Abortion

Shredderbeam, what are your thoughts about this. I don't think i've seen you really make a statement on the subject, just you "questioning" others' comments in-order to make and build their opinions into something worthy to argue with.

Please, share your thoughts, and be specific. For example, if it has a time in the birth where it's justified, state which stage in birth.

 

No thanks, I prefer to question.

 

It has almost all of the physical characteristics of a human being, and is beginning to have the mental characteristics too.

 

So what you are saying is you would rather have a living being be killed in progression, because you would rather not support your own child. You always could, because if it happened, and you think you could not support your own child, you always could work out a plan.

Sure it might not be a great few years, with school and such, but would you seriously stop a living being from continuing their growth, to be brought into life, for your personal benefit?

 

Abortion is wrong. There are no two ways about it. Life starts at the dividing of the first cell.

 

I don't know about you, but I have no problem with this ideal.

But to give you a question:

Sperm is technically a "human in progress", so are egg cells. Many of each are lost regularly, either during ejaculation or menstruation, so why don't you have a problem with this? Essentially it is the same thing, just a fetus is more ... "developed."

 

No sperm is not a "human is progress" and neither is an egg. They have to unite before they have any chance of becoming life. The chances of that are very small to since it takes millions of sperm for 1 of them to be able to penetrate the egg so it can develop.

In no way is 2 items that have not touch the same as the combination of the two. Are you telling me that essentially salt (sodium chloride) is the same and sodium and chloride on there own? No, in short it is not. They are completely 3 different substances.

 

Indeed Dave, but another aspect of it is, When a male ejaculates, the sensation normally is a good one.

How do we not know the baby endures pain during the Abortion process?

And when a male ejaculates, It's meant to be that way. Whoever made us / However we were made, it was meant for us to ejaculate to create more human beings, But was it meant for us to ( kill them off or Stop their growth ) as well?

I'd say no.

 

A fetus cannot feel pain until relatively far in to its development.

 

Actually, a fetus can feel pain sometimes at an earlier stage, sometimes 6-7 weeks.

 

Do physical characteristics confer rights upon a being? Does one person have rights and another not have rights because of legs or lack of legs?

They begin to be capable of feeling pain a good bit into the pregnancy - well after most abortions are performed.

Do you really think that the fact that it is alive is what grants it rights? Do bacteria have rights, then?

What is so special about biological life that grants rights?

We can have a look at its nervous system. If it's highly developed, it probably feels pain. If not, then it probably doesn't.

Can you back that up?

 

I never said a fetus has rights, I was solely expressing my opinion, on whether I think it should live or not.

But, in my mindset a fetus, to just one bacteria is a fine difference, It's like saying: A full set of hair, compared to one hair alone.

Yes, I got it directly from http://www.abortionfacts.com/ , A well known site for abortion facts ( Questions and Answers )

 

seriously get a life, a few spelling mistakes isnt gonna kill some1 just deal with it k?

haha get real \/ swan was dissing my post saying that i need better english and i revoke or w/e yer thats fair good on ya

THIS POST HAS RECEIVED AN INFRACTION FOR SPAMMING

 

If it is Planned then what purpose do you have to abort the birth?
I mean if you planned it then you have no reason to Kill it/Give it away.

Right.
Some people just fall into pregancy. Maybe you didn't mean to get her pregnant. You regret not wearing that condom in your wallet. But what can you do?

Some people face economic struggles and its hard on themselves. Bringing another life into this world where they will be left to support will just increase their struggles. The child will grow up a burden on the family. Nobody wants to live through the hardships.

 

Politically i think it's right, everyone should be able to make there own choice, i don't think there should be a law against it, but Personally, i disagree, i personally wouldn't allow this with my wife/GF.

 

It is her choice, not yours. You aren't the one that has to carry around a large burden for 9 months.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicBabe View Post

To me, its wrong... unless its a baby from a rape or something that you never planned for. if its planned then its wrong.



What gives a rape baby less rights then a expected baby?
You need to define where the rights come into place. A rape baby has just as much rights as a planned baby.

You have to define where rights begin, and I define them as soon as the cell divides because if you don't define them there where do you define them? When the baby is born? It can still feel pain in the womb. It starts feeling pan around 6-8 weeks. So when it starts feeling pain? Why is it different then? As soon as the cells start to multiply it is no longer just an egg and sperm. It has been fertilized and then should gain rights as a human being. You can't argue that when it is born it gets it's rights because babies are born at different times, and just because they have exited the womb doesn't mean they are in the same stage of development as another baby who did.

 

Well if it has a "right" to life, then it has a legitimate moral claim to continue living.

There's not much difference between a fetus in the early stages and a complex bacterium. Neither can feel pain, neither are self-aware, etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4905892.stm

I don't know that fetuses can "experience" pain.

You "wouldn't allow" your wife or girlfriend to get an abortion? Why is this, and how would you prevent them?

Take this analogy:

"Let’s say the Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you, and hooks you up to this dying violinist. If you choose to unhook yourself, the violinist will die, but if you let him stay hooked up to you to use your kidneys (for a period of nine months), then he will be cured and both of you will be free. Thomson asks what a person’s obligations in this situation are, and, to be consistent with Warren’s argument, she says it would be ridiculous to be stay in bed with the violinist, and thus you are able to leave at any time. You shouldn’t feel responsible for the death of the violinist."

I would count that as similar to rape. The baby might very well be innocent, but the mother is hardly responsible for keeping it alive, just as you are not responsible for keeping the violinist alive.

Why does a fertilized cell have rights?

 

Indeed, I did re-read the article, I must've mis-read it. The fetus does has the biological capacity for pain, although it's unknown whether a conscious mind actually experiences pain.

 

I would most definitely stay with the violinist. That would be cruel and wrong to leave him, and you really can't compare it since the woman can still walk around with the baby inside of her. Once it is born if she doesn't want to keep it because "the scars remain" meaning she still has the memories of the rape. Then she can put it up for adoption.

As soon as the cells divide it has rights because that is where I define life begins. Tell me when you define where life begins if it doesn't begin at the first sign of life? It's like saying a tropical storm with all the right circumstances shouldn't be treated as a hurricane on the off chance it doesn't become a hurricane. That is stupid. You would want to warn all the people possible that this storm is most likely going to become a cat 5 hurricane. You wouldn't say oh well once it has become a hurricane and destroyed a few cities then we will call it a hurricane, but until then we will just say it has no potential and is a tropical storm.

You understand what I am saying? If not I can try and explain it better cause that explanation pretty much sucked.

When would you describe life beginning then if you don't say it is at the first signs of life? When it comes out of the womb and breathes it's first breath? Well that could be at many different times so that makes it illogical. Do you explain it as when it starts looking like a human? That too isn't very logical on the fact that babies can be born deformed and have abnormalities. Would you have us kill the retarded babies, or the ones that are deformed by birth?