When is abortion wrong?

[Famine]

(snip)

And to answer your last question i repeat that abortion is killing a life. Treating a disease decreases the chance of that happening, it does not guarantee it.

Why is one bundle of 8 human cells "a life" and another bundle of 8 human cells not?

 

[Giancarlo]

Why is one bundle of 8 human cells "a life" and another bundle of 8 human cells not?

When one is a human and the other is not. It all comes down to opinion, and that's why this debate can never end. At least until something political happens.

 

[Famine]

Both are, in fact, bundles of eight HUMAN cells. Both shrivel up and die if extracted from the body. Transplanting a cell from one to the other has a quite remarkable effect too.

 

[Giancarlo]

Are you talking about a fertilized egg and some cancerous cell? That's what i'm referring to. I wasn't saying that neither of them are human cells. I'm saying that one is a, and becomes a, human.

 

[Danoff]

When one is a human and the other is not.

Scientifically speaking this is simply not true. An embryo is exactly that, an embryo - not a human. A fertilized egg is a potential human, just like all unfertilized eggs and sperm are potential humans - but it is not classified as human until a successful birth is accomplished.

At least until something political happens.

Nothing is going to prevent this debate from continuing - not a change in the laws, or any political action.

 

[Famine]

If you transplant a cancerous cell into an 8-cell blastular (pre-foetal stage) it incorporates it and the cell stops being cancerous.

So, in a very, very real sense, the cancer cell can become A human too.


As I've said before, a foetus before 13 weeks is only AS alive as a sperm cell, an egg cell or even a cancer cell. Yet we anthropomorphise it and pretend it has a "soul", just so that we can force women to do things they don't want.

 

[Pako]

Why can't people just make the 'right' decision? If we made it illegal to abort fetus' that are perfectly healthy and not causing harm to it's mother, do we also make it a crime when a mother has a miscarriage due to irresponsibility (bad nutrition, bungee jumping, ect...)? We need people to quit blaming others for their situation and take responsibility for their own actions. (This is of course directed towards mothers that 'just don't want the kid', type of situation).

 

[Famine]

Why can't people just make the 'right' decision?

People. Make. Mistakes.

If we made it illegal to abort fetus' that are perfectly healthy and not causing harm to it's mother

No such thing.

 

[Danoff]

If we made it illegal to abort fetus' that are perfectly healthy and not causing harm to it's mother, do we also make it a crime when a mother has a miscarriage due to irresponsibility (bad nutrition, bungee jumping, ect...)?

That would be the next logical step. Do we then legislate what women will eat during their pregnancy? What activities they are legally allowed to engage in? Does every woman who looses a child have to go before a judge to determine whether she took the proper procautions?

 

[Giancarlo]

Scientifically speaking this is simply not true. An embryo is exactly that, an embryo - not a human.

A fertilized egg is a potential human, just like all unfertilized eggs and sperm are potential humans - but it is not classified as human until a successful birth is accomplished.

Nothing is going to prevent this debate from continuing - not a change in the laws, or any political action.

That is another matter of opinion. And anyway, by the time a woman realizes she is pregnant and has an abortion, she has to abort a fetus, not an embryo. I say that because we're discussing how abortion is right/wrong, not when a fertilized egg becomes a human.

So you're saying that if it doesn't look like a human, it isn't?

You are right that no laws can change our opinions; i take back what i said about that ealier.

If you transplant a cancerous cell into an 8-cell blastular (pre-foetal stage) it incorporates it and the cell stops being cancerous.

So, in a very, very real sense, the cancer cell can become A human too.

As I've said before, a foetus before 13 weeks is only AS alive as a sperm cell, an egg cell or even a cancer cell. Yet we anthropomorphise it and pretend it has a "soul", just so that we can force women to do things they don't want.

But the cancer cell is not becoming a human on its own. A fetus is.

How can you say we anthropmorphise it; the fetus is going to be born a child, and you're stopping that process by scooping it out of your uterus. That is killing a child!

Isn't it a double homocide if someone kills a pregnant woman and thereby kills her unborn child?

People. Make. Mistakes.

That's why we need to teach each other to stop problems before they start, and not solve problems (problems being the inability to care for the child not the child itself) occuring from bad decisions by slicing up a woman's insides, just because she wanted pleasure or affection for a few moments. It's being selfish in every sense of the word.

 

[Pako]

People. Make. Mistakes.

Over and over and over and over again..... Oh looky, I'm pregnant again. I wonder how that happened.

No such thing.

I should better qualify my meaning of harm. There is always going to be stress on the mother, fatal harm is what I meant.

 

[Pako]

If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.



*snip*

IF is a big word.

 

[Famine]

But the cancer cell is not becoming a human on its own. A fetus is.

No it isn't. It needs a womb to do it in.

How can you say we anthropmorphise it; the fetus is going to be born a child, and you're stopping that process by scooping it out of your uterus. That is killing a child!

No it isn't. Check the definition of "child" in law.

Over and over and over and over again..... Oh looky, I'm pregnant again. I wonder how that happened.

So you're fine with a one-off abortion, but against two or more?


So. Where does everyone stand on the "Morning After Pill"? It's a pair of drugs which can be taken up to 72 hours after sex which prevent implantation, should fertilisation have occurred.

Surely if fertilisation has occurred, you anti-Choice folks would be up in arms about it? Then again if it hasn't, it's just a backup precaution. But how will you KNOW if fertilisation HAS occurred?

 

[Jugend]

Over and over and over and over again..... Oh looky, I'm pregnant again. I wonder how that happened.

I jump right into this post with risk of missing out on something already said:

This must be an extreme you are talking about here, right? I have never met or even heard of anyone who uses abortion that way. Abortion has a deep emotional and spiritual effect on any sane human being, I can't see how that can be an argument for not having free abortions.

(That's if it now is an argument for that...)

 

[Swift]

So you're fine with a one-off abortion, but against two or more?


So. Where does everyone stand on the "Morning After Pill"? It's a pair of drugs which can be taken up to 72 hours after sex which prevent implantation, should fertilisation have occurred.

Surely if fertilisation has occurred, you anti-Choice folks would be up in arms about it? Then again if it hasn't, it's just a backup precaution. But how will you KNOW if fertilisation HAS occurred?

Famine, what you're missing about what Pako and I are saying is that it takes personal responsibility. All the diseases you mentioned(except cancer) can be prevented by wise choices. So what does that say, if you THINK before you do these things you can avoid the effects of the consequences.

I'd like to take a part of the libertarian philosophy, a person is responsible for their own decisions. I'm not saying I'm a libertarian, but the fact that people need to take responsibility for their actions is an extremely good thing.

 

[Famine]

Yeeees, I got that Swift. Don't do anything bad just so you don't hurt yourself. Very good.

But people make mistakes. If only every mistake we made in life had small, inconsequential results. But they don't. Some have MASSIVE, far-reaching ones. Like the possibility of falling pregnant, or getting lung cancer, or breaking your leg whilst skiing.

I'm astonished by your lack of compassion for these people. Why should they not receive assistance - all other things being equal (like medical insurance) - and support to help them over their errors?

 

[Swift]

Yeeees, I got that Swift. Don't do anything bad just so you don't hurt yourself. Very good.

But people make mistakes. If only every mistake we made in life had small, inconsequential results. But they don't. Some have MASSIVE, far-reaching ones. Like the possibility of falling pregnant, or getting lung cancer, or breaking your leg whilst skiing.

I'm astonished by your lack of compassion for these people. Why should they not receive assistance - all other things being equal (like medical insurance) - and support to help them over their errors?

If you get it, then what's the challenge?

If you have sex, you KNOW that you can get pregnant. How is that a mistake?

 

[Jugend]

If you get it, then what's the challenge?

If you have sex, you KNOW that you can get pregnant. How is that a mistake?

Is there anything else than black and white in your view on the world?

 

[Danoff]

Scientifically speaking this is simply not true. An embryo is exactly that, an embryo - not a human.

A fertilized egg is a potential human, just like all unfertilized eggs and sperm are potential humans - but it is not classified as human until a successful birth is accomplished.

Nothing is going to prevent this debate from continuing - not a change in the laws, or any political action.

That is another matter of opinion. And anyway, by the time a woman realizes she is pregnant and has an abortion, she has to abort a fetus, not an embryo. I say that because we're discussing how abortion is right/wrong, not when a fertilized egg becomes a human.

So you're saying that if it doesn't look like a human, it isn't?

You are right that no laws can change our opinions; i take back what i said about that ealier.

Actually no, it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of scientific classification. Human beings are born. We have another word for potential humans or humans in development - fetus.

I'm not saying that if it doesn't look like a human, it isn't. 1 year old babies don't look very human to me, but they are. A fetus can look like a baby but not be. I'm saying that until a successful birth occurs, the fetus is not an individual - it is part of the mother's body and therefor subject to her discretion.

If you have sex, you KNOW that you can get pregnant. How is that a mistake?

SWIFT!!! This thread is about ABORTION!!! Not about planned parenthood.

 

[Swift]

Is there anything else than black and white in your view on the world?

As far as this particular issue goes it is very black and white. It's so obvious, but everyone wants this sexual expression without any of the consequences or responsibility.

No recreational sex(outside of marriage) = almost zero need for abortion.

All it takes is people to have self control and responsibility for their actions.

 

[Danoff]

No recreational sex(outside of marriage) = almost zero need for abortion.

Off topic.

 

[Swift]

Off topic.

Last time I looked, the topic was abortion but whatever. You guys realize that I'm very correct and that's why you're giving me such a hard time. Have fun debating the exact time when a child is "child" or when a child stops being a STD

Edit:

NONE of that matters if there is no unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

 

[Jugend]

As far as this particular issue goes it is very black and white. It's so obvious, but everyone wants this sexual expression without any of the consequences or responsibility.

No recreational sex(outside of marriage) = almost zero need for abortion.

All it takes is people to have self control and responsibility for their actions.

I see.

My excperiences on this is that there is something auto-regulating with abortions as I already wrote:

"Abortion has a deep emotional and spiritual effect on any sane human being"

Have you talked about this with anyone that has made an abortion? I have a few times with close friends who has made abortions, and judging from that it needs no or very little governmental control. It's a process that moves you deeply and it's certainly isn't something easily done in an emotional matter. It's a decision filled with second thoughts, guilt and painful "if:s".

Remember I live in Sweden, and not only that, probably the most secularised and sexually liberated part of Sweden.

You guys realize that I'm very correct and that's why you're giving me such a hard time.

Yeah, you're right.

 

[Famine]

As far as this particular issue goes it is very black and white. It's so obvious, but everyone wants this sexual expression without any of the consequences or responsibility.

No recreational sex(outside of marriage) = almost zero need for abortion.

All it takes is people to have self control and responsibility for their actions.

And the question was...

"When is abortion wrong?"

So, in your mind, when is abortion wrong?

I think abortion should only be an option when the pregancy was done through a crime. Rape, incest, etc. Other then that, it shouldn't be an option.

Oh yes, I forgot.

My question to you BASED UPON THIS ANSWER is why? Why would you withhold assistance from anyone who makes a small lapse of judgement which brings about radically life-altering consequences? You wouldn't, apparently, do it to a heavy-smoking lung cancer sufferer, so what makes pregnant women special?

I've got to wonder - since you're fine with egg and sperm killing and cancer removal, it can't be the inert, lifeless lump that is the pre-13-week foetus that's the issue, because that would be fundamentally hypocritical. Is it perhaps that you want to impose your morality on everyone because you're right and everyone else is wrong? Or is it women you want to control, like the good old days? What IS it, Swift (and other anti-Choice types), that makes you want to withhold treatment and deny women the choice of what to do with their own bodies, yet give treatment to anyone who can manage vast lapses of judgement and smoke or drink themselves half to death?

 

[Danoff]

Last time I looked, the topic was abortion but whatever.

The topic is (as I have said earlier) whether abortion is wrong and if so at what stage. The topic is not (as i have said ealier) how to prevent abortion. So the issue of not having sex to avoid abortions is off topic.

 

[Solid Lifters]

One area of abortion that is currently overlooked that is terribly wrong is when the father of the child wants it, but the mother doesn't. Yet, she can still go get an abortion unimpeded. I know, it's "her body" but, it's "his child!" A child is worth more than a woman's body, provided the child doesn't pose a life-threatening risk. She could have it, give it to the father, and never be involved with it ever again. Her financial and emotional obligations would be nill. The father pays for everything, from the prenatal care, to the delivery, all the way up to college.

Do you see anything wrong with this?

 

[jimihemmy]

Abortion should not happen after the fetus has become a viable entity. But in the real world, abortion would be wrong to perform after whatver time limit the law has established.

I also believe that it is the mother's choice. It is her body, it is living because of her. I know a man helped create it, but he has no attachment physically until birth.

To the guy with the co-worker, that's a shame. She should have at least told him or talked to him about it before hand. I strongly believe it's her choice, but the woman should have the deceny to discuss it no matter what the father thinks about it.

I myself have been the cause of 2 abortions. I was young, dumb, and full of .... I'm not sure how they happened because I have always practiced safe sex. Even though at the time I was not ready for children, I left the choice up to the women. I, as a man, would have to own up to my responsibilty as a father to take care of that child. Had they wanted the children, I would just have to live it that.

As a matter of fact....My wife when I first met her was pregnant from her ex-boyfriend (literally met her before she even knew.....) I wanted her to get an abortion for two reasons: 1) It wasn't even mine. 2) We were not ready for kids. She is against abortion...long story short, he is a wonderful kid, turned 8 in April, and I'm trying to be the best stepfather I can to him (his dad is involved in his life and we are cool) and his brother (mine) is turning 7 on Monday.....

Everyone knows the responsibilties and consequences of sex, they just need to be able to discuss things and be able to assume the responsibilty of their actions....

sorry I know I went a little off-topic.....and a little more:

John Galt? ask Ayn Rand!

 

[jimihemmy]

One area of abortion that is currently overlooked that is terribly wrong is when the father of the child wants it, but the mother doesn't. Yet, she can still go get an abortion unimpeded. I know, it's "her body" but, it's "his child!" A child is worth more than a woman's body, provided the child doesn't pose a life-threatening risk. She could have it, give it to the father, and never be involved with it ever again. Her financial and emotional obligations would be nill. The father pays for everything, from the prenatal care, to the delivery, all the way up to college.

Do you see anything wrong with this?

While that would be ideal for some...it is easier said than done. After carrying that child for 9 months, there is an attachment to that child. Just letting go would make post-partem depression even worse....

 

[a6m5]

It's not his body, it's not his choice. He can't FORCE her to carry his baby to term - that would be wrong. Also, he didn't "lose the son or daughter he could've had", he lost nothing - nothing more than he loses by choosing not to have a kid with her at this very instant. Her having an abortion is no different than her taking birth control or even not having sex in the first place - because it isn't a child.

ledhed's reply was very similar to yours. I'm not talking about forcing anything. Ultimately, the mother makes the decision, but not without talking it over with the father, first. And the thing about the father doesn't lose anything, I disagree 100%, but that is your opinion and I will respect that.

To the guy with the co-worker, that's a shame. She should have at least told him or talked to him about it before hand. I strongly believe it's her choice, but the woman should have the deceny to discuss it no matter what the father thinks about it.

I agree 100%. What ended the relationship was the way this girl handled the situation. My coworker(who's also a friend) told me he is prolife personally, but told me that he is "prochoice" for everybody else(I am, also) and would've supported her decision whichever way.

 

[Pako]

Actually no, it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of scientific classification. Human beings are born. We have another word for potential humans or humans in development - fetus.

I'm not saying that if it doesn't look like a human, it isn't. 1 year old babies don't look very human to me, but they are. A fetus can look like a baby but not be. I'm saying that until a successful birth occurs, the fetus is not an individual - it is part of the mother's body and therefor subject to her discretion.



SWIFT!!! This thread is about ABORTION!!! Not about planned parenthood.

You are human before you are born. The conclusion of birth doesn't make you human. Google even agrees.