Abortion

Why must you "better be damn sure responsible enough to have it"? The debate is whether it is a being with rights when it is in fetus form.

Are you saying that it is murder? If so, then why do you say that it's alright to kill it when it's made through rape of a broken condom?

 

A two year old cannot live on its own. If you left it in the jungle, it would die. Does this mean that it's moral to dispose of it? I don't see how being out of the mothers stomach, or taking its first breath is the beginning of life.

 

Before you decide to bitch at me, reread my post.

I never said it had to be out of "fetus form"
I'm saying, while the baby is still in the womb, dumb ass.
Otherwise it would not be called an "abortion"

Murder is not okay, period.

This post received a warning for flaming.​

 

If someone were to crush your windpipe can you breathe? If someone were to never feed you can you live? I don't mean leaving them in the jungle. I meant being able to breathe, which I clearly stated.

 

Bitch at you? I'm simply debating. I'm challenging people's views on what murder is. I'm trying to decide when life truly begins.

The concept is the same. If a thing needs support to live, then it's not technically a person with rights? Explain more, I'm probably missing your point.

 

What is an embryo made up of?

Or this person has forfieted some of its rights for the support...
It does not make them thing instead of a person k-3-v-1-n.

 

A fetus isn't a fully developed human either. You're not doing anything to anything.

Oh okay, since it has it's own life at a certain point in development, it can live on its own at that point. Let's say the person doesn't abort, and gives birth to it and leaves it there. Can it do anything for itself? No. It used to be a part of your body, and once you give birth to it, it's not, but until you do, it is all yours since it is attached to the body. (By "yours" I mean the mother's)

It's the same shit as before but not functional. If a computer stops working, it's still a computer, but it'll probably be thrown away, and recycled, which is exactly what happens with humans. They are born, they die, the atoms are re-arranged and re-used to make new things. We're basically a mix of Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and some other atoms.

So here's my "statement" about this:

A fetus is a part of the mother's body as long as it is attached to the uterus with the umbilical cord. Once it detaches, it is another human body. If the mother AND father agree that it would be best that the baby is not born, then it should be aborted.

Now, for those of you who say the fetus is a human INSIDE the uterus, you should have your birthday the day you were created (the day your parents had sex), not born.

 

Definitely right, those people who are considering abortion obviously aren't in a situation that will make them good parents, the kids will be neglected, they if you can even call fetuses they, are better off dead before they feel pain. Not only that, only the world is getting overpopulated, the less people the better.

Also, it has been proven that the legalization of abortion lowers crime rates of an area about 18 years later.. Where as the average age for a criminal is 18-24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

 

Pretty sure what he is saying is that the fetus of as he said, a bunny rabbit isn't much less advanced of that of a human. Animals may have less rights, but that is because they are indeed significantly less advanced, are they in fetus state aswell? Perhaps not.

Also, I'm pretty sure mods get a sence of accomplishment from infracting people, they seem to just look for reasons to infract somebody. Honestly, they should look for reasons to not infract somebody, make the community a happier place.

 

Here is my analogy. We will compare a human to a computer.

Now I know they are not the same but you get the point.

One day you get excited and you want to make a computer. You buy all the necessary parts. The memory, the sound card, the shell, the visual moniter, and things like that. You realize this is a big project and will take about nine months to create this computer. You then find your self overwhelmed and tired with the takes of putting this computer together piece by piece. You deide this is to much for you so you want to take a hammer to it and smash it to bits.

Now I am comparing a computer to a baby. Does the birth of a computer start when you hit the on button or when you take the shell and start placing the components into the computer.

Now dont you think that destroying a computer with a hammer is reduculous? How is sucking the brains out of a small baby and more different?

The law should state that a baby should have to be born. If the family is incapable of taking care of the baby, It should go to adoption. There should be no reason to kill potential life. (a potential computer)

Now I know computers dont have rights, But every human has rights. As you said...

It is still a human! It still should have rights. If you decide to create something that is this important, you shouldnt be able to destroy it!

It may be a womans body but if she decides to kill it all she is thinking about is herself. She probably just wants to continue her career and not have to deal with kids. Isnt this selfish? Now as I said before if a woman is unable of taking care of the child adoption is the other option. There are many people who would love to have a baby.

Also when talking about rape... less then .01% of abortions have to do with rape. Again adoption should be the other option.

The earth is "NOT" overpopulated and will not be dealing with space issues any time soon.

 

There is no definitive moment when an assembly of parts suddenly "becomes" a computer. It's a gradual process, much the same as with a growing fetus.

I don't think that that analogy fits, at all. The first part of it relates to property ethics, and the second to rights of individuals.

What if, for medical reasons, the doctor knows that having the child will result in the mother's death?

If you are deciding that a fetus should have rights because it is a potential human, then you are misunderstanding the nature of morality. Immoral acts involve doing harm to individuals here and now, causing pain to and violating the wishes of a conscious individual. The future has not happened yet, depriving somebody of potentials cannot be immoral! If I open a better business than a competitor, they lose potential money, but you could not say that I am stealing from them!

If you argue that a fetus should have rights because it is human, then you are guilty of speciesm, or arbitrarily giving one species special rights over another. Of course, if you maintain that humans are worthy of rights by virtue of their characteristics, that is a fine argument, but the fetus does not have these characteristics, and thus cannot have these rights.

You've been saying this a lot...do you have a source for it?

 

The way I see it, a person gains his/her rights when he/she or someone who cares can prove that they have them.

When a baby is inside the mother, not many people can say what rights it has because it is considered a part of the mother therefore people would see it as she has the right to do what she wants with it.

That is what I think the general population sees it as.

I'm probably wrong.

 

Yes but a person cant do whatever they want with their bodies... for example... Suicide. It is illegal. Why does homocide on you own body count? you dont kill yourself but you kill apart of you.

 

Now if you can finish that off with the answer to this question, I will give you a cookie:

Why is suicide seen as socially incorrect/wrong, yet abortion is sometimes promoted for an easy way to not to have a baby?(good thing, not wrong, etc.)

Discuss.

 

People in the day and age have been desensitized to violence and murder. You see it all the time on tv and think nothing of it. Each generation peoples standards get lower and lower. Back when our country was created everything was either wrong or right. Now that the media and television warp our prospective on things, our standars become lower.

What one generation does in moderation, the next does in excess.

 

Is there a reason to care about the next generation?

 

I rest my case.

 

ROFL!

A sperm is fully developed as sperm and sperm only.

So the second it's been born, you can still stab it because it can't live on it's own?

It being apart of the mother, and and the mother being in control of it are two different things.

[/QUOTE]
No, because thats the day you were conceived, not born. Hence the name Birthday.

 

You've yet to provide a reason - the way I see it, I only need care about myself, my present surroundings and the surroundings of myself in the future. I could care less about people who will be alive after I die.

 

That is your problem then. Caring for others is often an important part of keeping up relationships with people close to you. It can even bring you closer together.

Without caring for others your life becomes meaningless.