Abortion

[Shredderbeam]

1. You're a human the moment you're conceived. You have a beating heart, a working brain, and a organ system. Just because you're not out of the womb doesn't mean you're not human. What you're basically saying is that when the baby is coming out, and is attached to the umbilical cord it's still not human? Like you said on MSN, "If the baby is physically attached to the mother, it's not a human", but what if the babies breast feeding or like I said before attached to the umbilical cord.

Wrong. At the moment of conception, you have no beating heart, no working brain, and no organ system.

Breastfeeding is not a physical attachment. You can take the baby away, and it will not die within 30 seconds.

2. Define human rights.

The right to live and be free.

4. Haha! That's why I had you speechless there a couple of times, right? Even during the abortion debate you couldn't really gather your thoughts I guess and you stood to one point the whole time, which was pretty inadequate. I'm going to say that I kicked your butt two times! And I'm going to the, "BIG GUY UP STAIRS LITTLE SOLDIER", or as you know him, the priest. I need that 1,000$ for college.

I'm not always able to be 100% focused on our conversation. Also, when somebody says something ridiculous, I need a second to think of exactly how you are wrong.

 

[Outkast_Bro]

Wrong. At the moment of conception, you have no beating heart, no working brain, and no organ system.

Breastfeeding is not a physical attachment. You can take the baby away, and it will not die within 30 seconds.



The right to live and be free.



I'm not always able to be 100% focused on our conversation. Also, when somebody says something ridiculous, I need a second to think of exactly how you are wrong.

The right to live and be free? When you have a heart, a organ system, and a brain you're living. And you're not "free" until you turn 18. Then you can do what you want, when you want. When you're 18 your not under your mother's control anymore.




As for not being 100% focused on our conversation, you know that you're just too flabbergasted by my amazing previous comment. And I may say something ridiculous half the time, but the one debate we have there was a period of time where you said, "Yeah, well...", Meaning you were probably stumped.


Thank you,

~Outkast

 

[Shredderbeam]

The right to live and be free? When you have a heart, a organ system, and a brain you're living. And you're not "free" until you turn 18. Then you can do what you want, when you want. When you're 18 your not under your mother's control anymore.

Yes, you are living. However, you are not a human life.

That is how the legal system functions. It does not necessarily relate to what should be.

 

[Outkast_Bro]

Yes, you are living. However, you are not a human life.

That is how the legal system functions. It does not necessarily relate to what should be.

If you're living, you're a human ( animal ).

 

[Shredderbeam]

If you're living, you're a human ( animal ).

Not all life has a indestructible right to live. I may kill bacteria if I choose. If you are seriously trying to advocate the cessation of all destruction of life, no matter what type, then I have nothing more to say to you. It is impossible. The fact that you are breathing necessitates that you are destroying billions of bacteria in the air. You should be mad with grief.

 

[Tha_Punisher]

I think that abortion should be legal because it's better for the would-be parent to see that "Oh having a baby wouldn't be good for me at this age, maybe I should stop sleeping with Bob". This would probably be better than having her grow up with a child and not be able to finish school or end up leaving the baby with her mother all day while she's out having fun or going to school.

Having a baby at a young age will most likely ruin their lives and if you give them another chance the chances of them screwing up with most likely lower.

 

[Outkast_Bro]

I think that abortion should be legal because it's better for the would-be parent to see that "Oh having a baby wouldn't be good for me at this age, maybe I should stop sleeping with Bob". This would probably be better than having her grow up with a child and not be able to finish school or end up leaving the baby with her mother all day while she's out having fun or going to school.

Having a baby at a young age will most likely ruin their lives and if you give them another chance the chances of them screwing up with most likely lower.

What you said was just pure ignorance. Having a baby and aborting it a young age wouldn't show that it's bad to do such a thing, it will show that if you get knocked up you can get rid of your baby.

Instead of killing the baby, at least put it up for adoption. This will give the child a chance to live with somebody better capable of taking care, and loving them. And you know what? Life isn't fair. You're not always going to get a second chance in life, and that's why you have to think before you act.

 

[Swan]

I really don't see why you look upon mothers who have aborted their child with scorn. It is really none of your business, and is not a separate life, has no rights, and more importantly, is not counted as a human being until it has either left the womb or is capable of living individually.

Abortion is just a means of birth control for me. No better or worse than the pill or a condom. If you're so upset about a baby being aborted, how would you feel about killing a potential baby (namely, sperm) or perhaps contracting a STD? The choice is yours.

 

[csez]

^ I agree with most of that however "is not counted as a human being until it has either left the womb or is capable of living individually."

What is the difference whether the baby has left the womb or not, as long as it is sentient? Prior to birth for example, the baby is still in the womb but there are very few who would support an argument for killing it.

In my opinion the real question that it all boils down to is whether anyone really supports the killing of anything that is capable of even simple thought and the feeling of pain. Ergo, the whole debate between medics on when during the pregnancy does the foetus actually become self aware.

 

[Swan]

^ I agree with most of that however "is not counted as a human being until it has either left the womb or is capable of living individually."

What is the difference whether the baby has left the womb or not, as long as it is sentient? Prior to birth for example, the baby is still in the womb but there are very few who would support an argument for killing it.

In my opinion the real question that it all boils down to is whether anyone really supports the killing of anything that is capable of even simple thought and the feeling of pain. Ergo, the whole debate between medics on when during the pregnancy does the foetus actually become self aware.

It cannot survive without the mother. It is not a separate life.

In the animal kingdom, if a Chihuahua falls pregnant to a Golden Retriever, the pups have to be terminated otherwise they are too big and the mother's belly literally "explodes". I know someone who's had a dog in such circumstances. There are no regrets about terminating puppies, so why not humans?

 

[csez]

"the pups have to be terminated otherwise they are too big and the mother's belly literally "explodes". I know someone who's had a dog in such circumstances. There are no regrets about terminating puppies, so why not humans?"

That is an entirely different scenario whereby the mother's life is endangered by the pup she is carrying.

"It cannot survive without the mother. It is not a separate life."

That is a throw away line which I've seen used by others already on this thread, where is the logic behind it? It may be a legal definition but perhaps you could expand on why you feel just because it cannot survive without the mother it should therefore forfeit it's life?

Cojoined twins, can one be given the right to terminate the other one's life just so he/she can lead the life he/she wants? [/devils advocate]

Some terminally ill people require life support, there are many cases where even if they WANT to die they're not given the right. Topics like this one aren't black and white, legal definitions are all well and good but they do little to further the discussion usually.

 

[Reapers Runescape]

Yes, it should be legal in all states and instances. It is any one person's prerogative to birth a child or not. The government ( America's ) needs to understand this. All the crack babies and homeless children born, only contribute to a growing problem of starving children and poverty.

 

[NoLimit]

I think it should. I don't think the government has any say on whether a mother has a child or not. Sure its technically murder, but the child was never born.

What the fuck gives you the pizazz to tell the government what he can and can't do you cretin. You pay the government with your tax dollars, he runs the country for a reason. Don't be throwing stupid comments like that around. The government has every right to tell a mother she can't have a child.
And, it should be whatever the government wants it to be.

 

[Swan]

"the pups have to be terminated otherwise they are too big and the mother's belly literally "explodes". I know someone who's had a dog in such circumstances. There are no regrets about terminating puppies, so why not humans?"

That is an entirely different scenario whereby the mother's life is endangered by the pup she is carrying.

"It cannot survive without the mother. It is not a separate life."

That is a throw away line which I've seen used by others already on this thread, where is the logic behind it? It may be a legal definition but perhaps you could expand on why you feel just because it cannot survive without the mother it should therefore forfeit it's life?

Cojoined twins, can one be given the right to terminate the other one's life just so he/she can lead the life he/she wants? [/devils advocate]

Some terminally ill people require life support, there are many cases where even if they WANT to die they're not given the right. Topics like this one aren't black and white, legal definitions are all well and good but they do little to further the discussion usually.

I define a separate life as something that can live independently. I do not count a fetus as a separate life, therefore the mother has every right to terminate it in my books.

Some terminally ill person has nothing to do with the topic, nor with me, so it doesn't belong in this thread, and I couldn't care less. Law is law, just remember that.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The government has every right to tell a mother she can't have a child.

What the fuck gives you the pizazz to tell the government what he can and can't do you cretin. You pay the government with your tax dollars, he runs the country for a reason. Don't be throwing stupid comments like that around. What gives you the "pizazz" to assume that the government has the right to interfere in a woman's decision? The government has every right to tell a mother she can't have a child.
And, it should be whatever the government wants it to be.

 

[Shredderbeam]

What the fuck gives you the pizazz to tell the government what he can and can't do you cretin. You pay the government with your tax dollars, he runs the country for a reason. Don't be throwing stupid comments like that around. The government has every right to tell a mother she can't have a child.
And, it should be whatever the government wants it to be.

What gives you the "pizazz" to assume that the government has the right to interfere in a woman's decision?

 

[Easter Bunny2]

Now, i think you both are mixing up words here. The government has the RIGHT to tell a woman that she can not have a baby, they have the right to take my home, but that does not mean they will.

The last thing the government needs is a protest against them because it is already crumbling with the economy and relations. So yes, it does have the RIGHT but it does not have the WILL.

 

[csez]

I define a separate life as something that can live independently. I do not count a fetus as a separate life, therefore the mother has every right to terminate it in my books.

Some terminally ill person has nothing to do with the topic, nor with me, so it doesn't belong in this thread, and I couldn't care less. Law is law, just remember that.

It has EVERYTHING to do with this topic, if you don't view a foetus as a separate life because it depends on the mother for survival then it is pretty much NO DIFFERENT from someone terminally ill and hooked up to life support machines. Yes, the law is the law, doesn't mean that the law is set in stone nor is it flawless.

 

[gtr4life]

it should...........

 

[ljbaxter]

i'd say it should be legal..
if a 15yr old kid gets someone pregnant,
its either she gets abortion or he has to possibly drop out of school and get fulltime job.
and pay for child support.
basically save two lives from being garbage. my opinion