When is abortion wrong?

[a6m5]

As discussed earlier, a foetus can also kill you, and, unlike cancer (which, when terminal, gives you pain then death) brings a whole host of medical problems along for the ride as a matter of course, which can persist long afterwards. Just look up "episiotomy" if you want to barf - and this stuff is commonplace. There's incontinence (both ends), morning sickness (go through THAT), haemorrhoids and the fun which is lying on your back for 3 days trying to crap a bowling ball while someone tells you to "push" or "breathe" (like you don't already KNOW this stuff), cutting your muff or stomach open to help out - or injecting painkillers into your spine - and, just when you think you've done, you've got to give birth to the sodding placenta as well.

Some women don't want that. I can't blame them. Anti-Choicers don't want to give them that option.



The comparison is sound. Both lung cancer and pregnancy can be contracted through choice (smoking or sex) or not (passive smoking or rape). Neither cancers nor foeti are alive, yet are composed of living cells. Cutting them out of the body and preventing the illnesses they cause does not kill them because they are not alive... To accept that one must be dealt with despite the stupidity of the sufferer, yet deny that the other should be is hypocritical.

OK, I'm not going to comment on the first part. I'm not an woman, so I can't.

On the second part, I do agree there are some similarities. Hypocritical? I don't know about that, maybe depending on your point of view. To me, it's as simple as one is a cancer, the other is a baby in the making. Common sense. There is no good in cancer. People suffer from it, and many of them dies from it. You hear about people dying from cancer, all the time. Pregnancy doesn't kill. It happens sometimes, but like with everything else, like driving around in your car. It does cause suffering to the mother, and the way you describe it, sounds pretty horrible. However, there is a reward for your suffering and effort, unlike cancer.

 

[Danoff]

However, there is a reward for your suffering and effort, unlike cancer.

Not for people who don't want the kid.

To me, it's as simple as one is a cancer, the other is a baby in the making. Common sense.

Does that make a difference? It isn't a baby, it isn't an individual.

 

[a6m5]

Not for people who don't want the kid.

No!? Are you sure about that!?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I meant the pregnancy in general. Yes, I agree that it's not very rewarding to people who doesn't want a kid.

Does that make a difference? It isn't a baby, it isn't an individual.

You already know the answer to that question...... I think you do.

 

[Danoff]

You already know the answer to that question...... I think you do.

The answer is "not really."


(it can't just be no because literally there is a difference, but there isn't a big difference which means the answer has to be "not really")


Edit: By the way, when I said earlier that the father is responsible regardless, I meant if the couple is married. If they aren't married then the father shouldn't be legally responsible.

 

[a6m5]

The answer is "not really."

Allllllllllright, I'll just answer the question. Yes, it does make a difference, at least to me.

 

[Famine]

Pregnancy doesn't kill. It happens sometimes

Ummm, what?

For reference again:
Lung cancer. Can be contracted by choice (smoking) or not (passive smoking, metastasis). Can be cured by medical intervention. Anti-Choicers have no objection to both opt-in and non-opt-in sufferers getting medical intervention.

Pregnancy. Can be contracted by choice (sex) or not (rape). Can be cured by medical intervention. Anti-Choicers are split on whether medical intervention should be given to rape victims but absolutely will not consider opt-in sufferers.


If you won't treat opt-in sufferers of pregnancy, why will you treat opt-in sufferers of lung cancer? Smokers KNOW that by smoking they might get lung cancer, just as people KNOW that by having sex they might get pregnant. So what's the difference? Both have a mass of growing, living tissue inside their body that they don't want, which brings a lot of pain (a lot more in pregnancy than in the final stages of lung cancer - and they give you diamorphine for that) to them. The only difference I can conceive of is that at its natural conclusion, lung cancer sufferers are dead and pregnancy ends with even MORE pain and bringing a living being into the world which you have no place for and ultimately resent. Yay! More hate - exactly what the Bible ordered.

As I said, the position of the Anti-Choice brigade is fundamentally hypocritical, unless they deny treatment to opt-in sufferers (those who have contracted it through a conscious choice) of all potentially fatal conditions.

 

[a6m5]

I was answering this:

As discussed earlier, a foetus can also kill you,

With this:

You hear about people dying from cancer, all the time. Pregnancy doesn't kill. It happens sometimes, but like with everything else, like driving around in your car.

Like I said, people die from cancer all the time. I never hear about mothers dying from giving birth. I bet you have more chance of dying from choking on a burger or something.

As I said, the position of the Anti-Choice brigade is fundamentally hypocritical, unless they deny treatment to opt-in sufferers (those who have contracted it through a conscious choice) of all potentially fatal conditions.

I am prolife, personally, but I wouldn't force my view on women. As I've said in my earlier post, I'd support whatever the court's decision.

You keep on metioning what pregnancy and cancer has in common. I got it. You do make good points. However, the problem is, I'm concerned about the baby's(or "potential" baby's to danoff ) life. Yes, I know it's not alive yet, but it's about to be.

 

[Famine]

Like I said, people die from cancer all the time. I never hear about mothers dying from giving birth. I bet you have more chance of dying from choking on a burger or something.

I posted the numbers up earlier. 1 in 2,000 pregnancies in the USA every year result in the mother's death. That's the equivalent of one death PER DAY in every McDonald's restaurant on Earth. Worldwide it's nearer to 1 in 16 - or the equivalent of 3 million deaths a year from eating at McDonalds. So you bet wrong.

Incidentally, 1 in 3 people worldwide will contract some form of cancer in their lifetime. 1 in 4 of those will die from it. So, just by the numbers, pregnancy is 25% as bad as cancer for causing death - the difference being that cancer can affect anyone, whereas death by pregnancy can only affect pregnant women. And I think that's the root of the anti-Choice stance.

I am prolife

Whose? The inert, lifeless, parasitic lump or the mother?

However, the problem is, I'm concerned about the baby's(or "potential" baby's to danoff ) life. Yes, I know it's not alive yet, but it's about to be.

Careful you don't stand on any rocks then - they might be about to be alive.

Growing mass of living cells with no brain, heart or respiratory systems, extracting nourishment from the host organism to considerable detriment to it with a possibility of terminating the host. Show that definition to any doctor you want and they'll instantly think "cancer".

 

[a6m5]

I posted the numbers up earlier. 1 in 2,000 pregnancies in the USA every year result in the mother's death.

I admit. The odds are greater than I thought. I do wonder how accurate the numbers are though, I mean one out of every two thousand and I don't know of anybody who lost mother, wife, girlfriend or sister while giving birth. Not that I'm doubting you, I'm sure the numbers are at least close.

 

[Swift]

Famine, if my position gives you headaches. Well, I must be doing something right? Heh heh.

Growing mass of living cells with no brain, heart or respiratory systems, extracting nourishment from the host organism to considerable detriment to it with a possibility of terminating the host. Show that definition to any doctor you want and they'll instantly think "cancer".

You turned out to be some very interesting cancer there Famine.

It's a trip. You say a feotus, left alone will decay and die. But not in the environment in which it was created. That's the thing that I think your missing. If you leave a foetus in a mother's womb to develop, wow, it becomes a baby. Imagine that.

So, when is abortion wrong? It's wrong when people use it as an excape route for a "mistake"

Can I ask you something? How do you feel about capital punishment?

 

[Famine]

I have no opinion on it. My experience of it is nil since it has not been part of the judicial system in my lifetime.

 

[Swift]

I have no opinion on it. My experience of it is nil since it has not been part of the judicial system in my lifetime.

Not that I find to be amazing.

There are only two ways to legally end human life. You have very strong opinion on one way to end human life and absolutely none of the other due to total ignorance. Well, at least you admit that you don't have any knowledge on the subject. Though I haven't a clue why you wouldn.

 

[Danoff]

There are only two ways to legally end human life. You have very strong opinion on one way to end human life and absolutely none of the other due to total ignorance. Well, at least you admit that you don't have any knowledge on the subject. Though I haven't a clue why you wouldn.

Hehe, no there is only one way to legally end human life - captial punishment. The other example you post is a way to prevent human life from occuring in the first place - which is the same thing as not having sex or husing a condom.

Edit: I hand't thought about it much but of course police and military are able to legally end life if need be. Also people are allowed to kill others in self-defense.

 

[Famine]

Not that I find to be amazing.

There are only two ways to legally end human life. You have very strong opinion on one way to end human life and absolutely none of the other due to total ignorance. Well, at least you admit that you don't have any knowledge on the subject. Though I haven't a clue why you wouldn.

I have no opinion on any ways to legally end human life. Abortion is not ending human life.

Aren't there more ways though? War? "Shooting the suspect"? Euthanasia (legal in some parts of our crazy globe)?

My opinion on abortion is not what you seem to think it is. It certainly isn't "strong". My opinion on abortion is it's not my body and I'm not about to dictate what you can do with yours.

 

[Swift]

So Famine, if your girlfriend gets an abortion without you knowing you'd just be like, "Eh, whatever, it's your body"?

Edit: Also abortion is NOT the same as not having sex. When you have an abortion your killing the young life and trying to cover up a mistake that you knew could happen. When you don't have sex, it's impossible to get pregnant in teh first place.

I'm not a fan of "safe sex" because it simply doesn't exitst.

 

[Danoff]

Edit: Also abortion is NOT the same as not having sex. When you have an abortion your killing the young life and trying to cover up a mistake that you knew could happen. When you don't have sex, it's impossible to get pregnant in teh first place.

You see it as killing a young life, I see it as preventing one from occuring in the first place.

 

[Famine]

So Famine, if your girlfriend gets an abortion without you knowing you'd just be like, "Eh, whatever, it's your body"?

Yes.

Hell, it probably wouldn't be mine anyway...

If she did, it'd be out of character for her - she'd trust me enough to tell me and I'd agree to abide by her decision. Without a second thought.

 

[Pako]

All things set aside, regardless of religious preference, regardless of marriage or parental status, isn't it our moral obligation to preserve life and in some points of view potential for life? We give rights to rapists in prison, but some people want to ignore or deny rights to unborn and completely innocent humans ( or in some peoples minds, pre-human, or pre-living, or pre-whatever ). I don’t want to get hung up on specific definitions on this one, because quite frankly, a human is a human regardless of your definition. Fetus’, given full term, has every chance to become human and nothing else. Likewise, no matter how much time is given, no other non-human embryo or non-human fetus will become human. This makes human fetus’ unique and very much special and worth trying to preserve that life.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

I'm suprised how many people think all abortions are wrong. Wouldn't it be better for something not to exist than to let it come to life only to have a life of pain and sorrow?
I think abortion is ok, as long as the mother knows that she won't be able to provide for the child. Otherwise abortions are wrong. If someone wants to get rid of the baby just because they don't want to put on the weight i think that's sick.

 

[Danoff]

isn't it our moral obligation to preserve life and in some points of view potential for life?

Preserve life yes, preserve potential life no.

 

[Pako]

Preserve life yes, preserve potential life no.

Sorry man, but that's sick and wrong. Too bad you don't value human life anymore than that. 👎

But you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else, I had just hoped you were more humane than that.

 

[Famine]

We're on the "potential life" tack again, I see.

Every sperm and every egg is a potential life. Why do you not see a problem with "killing" those? A sperm even has a sense of smell, which is more than I can say for a 6-week foetus.

You're right about preserving life though - that's why abortions exist. They preserve the mother's life and the parents' ways of life.

Unique foetus? Before 6 weeks it's impossible to tell any mammalian foetus from any other by visual means.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry man, but that's sick and wrong. Too bad you don't value human life anymore than that.

Potential human life is not the same as human life.

 

[Swift]

We're on the "potential life" tack again, I see.

Every sperm and every egg is a potential life. Why do you not see a problem with "killing" those? A sperm even has a sense of smell, which is more than I can say for a 6-week foetus.

You're right about preserving life though - that's why abortions exist. They preserve the mother's life and the parents' ways of life.

Unique foetus? Before 6 weeks it's impossible to tell any mammalian foetus from any other by visual means.

Actually, a fertilized egg is potential for human life. Sperm and eggs can't do anything by themselves.

I'll have to agree with Pako. I figured you guys would be more humane.

 

[smellysocks12]

You don't see it from a humane point of view, you judge it from a Christian point of view.



From a humane point of view it would be wrong to let a baby get born in a family that isn't ready to receive it yet. A couple of months after fertilizing the egg should be enough time to consider whether to keep it or not, so after that the baby shouldn't be aborted anymore.

 

[Famine]

Actually, a fertilized egg is potential for human life. Sperm and eggs can't do anything by themselves.

A fertilised egg can't do anything by itself either. It needs a womb.

 

[smellysocks12]

A fertilised egg can't do anything by itself either. It needs a womb.

No it doesn't.

 

[Pako]

We're on the "potential life" tack again, I see.

Every sperm and every egg is a potential life. Why do you not see a problem with "killing" those? A sperm even has a sense of smell, which is more than I can say for a 6-week foetus.

You're right about preserving life though - that's why abortions exist. They preserve the mother's life and the parents' ways of life.

Unique foetus? Before 6 weeks it's impossible to tell any mammalian foetus from any other by visual means.

Visual Means? Are there any other methods that can tell what kind of fetus it is? How about the means of common sense. It's growing inside a human female, shall we guess what kind of fetus it is?

Every sperm? Yes, but.... is it reasonable that every sperm has a chance or potential to become a human fetus? NO, not even close, however, a fertilized egg has a very good chance to become a human fetus. There are some huge differences here guys, I trust that you see them and don't choose to ignore them.

Potential life? Yes, if a mother has a reasonable chance of fatal injury by giving birth then a very serious decision has to be made, one of which I hope I never have to be a part of.

 

[Famine]

Visual Means? Are there any other methods that can tell what kind of fetus it is? How about the means of common sense. It's growing inside a human female, shall we guess what kind of fetus it is?

Genetic. Immunological.

If you took 3D ultrasound scans - or even preserved samples - of a variety of mammalian 6-week old foetuses (foeti?), no expert on Earth would be able to tell you which was which without having to resort to genetic or immunological tests. Even on the basis of size.


I should just add that some mammals actually drop sprogs before 6 weeks - mainly the rodent family, so obviously these are excluded from the list.

 

[Danoff]

Potential life? Yes, if a mother has a reasonable chance of fatal injury by giving birth then a very serious decision has to be made, one of which I hope I never have to be a part of.

Seems totally obvious. You protect the human being and sacrifice the potential human - afterall it isn't child.