When is abortion wrong?

[Gil]

I figure that "pro-choice" is a good position prior to pregnancy
Pro-life is a good position after pregnancy has occured.


Obviously, there is more than one reason to wear a condom, or practice abstinence.

I believe that the fetus isn't the only person traumatized by abortion.
I also believe that the single best way to prevent abortion is to prevent pregnancy.

If you own a working penis, and have no intention of becoming a father, put "mini-me" in a "wet suit" before sending him on a deep dive.

Girls if you own a working womb, and have no desire to become a mother, close "the pool" to all divers that are w/o a wet suit.

It doesn't take all that much effort to prevent becoming pregnant in the first place!!!
Choose life! Your own. Keep it in your pants or wrap it.

 

[Danoff]

I believe that the fetus isn't the only person traumatized by abortion.

A. What makes you believe that a fetus is a person?
B. Why should anyone be traumatized by aborting a fetus?

 

[Gil]

A. What makes you believe that a fetus is a person?
B. Why should anyone be traumatized by aborting a fetus?

Think about the little voice you hear when you mess up a play on the baseball field/soccer pitch/etc.

Now think about the voice, when you get older and wonder what your son/daughter might have been like.

Imagine if you're the one with the womb.

All rhetoric aside, a fetus is alive and kicking, literally, long before it pops his/her ilittle head out.

This is an arguement that will never sway the "convinced" no matter what camp they are in. Until you are a parent.

I do believe that there are some instances when a fetus could/should be aborted.
But generally speaking, not "bumpin' uglies" or adhering to the 7 P's makes the issue of abortion an almost moot point.

 

[Famine]

Back to the "When is alive not alive?" question again...

If a person isn't breathing, has no heart rate and has no brain activity, we declare them dead and put them in a chopped-up tree. Yet for some reason we have a blind spot which says that a foetus with NO lungs, NO heart and NO brain is, somehow, "alive".

 

[Danoff]

Now think about the voice, when you get older and wonder what your son/daughter might have been like.

I've never impregnated anyone and I can still imagine... so I'm not sure about the relevance.

All rhetoric aside, a fetus is alive and kicking, literally, long before it pops his/her ilittle head out.

Kicking really isn't going to do it for me.

 

[Swift]

Back to the "When is alive not alive?" question again...

If a person isn't breathing, has no heart rate and has no brain activity, we declare them dead and put them in a chopped-up tree. Yet for some reason we have a blind spot which says that a foetus with NO lungs, NO heart and NO brain is, somehow, "alive".

Do you know another natural way to procreate?

 

[Famine]

Yes - hydras and aphids do it all the time.

In humans, no. However, I don't see the relevance of methods of reproduction to the fact that a person who was DEFINITELY alive a minute ago and you now class as dead has exactly the same characteristics as an inert clump of cells which may or may not become alive in a few minutes' time.

No heart rate, no breathing, no brain activity. For 91 days (or more).

 

[Swift]

Yes - hydras and aphids do it all the time.

In humans, no. However, I don't see the relevance of methods of reproduction to the fact that a person who was DEFINITELY alive a minute ago and you now class as dead has exactly the same characteristics as an inert clump of cells which may or may not become alive in a few minutes' time.

No heart rate, no breathing, no brain activity. For 91 days (or more).

The difference is, left in their respective environments. A dead person will STAY dead and a feotus will become an independent living human being. That is the difference as I see it. Now, if we had 5 different ways to procreate, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But we don't.

 

[Famine]

You're predicting the future there, Swift.

There's no guarantees that the foetus will become anything - even IF it survives to term. There's also no guarantees that the dead person will stay dead.

 

[Razorback]

Hope i wont offend too many people but i think if the mother is of sound mind it is up to her.

Its her body, she's making it.

If the child is going to be brought up in an environment where it wont suffer and has a chance of becoming an effective and valuable member of society then ok.

If it is going to live in misery, filth and drugs etc whats the point of creating more burden for everybody's welfare states.(if the country has got one....)

I dont believe a child is a child till about 3 months. Before that its just multiplying cells.

This is a really touchy subject.....

 

[Swift]

You're predicting the future there, Swift.

There's no guarantees that the foetus will become anything - even IF it survives to term. There's also no guarantees that the dead person will stay dead.

Then that raises the question: When does a person come back to life? And if they do, were they ever really dead?

 

[Famine]

Don't ask me - you classed them as dead because they didn't have a pulse, respiration or brain activity.

 

[Swift]

Don't ask me - you classed them as dead because they didn't have a pulse, respiration or brain activity.

Ok, since you never answered your own question. How would you describe a dead person?

 

[Famine]

It's not up to me to answer the question I posed you - since you're attempting to argue that something can be alive whilst exhibiting every symptom you described of something which is dead. I'm not attempting to argue that point, so it makes little difference to me how I'd describe a dead person.

 

[Swift]

It's not up to me to answer the question I posed you - since you're attempting to argue that something can be alive whilst exhibiting every symptom you described of something which is dead. I'm not attempting to argue that point, so it makes little difference to me how I'd describe a dead person.

If you say the dead don't always stay dead, then yes, your description of death does make a difference.

EDIT: Razorback, I saw your post. I'm not ignoring you What you're giving is a great reason NOT to have sex in the first place. Not so much for abortion.

 

[Famine]

No - I'm saying that the dead YOU'VE said are dead don't always stay dead.

The point being YOU'RE happy to say someone has died based on a set of conditions. Yet, even though a foetus matches every single one of YOUR set of conditions you are adamant that a foetus is alive. And you do not seem to see the inherent incongruity there.

 

[Swift]

No - I'm saying that the dead YOU'VE said are dead don't always stay dead.

The point being YOU'RE happy to say someone has died based on a set of conditions. Yet, even though a foetus matches every single one of YOUR set of conditions you are adamant that a foetus is alive. And you do not seem to see the inherent incongruity there.

Because literally, the next day, minute or hour the feotus could have all those lovely signs.

Why don't you just give your description of a dead person? Why don't you?

 

[Razorback]

Dont worry Swift,

Sounds like your going toe 2 toe over this.

If you dont have sex in the first place or do it for the right reasons you dont have to abort anything?

If somethings show's "signs"(ie no brain function, cannot breath unaided and all that) of being dead, nine times out of ten it is.

If a foetus is not guaranteed to be 100% when it pops out or its gonna kill mother then sorry but its bye-bye.

 

[Famine]

Because literally, the next day, minute or hour the feotus could have all those lovely signs.

As could the dead person, from your very own definitions.

Do you see?

From YOUR definitions of "dead", both a dead person and a foetus are dead. From YOUR definitions of "dead", both a dead person and a foetus "could" stop being dead soon. Yet from YOUR definitions one is put in a box and burned to a crisp and the other is sanctity incarnate.

YOU would, without a thought, have a dead person cremated from YOUR definitions despite the fact that they might stop being dead by YOUR definitions. Yet you do not see it as contradictory that you would not do the same thing to a foetus which is, by YOUR definitions, dead.

Why don't you just give your description of a dead person? Why don't you?

It is irrelevant to the thread, since I'm not arguing the case that a dead person and a non-living foetus are, for some reason, different. You are.

 

[Swift]

Right right, your definition of death, that you haven't given, makes no difference. I'm not getting that.

Anyway, you can put whatever spin on it that you'd like. There is only one way to make a new human. And that's through a woman have sex with a man. It is, henceforth, the most preventable STD(As you have called it) ever.

So, I say that that a person is dead when the have no heart beat brain waves or other life signs. I thought you would infer from that statement that they would have to be in possession of said qualities BEFORE losing them. What does that mean? Well, if a born human dies, then they would have to be classified as alive first, right? That's what I'm saying. You keep calling it a lifeless lump of cells that happens to be growing in the mother. I call it life.

To apply exactly the same specifications of death to a born human as to an unborn is self defeating. As by most laws a baby isn't "alive" until it's born.

 

[Famine]

So now you're arguing... what?

In order to be dead first something must be "classified" as alive?

This takes us RIGHT back to point one - at what point do YOU classify a foetus as being "alive", and why does this magical moment make the inert clump of cells that make up the foetus different to any other cell in the human body? Or are you going to legal classification of "alive", meaning abortion would be legal all the way up to term.

You see, your position is extremely circular.

A foetus (before 13 weeks) has no pulse, no respiration and no brain activity. Mainly because it doesn't have a heart, lungs or a brain. This mass of "living" cells is not "alive", by YOUR definition. You say "Ah!" (you probably don't, but it scans well). "Ah! It's different from a dead body because it's becoming alive."

Fine. It's becoming alive. So therefore it isn't currently alive and cannot be killed. Thus abortion isn't killing anything and isn't murder - and while you've not attempted to argue this yet in this thread, you have hinted at this being your position...

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.

 

[Swift]

Actually, my stance is that conception is life. Now, whether that baby comes to term or is a miscarriage or whatever isn't up to me. I never said that the feotus isn't alive. You asked what I would classify as a person as being dead. Big difference there.

 

[Arwin]

When is abortion wrong? When the woman doesn't want an abortion.

I couldn't agree more. Until the child has left the womb, the child is part of the mother. Sure, the father had a part in the conception as well, but he isn't otherwise physically affected. The child becomes a parasite that takes over the female body for no less than 9 months in quite a dramatic way. It is fully up to the mother whether it wants to be a part of that. Like Famine describes, especially the first few months there is little in there that even truly resembles anything like life, and certainly nothing that supercedes the freedom and rights of the host that carries it.

If someone like Swift defines life as starting at conception, that's very arbitrary. All that happened is that cells exchange DNA there. But by normal definitions of life, cells are alive already, and that includes sperm. The question is when does someone become a person of his or her own right. Certainly it takes quite a few months before a zygote develops to the stage where he is capable of any suffering that say the Declaration of Human Rights is intended to protect it against. On the other hand, a mother who is pregnant against her will, suffers a great deal (she suffers if she is pregnant of her own will, but then at least it is her choice).

 

[Swift]

On the other hand, a mother who is pregnant against her will, suffers a great deal (she suffers if she is pregnant of her own will, but then at least it is her choice).

I can see where you're coming from. But the choice should've been made before the sex, not after(obviously criminal actions are different)

 

[Famine]

Actually, my stance is that conception is life. Now, whether that baby comes to term or is a miscarriage or whatever isn't up to me. I never said that the feotus isn't alive. You asked what I would classify as a person as being dead. Big difference there.

You said that a foetus IS alive, despite it meeting every one of your criteria for being a dead human.

Course of events (paraphrased for ease of reading):
Swift: Foetus is alive. Abortion kills it.
Famine: Really? How do you classify a dead person?
Swift: No pulse, no breathing.
Famine: Then a foetus is also dead.
Swift: No - it's "about to be alive".
Famine: So it is, in fact, not alive then if it's "about to be"?
<Present Day>

Fill me in here, Swift.

 

[Swift]

You said that a foetus IS alive, despite it meeting every one of your criteria for being a dead human.

Course of events (paraphrased for ease of reading):
Swift: Foetus is alive. Abortion kills it.
Famine: Really? How do you classify a dead person?
Swift: No pulse, no breathing.
Famine: Then a foetus is also dead.
Swift: No - it's "about to be alive".
Famine: So it is, in fact, not alive then if it's "about to be"?
<Present Day>

Fill me in here, Swift.

Man, is this what science does to people? If it is, I'm glad I decided not to become one. As cool as I think science is...

Anyway, for a person to be classified as dead, are they not already born. So at that point the brain, stops funtioning, the heart stops and all the rest. (BTW, you never spelled out the 7 signs of life that you talked about earlier) When it comes to an unborn child, it's developing into a fully functional human. I'm trying to figure out why it's so hard. "Oh, but it's the same as a mound of cancerous cells" heh heh, yeah, until it pops out of mom and starts crying. Amazing huh?

 

[Famine]

Man, is this what science does to people? If it is, I'm glad I decided not to become one. As cool as I think science is...

Anyway, for a person to be classified as dead, are they not already born. So at that point the brain, stops funtioning, the heart stops and all the rest. (BTW, you never spelled out the 7 signs of life that you talked about earlier) When it comes to an unborn child, it's developing into a fully functional human. I'm trying to figure out why it's so hard. "Oh, but it's the same as a mound of cancerous cells" heh heh, yeah, until it pops out of mom and starts crying. Amazing huh?

I never said there were "7 signs of life", so where you picked that one up from is beyond me.

You're right - a foetus IS developing. You're right, when it pops out and starts crying it's alive.

But YOUR ASSERTON is that an embryo is "alive" from the moment of conception. This is simply NOT the case. Until a foetus actually has structures like a brain, a heart and lungs it cannot think, have a pulse or breath. Remember, these were YOUR criteria.

You've already stated TWICE that a foetus without these characteristics is "about to become alive". That directly infers that it is not currently alive. Do you see? Your own two assertions directly contradict each other...

1. Embryo is alive from conception.
2. Foetus without brain, heart, lungs is developing them and "about to become alive"

The two cannot possibly both be true.

If you believe the first then any abortion would result in death. If you believe the second then any abortion which occurs before the foetus "becomes alive" will not result in death since it doesn't take place with any living organism. However, since you've contradicted yourself, I don't know which of the two things you believe.

 

[MagpieRacer]

arent anything with cells alive though?

 

[Swift]

I never said there were "7 signs of life", so where you picked that one up from is beyond me.

You're right - a foetus IS developing. You're right, when it pops out and starts crying it's alive.

But YOUR ASSERTON is that an embryo is "alive" from the moment of conception. This is simply NOT the case. Until a foetus actually has structures like a brain, a heart and lungs it cannot think, have a pulse or breath. Remember, these were YOUR criteria.

You've already stated TWICE that a foetus without these characteristics is "about to become alive". That directly infers that it is not currently alive. Do you see? Your own two assertions directly contradict each other...

1. Embryo is alive from conception.
2. Foetus without brain, heart, lungs is developing them and "about to become alive"

The two cannot possibly both be true.

If you believe the first then any abortion would result in death. If you believe the second then any abortion which occurs before the foetus "becomes alive" will not result in death since it doesn't take place with any living organism. However, since you've contradicted yourself, I don't know which of the two things you believe.

Sorry about the signs of life thing. You said something to that effect somewhere but I can't seem to find it right now.

Anyway, you asked me what signs for DEATH were. Not signs for life. Of course, my postition on that is already out there.

Contradicted myself? I couldn't find where I said that a feotus is about to be alive. Maybe I said it's about to show the signs of life that you were talking about. But I dont' remember saying it was about to be alive.

 

[Famine]

arent anything with cells alive though?

Then cancer is alive.

Swift:

There's no heartbeat so there's not a life in the baby yet.

And

a fertilized egg is potential for human life

Contradict:

Actually, my stance is that conception is life.

Either life starts at conception, or it doesn't - it's a "potential" life without a heartbeat.