is pregnant and she has a RIGHT to a safe procedure should she CHOOSE not to have the baby. Period.
maslow says2016-08-01T01:51:36.3357368Z
Abortion is not a religious issue nor a government issue. It is a medical issue of the woman who is pregnant and she has a RIGHT to a safe procedure should she CHOOSE not to have the baby. Period.
Dilara says2016-08-05T04:11:41.7200757Z
Protect babies even before they can live outside the womb (21 weeks)
Dilara says2016-08-05T04:14:54.0873750Z
Protect babies even before they can live outside the womb (21 weeks)
Noname123456 says2016-08-05T05:43:03.3846903Z
Abortion is not murder because fetuses are incapable of consciousness and therefore are not people. If killing a fetus is murder, then all people who eat meat are as bad as Hitler.
Noname123456 says2016-08-05T05:43:33.7752684Z
Abortion is not murder because fetuses are incapable of consciousness and therefore are not people. If killing a fetus is murder, then all people who eat meat are as bad as Hitler.
Noname123456 says2016-08-05T05:44:32.7592465Z
Abortion is not murder because fetuses are incapable of consciousness and therefore are not people. If killing a fetus is murder, then all people who eat meat are as bad as Hitler.
Penny_L says2016-10-04T20:20:28.5599812Z
Take the Bible and religion completely out of it and you're still killing a human being. You do not have to be a religious person to see this I am not a religious person and I see this clearly. It's a living creature it has a heartbeat yes you are murdering it. No amount of pseudo junk science is going to change that fact. It's one of the many reasons why if somebody murders a pregnant woman if they also get charged with the death of the baby as well. People use b.S. Science as an excuse to support abortion all the time because that's how they can live with their conscience of supporting such a disgusting Act. That being said I'm not going to force a woman to have a baby and truth be told most women who have abortions are welfare leehing ghetto good-for-nothing whores, and just plain sluts in general, who shouldn't be having kids anyway, and the kids are better off not being born into that type of environment. To make matters worse a lot of these pro-abortion people are anti death penalty. So they support the murdering of unborn children but they do not support the deaths of rapists, child molesters, and murderers.
Penny_L says2016-10-04T20:21:58.8689601Z
Take the Bible and religion completely out of it and you're still killing a human being. You do not have to be a religious person to see this I am not a religious person and I see this clearly. It's a living creature it has a heartbeat yes you are murdering it. No amount of pseudo junk science is going to change that fact. It's one of the many reasons why if somebody murders a pregnant woman if they also get charged with the death of the baby as well. People use b.S. Science as an excuse to support abortion all the time because that's how they can live with their conscience of supporting such a disgusting Act. That being said I'm not going to force a woman to have a baby and truth be told most women who have abortions are welfare leehing ghetto good-for-nothing whores, and just plain sluts in general, who shouldn't be having kids anyway, and the kids are better off not being born into that type of environment. To make matters worse a lot of these pro-abortion people are anti death penalty. So they support the murdering of unborn children but they do not support the deaths of rapists, child molesters, and murderers.
Penny_L says2016-10-04T20:24:04.8553677Z
Take the Bible and religion completely out of it and you're still killing a human being. You do not have to be a religious person to see this I am not a religious person and I see this clearly. It's a living creature it has a heartbeat yes you are murdering it. No amount of pseudo junk science is going to change that fact. It's one of the many reasons why if somebody murders a pregnant woman if they also get charged with the death of the baby as well. People use b.S. Science as an excuse to support abortion all the time because that's how they can live with their conscience of supporting such a disgusting Act. That being said I'm not going to force a woman to have a baby and truth be told most women who have abortions are welfare leehing ghetto good-for-nothing whores, and just plain sluts in general, who shouldn't be having kids anyway, and the kids are better off not being born into that type of environment. To make matters worse a lot of these pro-abortion people are anti death penalty. So they support the murdering of unborn children but they do not support the deaths of rapists, child molesters, and murderers.
Penny_L says2016-10-04T20:25:00.9845275Z
Take the Bible and religion completely out of it and you're still killing a human being. You do not have to be a religious person to see this I am not a religious person and I see this clearly. It's a living creature it has a heartbeat yes you are murdering it. No amount of pseudo junk science is going to change that fact. It's one of the many reasons why if somebody murders a pregnant woman if they also get charged with the death of the baby as well. People use b.S. Science as an excuse to support abortion all the time because that's how they can live with their conscience of supporting such a disgusting Act. That being said I'm not going to force a woman to have a baby and truth be told most women who have abortions are welfare leehing ghetto good-for-nothing whores, and just plain sluts in general, who shouldn't be having kids anyway, and the kids are better off not being born into that type of environment. To make matters worse a lot of these pro-abortion people are anti death penalty. So they support the murdering of unborn children but they do not support the deaths of rapists, child molesters, and murderers.
JSchildge12 says2016-11-12T03:42:59.3557268Z
I do not agree with abortion. It is wrong on so many levels. I think of abortion the same way to picking eggs from the chicken. The egg will never grow into a chicken, who will later on see life, it will instead end up thrown into a crate and fried up for someone's breakfast. But there is still something different from eggs and abortion. And that is the fact that the egg is not wasted. It feeds someone. Gives them food, you know, that thing necessary for life? What happens to the unborn fetus though? It just gets thrown in the trash. And no, it should not solely be the woman's choice to abort the child. Contrary to the popular belief in today's society, men are people too. People say "it's fine, it's not a fully grown human being, it is not murder", and they are absolutely right. Abortion isn't murder, it's the prevention of life. Ever since abortion was made possible, so many human beings have lost their chance at life. How many people who could have one day done great things such as Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, and Galileo have we lost to abortion? How many Fathers or Mothers have cried because they would never see who that little form of life would be?
JSchildge12 says2016-11-12T03:43:59.8061143Z
I do not agree with abortion. It is wrong on so many levels. I think of abortion the same way to picking eggs from the chicken. The egg will never grow into a chicken, who will later on see life, it will instead end up thrown into a crate and fried up for someone's breakfast. But there is still something different from eggs and abortion. And that is the fact that the egg is not wasted. It feeds someone. Gives them food, you know, that thing necessary for life? What happens to the unborn fetus though? It just gets thrown in the trash. And no, it should not solely be the woman's choice to abort the child. Contrary to the popular belief in today's society, men are people too. People say "it's fine, it's not a fully grown human being, it is not murder", and they are absolutely right. Abortion isn't murder, it's the prevention of life. Ever since abortion was made possible, so many human beings have lost their chance at life. How many people who could have one day done great things such as Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, and Galileo have we lost to abortion? How many Fathers or Mothers have cried because they would never see who that little form of life would be?
JSchildge12 says2016-11-12T03:45:23.8750532Z
I do not agree with abortion. It is wrong on so many levels. I think of abortion the same way to picking eggs from the chicken. The egg will never grow into a chicken, who will later on see life, it will instead end up thrown into a crate and fried up for someone's breakfast. But there is still something different from eggs and abortion. And that is the fact that the egg is not wasted. It feeds someone. Gives them food, you know, that thing necessary for life? What happens to the unborn fetus though? It just gets thrown in the trash. And no, it should not solely be the woman's choice to abort the child. Contrary to the popular belief in today's society, men are people too. People say "it's fine, it's not a fully grown human being, it is not murder", and they are absolutely right. Abortion isn't murder, it's the prevention of life. Ever since abortion was made possible, so many human beings have lost their chance at life. How many people who could have one day done great things such as Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, and Galileo have we lost to abortion? How many Fathers or Mothers have cried because they would never see who that little form of life would be?
JSchildge12 says2016-11-12T03:46:46.5341041Z
I do not agree with abortion. It is wrong on so many levels. I think of abortion the same way to picking eggs from the chicken. The egg will never grow into a chicken, who will later on see life, it will instead end up thrown into a crate and fried up for someone's breakfast. But there is still something different from eggs and abortion. And that is the fact that the egg is not wasted. It feeds someone. Gives them food, you know, that thing necessary for life? What happens to the unborn fetus though? It just gets thrown in the trash. And no, it should not solely be the woman's choice to abort the child. Contrary to the popular belief in today's society, men are people too. People say "it's fine, it's not a fully grown human being, it is not murder", and they are absolutely right. Abortion isn't murder, it's the prevention of life. Ever since abortion was made possible, so many human beings have lost their chance at life. How many people who could have one day done great things such as Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, and Galileo have we lost to abortion? How many Fathers or Mothers have cried because they would never see who that little form of life would be?
Dilara says2016-12-21T21:04:50.2614118Z
JSchildge12 I agree with you for the most part. But you are wrong when you say abortion isnt murder. Unborn babies are alive. So aboriton is not the prevention of life, it is the ending of life. We don't eat fertilized eggs. We eat unfertilized ones that never would have grown into baby chickens. An unfertilized chickens egg is equivalent to a woman's period. The unfertilized chicken egg and the unfertilized egg the woman released on her period never would have grow into chicks or babies unless fertilized. An embryo or fetus is equivalent to a fertilized chickens egg with a developing chick inside.
Dilara says2016-12-21T21:08:31.9076326Z
JSchildge12 I agree with you for the most part. But you are wrong when you say abortion isnt murder. Unborn babies are alive. So aboriton is not the prevention of life, it is the ending of life. We don't eat fertilized eggs. We eat unfertilized ones that never would have grown into baby chickens. An unfertilized chickens egg is equivalent to a woman's period. The unfertilized chicken egg and the unfertilized egg the woman released on her period never would have grow into chicks or babies unless fertilized. An embryo or fetus is equivalent to a fertilized chickens egg with a developing chick inside.
Dilara says2016-12-21T21:19:01.4496681Z
JSchildge12 I agree with you for the most part. But you are wrong when you say abortion isnt murder. Unborn babies are alive. So aboriton is not the prevention of life, it is the ending of life. We don't eat fertilized eggs. We eat unfertilized ones that never would have grown into baby chickens. An unfertilized chickens egg is equivalent to a woman's period. The unfertilized chicken egg and the unfertilized egg the woman released on her period never would have grow into chicks or babies unless fertilized. An embryo or fetus is equivalent to a fertilized chickens egg with a developing chick inside.
Dilara says2016-12-21T21:26:56.4259128Z
JSchildge12 I agree with you for the most part. But you are wrong when you say abortion isnt murder. Unborn babies are alive. So aboriton is not the prevention of life, it is the ending of life. We don't eat fertilized eggs. We eat unfertilized ones that never would have grown into baby chickens. An unfertilized chickens egg is equivalent to a woman's period. The unfertilized chicken egg and the unfertilized egg the woman released on her period never would have grow into chicks or babies unless fertilized. An embryo or fetus is equivalent to a fertilized chickens egg with a developing chick inside.
Dilara says2016-12-21T21:43:08.8113460Z
JSchildge12 I agree with you for the most part. But you are wrong when you say abortion isnt murder. Unborn babies are alive. So aboriton is not the prevention of life, it is the ending of life. We don't eat fertilized eggs. We eat unfertilized ones that never would have grown into baby chickens. An unfertilized chickens egg is equivalent to a woman's period. The unfertilized chicken egg and the unfertilized egg the woman released on her period never would have grow into chicks or babies unless fertilized. An embryo or fetus is equivalent to a fertilized chickens egg with a developing chick inside.
Dilara says2016-12-22T01:48:25.9306597Z
JSchildge12 I agree with you for the most part. But you are wrong when you say abortion isnt murder. Unborn babies are alive. So aboriton is not the prevention of life, it is the ending of life. We don't eat fertilized eggs. We eat unfertilized ones that never would have grown into baby chickens. An unfertilized chickens egg is equivalent to a woman's period. The unfertilized chicken egg and the unfertilized egg the woman released on her period never would have grow into chicks or babies unless fertilized. An embryo or fetus is equivalent to a fertilized chickens egg with a developing chick inside.
Dilara says2016-12-22T02:10:16.2298590Z
JSchildge12 I agree with you for the most part. But you are wrong when you say abortion isnt murder. Unborn babies are alive. So aboriton is not the prevention of life, it is the ending of life. We don't eat fertilized eggs. We eat unfertilized ones that never would have grown into baby chickens. An unfertilized chickens egg is equivalent to a woman's period. The unfertilized chicken egg and the unfertilized egg the woman released on her period never would have grow into chicks or babies unless fertilized. An embryo or fetus is equivalent to a fertilized chickens egg with a developing chick inside.
brinzahar says2017-01-12T16:19:58.6542051Z
Abortion is not murder as long as it is within the first half of the pregnancy. It is the woman's option to abort the baby while I don't agree with all of their reasons for it some good ones are they are too young, raped, and or cannot physically handle carrying a baby, going through labor, or her health is already poor and could lead to more problems for the woman. I don't believe that statistics are correct about the percentage of those who get abortions are because of a rape as the majority of those who get raped do not admit to the rape as they fear the rapist will come after them, no one will believe them, or for other personal reasons such as some people don't believe you can rape in a marriage. And to the people who say that the bible says stuff about not killing, but based off of the bible it is their god's fault for death, killers, or even sin in general. If your god was real (or at least smart) he wouldn't put a tree there because that god knew they were going to fail already. I will be glad to debate someone if they wish to.
brinzahar says2017-01-12T16:20:59.4630051Z
Abortion is not murder as long as it is within the first half of the pregnancy. It is the woman's option to abort the baby while I don't agree with all of their reasons for it some good ones are they are too young, raped, and or cannot physically handle carrying a baby, going through labor, or her health is already poor and could lead to more problems for the woman. I don't believe that statistics are correct about the percentage of those who get abortions are because of a rape as the majority of those who get raped do not admit to the rape as they fear the rapist will come after them, no one will believe them, or for other personal reasons such as some people don't believe you can rape in a marriage. And to the people who say that the bible says stuff about not killing, but based off of the bible it is their god's fault for death, killers, or even sin in general. If your god was real (or at least smart) he wouldn't put a tree there because that god knew they were going to fail already. I will be glad to debate someone if they wish to.
John_C_1812 says2017-02-05T16:33:26.5371362Z
The most important thing to understand is a confession is not just a moral issue it also may be admitting a crime, by have a person commit some act of self-inclination. We know for fact abortion is self-incriminating the problem is abortion isn’t held by separation to be only self-incriminating. At some point the self-incrimination is transferred to other people. Yes, abortion is weapon that is used in intellectual white collar crimes. The public debate is over justification to the crime and is constitutionally uncalled for and provides no common defense to equal protection under order of law. All confession to a crime, is a confession to a crime. In the case of an abortion a woman is asking a State Licensed Medical professional not only to confess with her to murder. The male or female Doctor is never advised they are in fact confessing to felony crime by Miranda. This is an incrimination into a legal form of human sacrifice using a licensed State official. A proper medical term such as Gender Specific Amputation was never adopted by governing for a common defense to the general welfare of the public. A basic principle is a verbal bid to limit an act of continual interpretation. Is this statement, "I officially ending a human life." murder? If you are moving to justify this statement in any way other than saying no. The Constitutional answer would still be yes it is murder and is simple being addressed outside a Judicial separation after a public confession to a crime has been made... GENDER SPECIFIC AMPUTATION Vs ABORTION when preserving protecting and defending the United States Constitution there is a civil obligation placed publicly to preserve State of the Union.
erica.t says2017-10-17T00:04:50.9784939Z
If you don't want to have kids. Just don't have sex. It's basically exterminating a life. And for all you dumb asses there, a fetus is not a clump of cells. By the 5th week, it is developing a circulatory system. 7th week, the baby can move around and nerve cells form. Also for all those people saying its the mother choice because it is her body is completely bull. The baby has a different DNA than the mother does. Also if it is her body she shouldn't have sex in the first place or at least put some birth control. They are basically having self pleasure and are willing to take a life away afterwards. If a mother can't financial support the baby she shouldn't have sex. A woman puts herself purposefully in that position and is unmoral to change her mind when pregnant. Having a baby means taking sacrifice, and if you can't do that don't have sex. Also rape does not justify all the other scenarios to have abortion. I In the end, it is not a clump of cells as many pro choice activist think as it is a life being that can actually feel pain. So for all those people who support abortion saying this cliche pro choice statements please stop.
erica.t says2017-10-17T00:11:37.2389023Z
If you don't want kids, then dont have sex. Or at least put some birth control. You are having self pleasure at a cost of a life. FOR ALL YOU DUMB ASSES THERE, JUST BECAUSE IT IS HER BODY DOESN'T MEAN SHE CAN HAVE SEX AND THEN HAVE AN ABORTION!!! The woman purposefully puts herself in that condition after having sex. Having a baby means you need to take sacrifices which if you cant should avoid having sex. Also the baby isn't part of the mothers body as it has its own DNA you people who failed school. Speaking of people failing school, a fetus is not a clump of cells you dumb ass pro-choice activsts! During the 5th week, the circulatory system is being developed. ( that means it's heart and bloodstreams are being developed for those who failed school) During the 7th week, the baby can move around and has nerve cells which mean it can feel pain. LASTLY RAPE AND HEALTH RISK DOESNT JUSTIFY ALL ABORTIONS OKAY. Stop having sex at a young age, and actually stop being a dumbass. So in the end, if you dont want kids dont have sex. So simple.
John_C_1812 says2018-05-07T14:21:07.1749385Z
Is abortion wrong? No if confessing to a crime is never wrong. The issue with abortion is that it is used publicly and many people are not aware it is a self-incrimination to a crime of murder. Is asking all woman to confess to a felony crime right? How can something officially be stopped unless it is officially recognized as having started? Abortion is officially stopping a process that has already been admitted and in many cases documented to have officially began. The United States Constitution described abortion as a crime of fraud, or murder. United States Constitutional description would have set a limit on the self-incrimination made by the public. Female Specific Amputation is just one such constitutional limitation that could have been properly addressed with a state of the union. Instead the forced use of the very risky self-incrimination abortion was mandated by unconstitutional law as a power structure to the democracy. The void left is now weighed between unpunished felony confessions and Presidential/Prasedera pardons. Prasedera meaning a woman who is placed before the United States Constitution as witness to bear testimony on behalf of all woman in a legal manner. As this testimony may be fact effect all woman.
Debating_Horse says2018-07-18T19:15:29.5736797Z
Yes.
robloxqueen43 says2018-12-06T00:28:19.4806733Z
I have a burning passion for "deletus the fetus". Here are my reasons: as of a young age, We are taught that everyone makes mistakes, And as long as you figure everything out, Its ok (mostly). Abortion allows you to correct your mistake and even though Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour, Will be FUCKING PISSED, He just might forgive you in the end. If he doesn't; good fucking luck surviving his army of demons that have come to destroy you and your family for not correcting their mistake and aborting THE LIVING SHIT out of you when they had the chance. Next, If everybody aborts at least one child in their lifetime, Crimes rates in Topeka, Kansas will drop drastically to only 72 percent. Therefore, I think it is in everyone's best interest to abort their children. My last reason is that if you abort, The earth will become flat (but that's an argument for another day. Hmu about your opinions though) Thank you P. S. Like and subscribe to eastoncreedallred on youtube follow: @unicornpiss on instagram
thibault114488 says2019-01-21T07:28:56.0241897Z
THE QUESTION IS: "Is abortion wrong? " READ THE BLOODY QUESTION IDIOTS!
TiffanyWood says2019-05-20T22:44:00.3041441Z
Debatable. The limit should be no farther than 16 weeks, Simply because many women and girls are not taught how to track their periods and many women are irregular so sometimes it takes time to notice. If in a lifetime a woman has 3 abortions she should be given the choice of tube tying or a long term birth control (depending on her allergies) that is usually an implant that will last 3-5 years. After that time the doctor should sit down and discuss her options of what she wants. The only people who should have a say in if the female can have an abortion is the father and her parental guardians if she is underage. If the father is against abortion then adoption can be an option, Or he can take full custody of the baby after birth and the mother sign over full rights. Later on he should be allowed to take her to court to ask for child support, But the mother should not be allowed to sue for custody later on, But if the father allows it he can let her have a relationship with the child. But it should be up to him. Similar to closed adoptions. Religion of any type should have no standing in this argument because that is only personal opinion. I do agree that abortion is murder, Simply because you are preventing a life but it is not as bad as stabbing someone to death, It's the same in my opinion as a guy jerking off into a towel or down the drain. He is preventing a life, Therefore, He should be held accountable by those standards. Plus most of the people who are against abortion aren't running out saying "hey let me help you with your child" or adopting those unwanted children. They don't care what happens to the child once it's an actual child.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.