When is abortion wrong?

[Famine]

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)?

That was kind of my point from earlier on.

A sperm isn't apparently alive. An egg isn't apparently alive. Destroying either of these things is, seemingly, fine. Yet they magically transform into an embryo that people think IS alive and shouldn't be harmed...

Some contradiction, surely?

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

I'll pretend I never answered that...

 

[ZAGGIN]

boy, did i ever pick the wrong person to have a debate with! you know everything!
i see your point now when you talk about sperm and eggs. im 50% sure that an egg is not alive, but i have seen sperm moving (not with my own eyes obviously), so they could be classed as alive, and yes your argument is correct (again!).

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, could you maybe clarify this then please?

 

[Danoff]

i see your point now when you talk about sperm and eggs. im 50% sure that an egg is not alive, but i have seen sperm moving (not with my own eyes obviously), so they could be classed as alive, and yes your argument is correct (again!).

Moving means alive? Then sperm are alive in the way that rocks that roll down a hill are alive.

Anyway I'm sure you don't mind killing sperm, you do it all the time. I'm also sure you wouldn't mind killing an egg (afterall it's the female equivalent of sperm). So why after they've joined and started dividing is it something else? It's not a person that's for sure. It isn't a child. It's a developing person, but that's not the same thing is it? Unless you think that God infuses the soul at that point I don't see a reason to draw the line at conception.

i always thought that a mother and child had a symbiotic relationship. isnt the presence of a womb proof of that?

It's not a symbiotic relationship because the benefits go one way.

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?

The baby isn't actually a parasite, but it is parasitic. It behaves like a parasite but it isn't the same thing.

 

[Danoff]

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

This is interesting stance. That the motivations behind the abortion determine it's morality.

Of course that's wrong. I mean, it is immoral to steal - regardless of whether you're stealing for someone else or for yourself. It's immoral to harm another person against their will, regardless of whether you're doing it for their own good.

 

[s0nny80y]

well, abortion is wrong if the woman was not raped by para military guerrillas, gang members, serial rapists, or as a victim of a heinous crime (basically rape).

This is sadistic and clique but, why kill a 'being' after getting to know him/her?

There's always adoption though. Personally, I'll understand if a rape victim decides to abort the child of her rapist.

 

[Jmac279]

1 year after birth is when abortion is wrong in my opinion ... You should be able to kill a newborn ...

 

[Danoff]

1 year after birth is when abortion is wrong in my opinion ... You should be able to kill a newborn ...

Why do you draw the distinction at 1 year? What about 2 or 3? What happens at 1 year that makes it wrong all of the sudden?

You should not be allowed to kill your newborn child. It has to be come a citizen with rights and privilages at some logical point - that point is birth. Prior to birth it is not a citizen - it is a part of the mother, one being. After birth it is a child, a citizen, it has rights and should be protected by law.

Would you prefer that the law simply not recognize a 6month old? Not give it a legal name? Perhaps not issue a birth certificate until 1 year?

Conversely should the law recognize a fetus? Should we give fetuses citizenship and legal identification?

The law should recognize the mother prior to birth and the fetus as part of her body (ie: if someone harms the fetus, they are harming the mother and so it is against the law). After birth the law should recognize the infant as a citizen.

 

[ZAGGIN]

Moving means alive? Then sperm are alive in the way that rocks that roll down a hill are alive.

come on, your being tedious there. sperm swim dont they? im not sure if they satisfy the 7 signs of life that famine suggested earlier, but they can move on their own.
ok, then since sperm, eggs, embryo and foetus' cannot survive without a host, they could be classed as not alive.
as stated earlier, in the uk, it is legal to abort a foetus upto 20 weeks. a very small percentage of those that are aborted do survive the procedure. is it right to let them die? is that not classed as murder? surely once a baby breaths air it is classed as a human in its own right, no matter how premature they are?

 

[Danoff]

a very small percentage of those that are aborted do survive the procedure. is it right to let them die? is that not classed as murder? surely once a baby breaths air it is classed as a human in its own right, no matter how premature they are?

As long as it is attached to the mother, getting nutrients from her - it is part of the mother's body and subject to her decisions.

Granted, it shouldn't be legal to attempt and abortion, fail, and bring a deformed baby into the world - the abortion has to be successful.

 

[ZAGGIN]

ok then, study the image above. is it acceptable to abort a foetus like this? my daughter was born at 24 weeks by emergency caesarian (1 week after this diagram), and to me she looked like a baby. in fact the way she came into this world could be classed as a form of abortion. it makes me physically ill to think that a doctor could do the things illustrated in this image to a baby of similar age to what my daughter was at birth.
although she was on the special care baby ward for 6 weeks, she could breath for herself without aid of any kind after just 3 days of life. she is now 7 months old, and the only difference between her and any other baby is that she is slightly smaller. within two years, she will be at the same developmental age as a full term baby.

i will NEVER agree with anyone that says this form of abortion is acceptable. what is more disturbing is that this happens on a regular basis.

 

[a6m5]

Does abortion at 23 weeks really look like the illustration? I think, I'm gonna be sick.

 

[Danoff]

ok then, study the image above. is it acceptable to abort a foetus like this? my daughter was born at 24 weeks by emergency caesarian (1 week after this diagram), and to me she looked like a baby. in fact the way she came into this world could be classed as a form of abortion. it makes me physically ill to think that a doctor could do the things illustrated in this image to a baby of similar age to what my daughter was at birth.
although she was on the special care baby ward for 6 weeks, she could breath for herself without aid of any kind after just 3 days of life. she is now 7 months old, and the only difference between her and any other baby is that she is slightly smaller. within two years, she will be at the same developmental age as a full term baby.

i will NEVER agree with anyone that says this form of abortion is acceptable. what is more disturbing is that this happens on a regular basis.

It's not for me to decide whether other people think it is ok to treat their body this way. People do lots of things to their bodies that I would never do. For example, I would never surgically remove my penis. I don't think it's right to treat a penis that way - but some people think it's ok.

The fetus in the above graphic graphic is a part of the mother. It is her choice whether she wants to treat her body that way. Until the baby is born - it is not given a birth certificate, it is not given a legal identification, it is not a citizen and so it is not protected by our laws - nor should it be... it is part of the mother's body.

The only way I can see around my reasoning is if you believe that the fetus has been magically infused by God with a soul.

Does abortion at 23 weeks really look like the illustration? I think, I'm gonna be sick.

No. while the fetus is probably shaped like that, it looks more likea mass of blood and flesh than it does in the picture. Still, I can show you pictures of people mutilating themselves in other ways that would probably make you sick.

 

[ZAGGIN]

im not going to say anything more on this. dont want to sound like im preaching (i didnt intend to). i just think that life how ever tenuous should be protected.

if your still not convinced, check out this link that details partial birth abortions which can take place upto 32 weeks:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

if your still not convinced, theres not much else i can do to convince you that abortion is wrong.

 

[a6m5]

No. while the fetus is probably shaped like that, it looks more likea mass of blood and flesh than it does in the picture. Still, I can show you pictures of people mutilating themselves in other ways that would probably make you sick.

Well, I figured that, but it really is shaped like an human being. It's disgusting. I wonder what's going thru the doctor's mind, when he/she is performing this type of abortion.

Yes, there are people who's into mutilating their bodies. I have nothing nice to say, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[VIPFREAK]

Does abortion at 23 weeks really look like the illustration? I think, I'm gonna be sick.

I think I already am.

 

[PS]

I just hope you guys know that the baby is already dead before that. They give it a needle.

 

[VIPFREAK]

That doesn't seem to help.

 

[ZAGGIN]

No. while the fetus is probably shaped like that, it looks more likea mass of blood and flesh than it does in the picture.

your wrong dandoff. like i said in the txt below the image, my daughter was born one week after that example (at 24 weeks). trust me, she didnt look nothing like a lump of flesh, she was perfectly formed in every way, albeit tiny. the foetus does look exactly like the image, why else would they show it like that?

did any of you look at the images of a partial birth abortion at the link below?

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

in that set of diagrams the baby is actually partially delivered (at upto 32 weeks, or 8 months) and can be considered to be alive, because it can survive without a host. then, as if being born wasnt tough enough, the poor thing has its brains sucked out (ie murdered). thats truly sickening.

you can argue the ins and outs of whether sperm, eggs, or cells are alive or indeed human, but what you cant argue with is the fact that abortions can take place on fully formed, fully functioning babies that can survive without aid as late as one month before they are due to be born. i think thats the main argument of the pro-lifers, and it is a valid one too.

 

[JacktheHat]

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.

I'm not sure about America but in Britain there is a considerable shortage of suitable foster parents.

 

[Swift]

I'm not sure about America but in Britain there is a considerable shortage of suitable foster parents.

Thank you for another excellent reason for abstinence.

Oh, just so you know. There are many couples looking to adobt in America, it's just a very long involved process.

 

[Danoff]

your wrong dandoff. like i said in the txt below the image, my daughter was born one week after that example (at 24 weeks). trust me, she didnt look nothing like a lump of flesh, she was perfectly formed in every way, albeit tiny. the foetus does look exactly like the image, why else would they show it like that?

That's what I said. Same shape as in the picture, but still a mass of flesh and blood. You can't deny that the picture is intended to evoke the response you have.

but what you cant argue with is the fact that abortions can take place on fully formed, fully functioning babies that can survive without aid as late as one month before they are due to be born. i think thats the main argument of the pro-lifers, and it is a valid one too.

My argument is simple. Before the baby is born is it physically part of the mother's body and subject to her decisions. After it is born it is a legal entity protected in and of itself. No other line makes sense (unless you believe in a soul).

 

[Swift]

That's what I said. Same shape as in the picture, but still a mass of flesh and blood. You can't deny that the picture is intended to evoke the response you have.



My argument is simple. Before the baby is born is it physically part of the mother's body and subject to her decisions. After it is born it is a legal entity protected in and of itself. No other line makes sense (unless you believe in a soul).

By that train of thought. The woman could get an abortion and not even care what the father thinks. Yeah, that's fair. Just kill the child because we're too busy for it.

Also, it's not just her decision. In most cases she invited someone else into her body. She just happens to be the vessel that's carrying the new person. So, it should always be a decision of both parents.

 

[Danoff]

By that train of thought. The woman could get an abortion and not even care what the father thinks.

Yup. The father has no say in the matter - it is not his body. You cannot force someone to go through pregnancy and give birth just because you impregnated them.

Again, not his body.

 

[Swift]

Yup. The father has no say in the matter - it is not his body. You cannot force someone to go through pregnancy and give birth just because you impregnated them.

Again, not his body.

No, she concented to sex. So that means she agrees to all the consequences thereof. She can't make a baby by herself so why should she get the decision by herself?

 

[ZAGGIN]

That's what I said. Same shape as in the picture, but still a mass of flesh and blood. You can't deny that the picture is intended to evoke the response you have.

no, it evoked the response i have because i know what a 23-24 week old foetus actually looks like, and what they develop into. i have a picture of my daughter, taken just after she was born, and whilst i dont want to do it, i am willing to post it here to convince you and anyone else who is in doubt, that she looked nothing at all like a mass of flesh and blood (no more than we do). she looked exactly like the image in that diagram, a tiny baby.
if you would like to see the picture, i will have to get it scanned first, so give me a couple of days (i dont have a scanner). dandoff, if you want to see the picture, pm me, and i will show it to you after i have scanned it, maybe then it will dispell any false ideas you have.

 

[Famine]

No, she concented to sex. So that means she agrees to all the consequences thereof. She can't make a baby by herself so why should she get the decision by herself?

Because no pregnancy ever has killed the father. Or given him haemorrhoids. Or given him persisting bladder problems for the rest of his life. Or required him to be injected with painkillers in his spine. And so on...

 

[Swift]

Because no pregnancy ever has killed the father. Or given him haemorrhoids. Or given him persisting bladder problems for the rest of his life. Or required him to be injected with painkillers in his spine. And so on...

Should've thought of that BEFORE having sex.


EDIT:
Shoot, if that's the case. Then the father should be able to abandon the child and say, "I wanted her to get an abortion, but she didn't". That wouldn't fly with the state dept. So if it's ok to hook the man after the baby is born, then he should have a say before it is born as well.

 

[Danoff]

No, she concented to sex. So that means she agrees to all the consequences thereof. She can't make a baby by herself so why should she get the decision by herself?

Because it's her body, not his.

Should've thought of that BEFORE having sex.

He should've thought of that BEFORE having sex.

Shoot, if that's the case. Then the father should be able to abandon the child and say, "I wanted her to get an abortion, but she didn't". That wouldn't fly with the state dept. So if it's ok to hook the man after the baby is born, then he should have a say before it is born as well.

No, it's her body - the father can't force her to have an abortion. If she chooses to have the baby, it is also his obligation. The father gets screwed both literally and figuratively.

 

[Swift]

Because it's her body, not his.

Again, she willing invited someone else inside of her. So, that gives up part of that singular power of what that sexual encounter brings about.

He should've thought of that BEFORE having sex.

Both of them should've thought about it before having sex. It takes two to tango.

 

[Danoff]

Again, she willing invited someone else inside of her. So, that gives up part of that singular power of what that sexual encounter brings about.

That makes zero difference. She chooses at each instant what she will permit with her own body - she owns it.