When is abortion wrong?

[JacktheHat]

If you don't want a child, don't have sex.

Or you could use contraception...

 

[Swift]

Or you could use contraception...

Nope, no contraceptive is 100% effective. The only sure way is to not have sex.

Unless the woman has her tubes tied or the man has a vasectomy.

 

[VIPFREAK]

I've struggle with seeing things in grey rather than black and white. There's no such thing as black and white, I thought you'd know about that Swift?

 

[Swift]

I've struggle with seeing things in grey rather than black and white. There's no such thing as black and white, I thought you'd know about that Swift?

The way I see it my friend. Abortion is not the issue. Irresponsible sexual activity is the issue. So from that aspect it is very black and white. No irresponsible sex = No unwanted pregnancy.

So the need for abortion virtually disappears except for the aforementioned situations and extreme health risks. That's what I would call the gray area.

 

[a6m5]

Swift's advice is almost impossible to acheive IMO. However, to all the "guys" reading this thread, especially the younger ones, do try to follow his advice. If you can't, follow Jack's. You know what's scarier than STDs? It's getting a girl pregnant. Do you know anyone who pays childsupport(s)? If you are an average Joe, it can pretty much destroy your life and I'm dead serious. I knew one kid in early 20's, had to move back with his parents. Some months, instead of paycheck, he was receiving a piece of paper that said "this is not a check" and how his money was taken away for child support! That was the worst case by far, but I've seen cases where it's damn close to that. Acutally, one of my coworkers just had a second baby! Great! except he's not married and those babies were by different moms! What an idiot. 👎 He had hard time affording an rent with one child support, I don't know how he's going to pay for two.

 

[Famine]

if you kill a born baby, it's murder

if you kill an unborn baby...?

whats the difference? i see the only difference being the age of the child, the fact that if it's born or unborn is completely irrelevant...

The age of an unborn "child" is 0.

So, why can't a 12 year old have a beer in the pub but I can? What's the difference? After all, it's only the age of the child. It's just points on a graph.

Or you could use contraception...

Ah, but where do you draw the line?

If child-killing is illegal, then late-term abortion must be illegal.
If late-term abortion is illegal then early-term abortion must be illegal.
If early-term abortion is illegal, why is sperm-murder legal? Egg murder is also legal, so we should neuter all men to stop natural sperm production (and destruction) all women to stop them having periods. Reproduction must only occur by cloning.

Okay, so that's all a bit facetious, but you get the gist. Where do you draw the line? At some point during pregnancy it's legal and people don't want it to be - so why are they fine with killing of sperm and eggs?

(and to anyone who wishes to reply "Well that's obvious", spell it out)

 

[DQuaN]

Swift, are you saying that no one should have recreational sex (married couples, long term relationships e.t.c) unless one of them has had the snip or they are prepaired to have a child?

 

[Swift]

Swift, are you saying that no one should have recreational sex (married couples, long term relationships e.t.c) unless one of them has had the snip or they are prepaired to have a child?

No, I'm saying that with sex comes the possible responsibility of a child or children. But most married couples realize that the chance for a child is there.

So, outside of marriage recreational sex leads to bad things. I know a lot of people enjoy it. However, is it fair to punish yourself and the child just because you wanted to have a good time?

 

[ZAGGIN]

The age of an unborn "child" is 0.

thats not entirely correct. we are all approximately 9 months older than our birthday suggests. think about it. birthday=day we were born. its not the same as the day we were concieved. life is considered life once the cells of an egg divide. babies grow inside the womb just the same as they do outside it (albeit at an increased rate).
in terms of years, an unborn child could be classed as 0, but the same would then also apply to a child that had not reached its first birthday. we dont magically appears in our mothers wombs seconds before we are due to be born, or does the stork really fly us into the hospital in a sheet tied to its beak?
when someone asks how old your baby is they say 'how many months is he/she?' or 'how many weeks is she/he?' they never ask how many years old is your baby unless it is obvious that the baby is older than 1 year old. so theoretically, we all could be a year older than our birthday suggests at certain times of the year.

 

[Famine]

thats not entirely correct. we are all approximately 9 months older than our birthday suggests. think about it. birthday=day we were born. its not the same as the day we were concieved. life is considered life once the cells of an egg divide. babies grow inside the womb just the same as they do outside it (albeit at an increased rate).
in terms of years, an unborn child could be classed as 0, but the same would then also apply to a child that had not reached its first birthday. we dont magically appears in our mothers wombs seconds before we are due to be born, or does the stork really fly us into the hospital in a sheet tied to its beak?
when someone asks how old your baby is they say 'how many months is he/she?' or 'how many weeks is she/he?' they never ask how many years old is your baby unless it is obvious that the baby is older than 1 year old. so theoretically, we all could be a year older than our birthday suggests at certain times of the year.

So... what's your argument?

The age of an unborn child IS 0. 0 years, 0 months, 0 weeks, 0 days. Precisely because it hasn't been born yet.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Everyone should have abortions! Clinics should give them out freely and willingly to anyone who wants them. Less people = good. Despite how satirical it sounds....I really do mean it !

 

[ZAGGIN]

The age of an unborn child IS 0. 0 years, 0 months, 0 weeks, 0 days. Precisely because it hasn't been born yet.

ok, i will apologise, i miss read your syntax. an unborn child would have an age of '0. 0 years, 0 months, 0 weeks, 0 days' as you stated if you measure its life in terms of its birthday/date.
but an unborn child does age, she/he is as old as the day she/he was first concieved. which would make them actually older than their birthday when born.
if you grab any pregnancy mag, and look through it, they have a section that talks you through the stages of pregnancy week by week (trimetser by trimester). they always refer to the baby as a living being. i agree with that. my daughter was born recently, and throughout the whole pregnancy, i was aware that she was alive - she would move and kick etc. even if a baby is unborn, it is still alive; and if it lives, it must also age. or are you suggesting we are not alive until the day we are born?

ps. (kinda off topic) i noticed you live in the uk, are you watching the match tonight? who do you think will win?

 

[Famine]

Not who I'd rather have win...

Funnily I already know about all stages of pregnancy - and you've inadvertantly stepped right into the point I was making earlier.

At WHAT point does an embryo/foetus/baby come under the umbrella of "alive"? If it's "at the moment of conception", why? Why is abortion after this point unacceptable, but contraception - which kills sperm - and periods - which kill eggs - are totally acceptable. And, as I said, if you're going to reply with "Well that's obvious", spell it out. I'd love to know where people would draw the line and why.

 

[ZAGGIN]

At WHAT point does an embryo/foetus/baby come under the umbrella of "alive"? If it's "at the moment of conception", why? Why is abortion after this point unacceptable, but contraception - which kills sperm - and periods - which kill eggs - are totally acceptable. And, as I said, if you're going to reply with "Well that's obvious", spell it out. I'd love to know where people would draw the line and why.

imo id say an embryo becomes alive once an egg has been fertilised by sperm and the cells divide. it then develops into a foetus during the early stages of pregnancy, and then eventually a baby. immaculate conception only happens in the bible. in the real world, both sperm and eggs are needed to create life.
contraception is acceptable, because it helps stop sperm and eggs fertilising. life can only exist if both parts are present. periods (and wet dreams) are natural bodily functions that cant be stopped women dont ovulate fertilised eggs, likewise, men dont ejaculate fertilised sperm.
think of it like nitro glycerine. apart the components are nothing - inert. together though, they are explosive. the same applies to sperm and eggs.
single cell organisms exist on this planet, and they are considered alive. so why is it that a human in not considered alive until they are born? when even at the early stages of life, they may be thousands (if not millions) of times greater in size and mass compared to those single cell organisms?
its a ridiculous contradiction. life is life no matter its size or composition. 👍

 

[Famine]

Okay so sperm and eggs aren't alive but a fertilised egg is?

What reasons do you have for thinking this?


(just so you know, I'm basically dragging a lure across this pond)

 

[Swift]

Okay so sperm and eggs aren't alive but a fertilised egg is?

What reasons do you have for thinking this?


(just so you know, I'm basically dragging a lure across this pond)

Can an Egg or a sperm grow in and of itself? You said it in another thread. Blood has the materials of life but isn't "alive".

I think that argument would hold very true for seperate sperm and eggs.

 

[VIPFREAK]

The way I see it my friend. Abortion is not the issue. Irresponsible sexual activity is the issue. So from that aspect it is very black and white. No irresponsible sex = No unwanted pregnancy.

So the need for abortion virtually disappears except for the aforementioned situations and extreme health risks. That's what I would call the gray area.

No, I'm saying that with sex comes the possible responsibility of a child or children. But most married couples realize that the chance for a child is there.

So, outside of marriage recreational sex leads to bad things. I know a lot of people enjoy it. However, is it fair to punish yourself and the child just because you wanted to have a good time?

So basically from your above statements we'd have to arrive at a world similar to the movie Demolition Man, where we can't even have physical contact. Right?! I mean you did say Black and white right?? 💡

 

[Pako]

I don't think fetus age is the issue. It's wrong if it's done for selfish or negligent reasons, IMO.

 

[Swift]

So basically from your above statements we'd have to arrive at a world similar to the movie Demolition Man, where we can't even have physical contact. Right?! I mean you did say Black and white right?? 💡

Heh heh, I really enjoyed that movie. Kind of dumb, but lots of fun to watch.

Anyway, no that's not what I'm advocating. What I'm saying is that unwanted pregnancy is a symptom, not a cause. Rampant irresponsible sex is the cause. So abortion is addressing the symptom but not helping to fix what's causing the problem in the first place.

Again, I'm talking about sex out of wedlock. If people actually thought for a moment before doing it, and that's near impossible with the hormones and passion running through them, chances they would never do it.

So yes. that part to me is very black and white.

 

[Famine]

Can an Egg or a sperm grow in and of itself? You said it in another thread. Blood has the materials of life but isn't "alive".

And the same goes for an embryo. In fact up to 13 weeks the embryo is entirely dependant upon its parasitic relationship with the mother and cannot "survive" on its own outside the body. In fact a sperm - in seminal fluid, so it doesn't dry out - would "survive" (move about. As an aside, did you know that sperm can smell things?) for a lot longer than a 12 week old foetus would.

A fertilised egg will naturally divide to a 64-cell stage before it implants on the uterine wall. Everything from that point on depends on the placental connection.

A foetus up to 13 weeks from conception is not a viable organism.

 

[Danoff]

I would prefer that the "it doesn't matter how old the child is" option said "it doesn't matter how old the fetus is"

 

[VIPFREAK]

Again, I'm talking about sex out of weldock. If people actually thought for a moment before doing it, and that's near impossible with the hormones and passion running through them, chances they would never do it.

So yes. that part to me is very black and white.

Yeah but see... just because We want it one way doesn't mean it's going to happen. I've had to learn that and so what then exclude those people that don't follow?? Also, your expecting people to make the "right decision" the first time everytime, no excuses. That will definitely not happen because people are not perfect. I've had to learn that the hard way too.

Anyway, no that's not what I'm advocating. What I'm saying is that unwanted pregnancy is a symptom, not a cause. Rampant irresponsible sex is the cause. So abortion is addressing the symptom but not helping to fix what's causing the problem in the first place.

This will never change if humans as a whole do not change their perception, mentality, and culture of the idea of sex period.

 

[JParker]

"snip"


(just so you know, I'm basically dragging a lure across this pond)

LOL, you kill me man. Tooooooooo sly for your own good.

 

[Max_DC]

It's like this my friend. I see where you're coming from and you're not wrong. However, the decision should be made BEFORE having sex. Also, I'm not just putting it on the mother. A lot of deadbeat dads do their best to force women to have an abortion. So I'm not just getting on the women here.

If you don't want a child, don't have sex. Abortion is the "get out of jail free card" that some people hold onto just incase the unexpected happens. If you're not having sex, you can't get pregnant, hence no need for an abortion.

Well your theory is correct, but we all know that it will always just be one for the masses....

So what is the problem with abortion ? I mean apart from the fact that the mother/parents could possibly suffer from psychological problems ?

 

[ZAGGIN]

Okay so sperm and eggs aren't alive but a fertilised egg is?

obviously a fertilised egg is alive. how else would it develop into a embryo and eventually a foetus? cell division happens inside a fertilised egg. that happens independantly of anything else. for cells to divide, it would signify that life exists, and that would make the egg 'alive'.
i will agree with you famine, that a foetus at 13 weeks cannot survive without support from its mother, but (again) it is still alive, thanks to its symbiotic relationship.

i found this site on the www http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html.

it explains everything you need to know about pregnancy from start to finish; it also proves what i have stated, that fertilised eggs are indeed alive. it takes up to 13 days post ovulation for a fertilised egg to attatch to the placenta. in those early days massive changes are taking place inside the fertilised egg independantly of its host mother. that could not occur if (as you theorised famine), a fertilised egg was not alive.

check out that site, and see if it changes any of your opinions.

 

[Famine]

obviously a fertilised egg is alive. how else would it develop into a embryo and eventually a foetus?

Well obviously a sperm and an egg are alive - how else would they develop into a fertilised egg?

i will agree with you famine, that a foetus at 13 weeks cannot survive without support from its mother, but (again) it is still alive, thanks to its symbiotic relationship.

Parasitic. The embryo draws nutrients and physical comfort from its host to no physical benefit - and indeed significant physical detriment - to the host.

i found this site on the www http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html.

it explains everything you need to know about pregnancy from start to finish

Famine, B.Sc. (Hons) Molecular Biology & Genetics (UEA), M.Sc. Human Genetics & Disease (SHU).

it also proves what i have stated, that fertilised eggs are indeed alive. it takes up to 13 days post ovulation for a fertilised egg to attatch to the placenta. in those early days massive changes are taking place inside the fertilised egg independantly of its host mother. that could not occur if (as you theorised famine), a fertilised egg was not alive.

check out that site, and see if it changes any of your opinions.

A fertilised egg is not a viable organism. It cannot be classed as "alive" since it exhibits no properties of life at all (there are seven). If you class a fertilised egg as "alive" you MUST also class an oocyte and a sperm cell as "alive".

 

[ZAGGIN]

[edit] i always thought that a mother and child had a symbiotic relationship. isnt the presence of a womb proof of that? obviously a baby leeches off its mother, but the mother is equipped to deal with it. isnt she? if a baby was parasitic, wouldnt it be able to grow anywhere (apart from the mothers reproductive system)? thats what parasites usually do dont they? of course, i might of totally got the wrong end of the stick.

Famine, B.Sc. (Hons) Molecular Biology & Genetics (UEA), M.Sc. Human Genetics & Disease (SHU).

you have a degree!? (your serious right?)

i will take it all back then. you obviously know what your talking about. seriously, if you've got all those letters after your name, then you know more than this mere 'college heathen'. my apologies.
since you have impressive qualifications in this area, can you answer these questions for me? at what point does a fertilised egg become alive? is it ever alive? and how does something that is not alive transform into something that is very alive (ie a baby)?

 

[Swift]

Well your theory is correct, but we all know that it will always just be one for the masses....

So what is the problem with abortion ? I mean apart from the fact that the mother/parents could possibly suffer from psychological problems ?

Killing a child before they get a chance for life. That's what I find wrong with abortion.

 

[JParker]

Killing a child before they get a chance for life. That's what I find wrong with abortion.

Absolutely, if you don't want it, just put it up for adoption, don't kill it. Tens of thousands of people are waiting in line to adopt children. Make one of them happy.

 

[jimihemmy]

Famine, B.Sc. (Hons) Molecular Biology & Genetics (UEA), M.Sc. Human Genetics & Disease (SHU).

off topic...wow, best answer I've ever seen!

on topic: I personally am Pro-Choice. I understand that the unborn child does not have a choice in this. Abortion is wrong if it performed against the mother's wishes. Period.

The only person who should be able to make this decision is the mother. Yes, the father should have some input, but ultimately, the mother should make the call. Think about it: first she as to endure some gut pounding her insides and then she has to carry this baby for 9 months. On top of that, childbirth is no walk in the park! (not that I know personally, but seeing my wife give birth twice, I think I'm qualified to make that statement).

Now, after reading that the fetus is not a viable organism during the first 13 weeks, I would think that 13 weeks should be the cut off for an abortion. The fetus still survives off what it gets from the mother but it is also a viable organism at that point.

In the end, it all depends on the laws of where you reside. Just like everything else, if you don't like them, move somewhere else.

Civilization hs evolved (I use that term loosely) to the point where we feel that Man can control others (animals too). So Man makes the decisions that all under his thumb must live by. 'Thou shall not kill' is a Comandment that we should all live by, but Man has decided to make his own rules.

I am by no means a religious person so I won't try to draw religion into this, but this debate essentially falls into the same debate about capital punishment.

Basically, who are WE (Man) to decide if/when it is right to take the life of another?