Forums / General

Why are we bringing up individual gametes again? (Although that Monty Python film was fantastic)

We’ve already gone over the subject of sperm/eggs and concluded that it largely detracts from the actual point. Very few people think unfertilized gametes is worth anything and have certainly not based their arguments upon it.

Certainly nobody in this thread has done that.

Most pro-life people believe it only begins to matter at conception, not when the egg comes out of the ovary. Because then they would have to argue that every menstruation is murder, along with every natural wet dream. I’ve never heard anyone argue otherwise.

Biologically speaking, a fetus is not considered “alive” by the scientific community until the thirteenth week of pregnancy; an abortion can be undergone long before this period. As it is not yet alive, it can not be considered murder as murder is causing death upon another, living human being.

While it can have the potential for life, in a sense, it also have the potential for that of a miscarriage, death-upon-arrival, or just dying in its sleep caused by sudden infant death syndrome. (Yes, that is a thing.)

When these factors come in to play, the situation arises that no one can possibly say if it does have the potential for life or not. Because in that sense, it is already dead.

If aborting an early fetus is murder, then septic tanks are Guantanamo Bay.

Well, you could then say a child has a potential for adulthood, but it still has the potential to die due to infinite reasons.

I’m personally conflicted on the issue of abortion. On the one hand, abortion allows women to make decisions, which is bad. On the other hand, it kills things, which is good.

First off:

Biologically speaking, a fetus is not considered “alive” by the scientific community until the thirteenth week of pregnancy…

[citation needed]

Not that I doubt you, but I don’t take scientific claims to always be indicative of truth as we see it. I probably couldn’t figure out the jargon behind it, since I’m no biologist, but I do know about the logic of the scientific method, and I know many scientists will jump the gun to make a claim. You don’t have to be infallible to get a Ph.D. or an M.D.

I want to see why the researchers say that 13 weeks is the time at which a fetus becomes alive. The number of weeks probably isn’t the point of life just like the time of death isn’t based upon number of years lived. So there has to be some biological change that the scientists believe makes a fetus “live” after that point that makes it not live before it.

But assuming there is a slight change that makes the fetus alive, you make a good point. But (of course) I still don’t think it’s the strongest point to make. You acknowledge yourself that a fetus does have the potential for life. You seem to counter that by saying that every subsequent stage has the potential for death.

I probably would have just left the second paragraph out if you’re making a pro-choice argument. It seems like you’re saying what I’m saying: either abortion should occur at no point at all (not considering context of the conception, because that would change things in my mind) or at any point where the mother doesn’t want the child and the child cannot articulate (or isn’t likely to remember the pain and) aversion to dying.
 
I also think it omits the fact that intentional “death” is a large part of the function here. Miscarriages are never intentional (at times, they are the results of carelessness or ignorance, but it’s not intentional,) and death upon birth is most certainly not intentional. If it was, then the hospital would have a big problem on its hands. Hippocratic Oath and all. And SIDS is accidental/unavoidable.

But the main thing is that those are not conscious, intentional acts. Abortion is an intentional act.
 
And finally, a neutral point with perhaps no consequence, death implies prior life. Death isn’t really the absence of life as much as it is the ceasing of life. A rock is not dead. I think you’d say that the fetus is not dead, but that it is not alive.

…yet. A rock will not live regardless. It will not become an organism. It will not become a cell or an organ. That fetus probably will. I don’t think the fact that it is at its most vulnerable state makes it less subject to rules of intentionally ceasing its life (or preventing it.)
 
 
But it is still different in many ways to other states of a human “child” (it may not actually be alive yet.)

My aversion to intentionally stopping the process of human life would still stand.

I think Dr. Coolface has a better grasp of things than he lets on.

I honestly don’t like the idea of abortion, but I like the idea of calling it murder and implying people who get them are murderers a lot less. It just strikes me as low as fuck because it can be a really tough decision for women to make that doesn’t always sit so well with them either.

Totally worth the bump.

I know superdark wont hear me, but I felt the need to answer his question anyway

First of all, unfertilized gametes are not human even by pro-lifer definition. Superdarkivan is actually dodging the question here because the questioner specifically said “Potential human”. Unfertilized gametes are not potential humans until they are fertilized, at which point they stop being unfertilized gametes.

As for his second question, I think Superdarkivan is exaggerating there. It’s not that people are holding those who already exist as completely devalued compared to those about to exist. More like those who already exist are able to speak for themselves if they want to exist

The way I see it, those who already exist are able to determine their own existence and share responsibility in it. Those recruited into the army are probably their on their own volition. Those on death row are probably responsible themselves for ending up there in the first place. Due to this responsibility, pro-lifers see no need to act on their behalf. But Fetuses have no such choice so the pro-lifers speak for them

In my opinion, the reason why this is a thorny issue is that life, or at least ‘human’ life comes gradually, as opposed to there being any particular scientifically justified cut off point between ‘human life’ and ‘not human’ – for example on the one hand, a newly formed zygote is a genetically unique individual, but equally, it can’t think, feel pain, or in any way sense its environment . In terms of physical and mental characteristics we adult humans have far more in common with, for example, chimps, and moreover killing an adult chimp would more suffering than killing an early embryo because one has working pain receptors and a degree of self awareness, and the other doesn’t. On the other hand, the embryo is, in genetic terms, a homo sapiens, albeit an extremely undeveloped one. It is just yet to pick up the characteristics which we consider to place us above the various other animals. It will gradually pick up those characteristics as it develops in the womb.I would argue that this means that development of humanity is, thus, gradual.

However, it is not possible to grant human rights gradually. An act is either murder, or it is not. Rights cannot reasonably be granted gradually, and herein lies the conflict – humanity is an abstract concept that has different definitions to different people, and is thus developed at different points depending on one’s own definition. All we can agree on is that sperm and egg are not human, and babies are. There is no biologically definite point at which the change is made, and thus no biologically definite point at which rights should be granted,and thus no definite means of determining when (or if) aborting a pregnancy is murder.

Although what’s about to be said by me has already been said by everyone else in the thread, I’ll just give my 2 cents.
I think as a man, I really can’t get the perspective of a woman in this situation. But I think that in the case of abortion, the mother should be able to have it aborted. Honestly, in some cases, both the mother and the unborn child are better off. A lot of teenagers at age 16 (Hell, even my age) have become sexually active. Most, if not all 16 year olds are not fit to be mothers. Denying abortions and making people have a child is just wrong.

I say sex is heavy stuff, and it shouldn’t be taken lightly in the first place.

And I say that “killing” a child for a mistake of yours (or whomever’s) is even more wrong than “making” a woman have that child. It comes with sex. Neither is good, but one involves what I consider killing. That outweighs premature parenthood when the two parties consented to sex. The other is a life-altering experience with all sorts of responsibilities.

I think that those who are more pro-choice would either say that abortion isn’t murder or at least isn’t killing a human. If I felt that way, then I’d likely be pro-choice myself.

However, since I don’t see a cut-off line for where the child begins to form on its own, I see intentional death/abortion as killing a human.

I simply don’t see unwanted parenthood as outweighing that when the choice was made to have sex along with accepting the responsibilities should the woman get pregnant. Parenthood before you’re ready is more unfortunate than I know in practicality, but I also don’t know how bad death is in practicality either.
 
If it wasn’t a matter of life and death, then I’d say that my opinion doesn’t matter. But I think it is a matter of actual life and death.

At Random’s post, that’s a terrible set of points. Being snarky does not a good argument make. But I think BSoD has explained that.

Verbose wrote:

At Random’s post, that’s a terrible set of points. Being snarky does not a good argument make. But I think BSoD has explained that.

Correct, but that was also a reason I posted it. Although snarky, it does bring up decent comparisons, albeit way too extreme. What my main point was in posting it was the comparison to the previous points that were brought up between the difference of potential life and potential death. Comparing those to death penalty situations brings a whole different twist to it, but Blue Screen covered those points quickly.

BSoD wrote:

Due to this responsibility, pro-lifers see no need to act on their behalf. But Fetuses have no such choice so the pro-lifers speak for them

I actually find this both correct and incorrect. True, the fetus can’t make its own decision, so the pro-lifers do this for them. But what I’ve seen at times is that they make the choice for the parents, the one party which I believe still has a bigger saying in this. Which brings us back to Opspe’s original image, they are implying women (or parents in general) can’t make such a decision responsibly and thus they make it for them.

Now you can again bring up the “What if the child had a vote?” argument, but we’ve already countered this multiple times in this thread with people like Wheatley and me who were possible abortion candidates at conception yet understand the reason behind it. We believed our parents made that decision responsibly, pro-lifers want to make that decision for my parents, they describe my parents as murderers.

Verbose wrote:

I say sex is heavy stuff, and it shouldn’t be taken lightly in the first place.

It certainly is, especially at that age. But what are you going to do about it? Teen bodies are developing at that stage, and the consequenses of this are both obvious and risky. It’s easy to say that we need to educate them better, but you’ll never reach your full audience. And even if you go by every school, you won’t cover the slums that don’t go to school. And those slums are exactly one of the worst places for a teen pregnancy to occur. Those mothers weren’t informed, and you’ll have a very hard time informing them about safe sex and the responsibilities in time.

So let’s now assume it’ll be impossible to reach every teen with the “think before you give her the dick” message, because you can easily conclude it’s impossible. Teen pregnancies will keep happening, simple as that, and plenty of those will be due to the mother and/or father being ill-informed. How do you judge those if they want to abort the fetus?

I’ve never believed that embryos are human beings. Fetuses are another story for me. I still constantly change my opinion about the morality of abortion during the fetal stage. In the end I’m pro-choice, but I find it very easy to see where the pro-life side comes from.

Teen pregnancies will keep happening, simple as that, and plenty of those will be due to the mother and/or father being ill-informed. How do you judge those if they want to abort the fetus?

I don’t think anyone having sex doesn’t know that’s the way you have kids. So they have some responsibility in the matter. Of course, it’s silly to expect abstinence only education to work (it will not.)

But education isn’t a point I’ve raised here, because I don’t think it’s relevant. Teens know that having sex can lead to having children. They aren’t that uneducated. And properly using multiple forms of contraception shouldn’t be a free pass to abortion. Becoming pregnant is a risk you always take when you have sex. You don’t avoid that risk. You can only minimize it along with everything that comes with it.

That’s what I mean when sex is heavy stuff. There’s a massive risk to it, and that is having a child who more or less has as much right to life as any other person. Inexperienced teen or experience adult, it’s not something to be taken lightly, because kids come about that way.
 
I’m not asking people to be abstinent until they want kids, but I say that “killing” a child because you didn’t want it yet or at all is terrible. I really do believe that.
 
Now my values are opposite of what opspe and you believe:

I don’t think the choice of the mother outweighs the life of the child.

I think you and opspe disagree strongly, but I agree just as strongly.
 
There is rape, where the mother did not choose to take the risk of becoming pregnant. There are instances where the child’s life will be fundamentally compromised beyond being poor or having fewer resources such as Down Syndrome or Tay Sachs. Heck, tons of children are poor with or without considering abortion in the Western world. I’ve been poor all of my life, but I wouldn’t want to have been given a shot at life.

My parents didn’t consider aborting me. I was planned. But if they did consider it, then I’d have been upset about it, because I didn’t get a chance at life, because someone else wasn’t prepared. That’s not my problem, and it shouldn’t be my child’s problem if I get a woman pregnant. Can I make her have the child? Of course not. But I will be completely opposed to aborting it.

This is a matter of personal values, but it’s aligned with most civilized countries’ governments already. They don’t allow another individual to take or otherwise endanger the life of another without severe consequences. Technically, governments feel the same way, and I find it to be a contradiction in law and values of said governments.

So even though I fully understand that I would be asking tons of teenage mothers and potentially fathers to bear children and raise them, possibly if not probably less than ideal conditions…

…I don’t think “death” for the child who had no responsibility in the decision-making is the better option. Or more simply, I think one is terrible. I think the other is worse.

As for the death penalty, I am very opposed to it. I do not like the concept of killing a human unless you really have to. I don’t think that you have to kill a serial killer to make him stop. Incarceration will suffice.

On the same note, I don’t think you have to “kill” a child, because the parents aren’t ready (or don’t want) to raise the child, nor do I think it is the best option.

So, I’m reviving this thread just to say my opinion on the issue. I don’t know if that kind of thing pisses people off here, but if it does, I apologize profusely. (Not really.) If not, then I think I’ll go right on ahead and post here, knowing that I’m a brand new member and that nobody can stop me! Ha-ha!

So, I think that the question of whether or not abortion is murdering has been answered pretty thoroughly, but if I’m going to bump a thread, my bump is going to mean something, so my two cents. It’s very easy to see that it depends on your personal point of view. I think that it’s not so easy to jump to a conclusion about this, because personhood is a complex subject in my opinion. I’m an agnostic (which I see as being basically a “wild card” in terms of religion), so my opinions might seem a bit odd, but I think that “personhood” isn’t necessarily defined AS A WORD in the same way by all people. The way I see it is: “At which point in the life of a fetus would it be able to survive outside of its womb?” However, the subject can be viewed metaphysically just as easily. I try to look at it objectively, but even when I do, I don’t see the soul of a fetus being a factor in personhood, but I actually know people in real life that have relatives that would strongly disagree with me, or possibly even strongly disagree with me themselves. I’m not going to be able to change anybody’s opinion on this, but in my opinion:

Personhood begins when a human can be recognized as a person.

That’s my rather simple viewpoint. Before that, I do NOT see abortion as murdering. It is taking a life, yes, but it’s taking a potential life. And let’s not forget about the reasons a woman could have for aborting. Earlier in this thread somewhere, the OP made an argument about the fetus being “chopped into bits” being me, and how I’d feel about that.

I could have been aborted myself, OP. My parents have told me about how they were considering aborting me as I approached what I consider to be “personhood.” And I wasn’t a person from my point of view back then, but getting close. So I obviously won’t have been coherent and able to feel emotion, or possibly even feel anything. Even AFTER I reached personhood, I don’t know if I would have felt anything. I think that’s a bad argument.

(Would anybody here happen to know firsthand if being aborted hurts? Anybody? No. Alright.)

I think that abortion is perfectly acceptable, as long as the reason for doing so is logical. What I consider to be logical reasons include in cases of rape, financial issues, and general quality-of-life factor. It’s obviously an incredibly hard decision to make for ANY woman faced with the choice. I think that the already developed life might outweigh the importance of a potential life, and here’s why: let’s say that a woman chooses not to abort, and can’t take care of her child. This could be detrimental to her well-being, and the child will likely live a poor life as well. Allow me to take a quote from earlier in this thread:

The child’s life will probably be horrible, but it’s better than nothing.

Admittedly, I’m paraphrasing, but I think I got it right. That’s quite a debatable statement there. If I were the father of a girl who clearly wasn’t in any condition to support a child, I’d be in favor of abortion. It would save my daughter’s life quality from taking a turn for the worse, and I think it would save the child from living a bad life.

Every now and then, there’s a case in which a woman just doesn’t want a child. I don’t think that’s a misogynistic statement, because I feel that it’s true. That’s not to say that it hurts any less and that it’s an easier choice, but it’s true. I try to see things objectively in cases such as those and take what I said earlier into account, but sometimes I arrive at the conclusion that reasons for abortion can be poor on occasion. In those cases, I think adoption is a much better option.

There’s this great Robot Chicken reference I’d like to make right now…

Nothing wrong with bumping a thread that isn’t currently active as long as it’s an on-topic post.

As for your opinion, I find it to be a bit refreshing. I think you probably addressed aspects that not all “pro-life” or “pro-choice” posts didn’t address. I lie more on the pro-life side (as you probably have read), but it’s not an easy stance for me to take.

And yet, people disagree with PETA all the time about treating animals like humans, because animals are fuckin’ delicious!

If you’re not going to treat a chicken like it deserves equal rights because it’s living, why are you treating fetuses like they deserve rights, too?

I mean, what if YOU were a chicken? How would YOU feel getting your head chopped off, am I right?

Even though I agree with you, there’s no need to be snide. Other people have different opinions on the matter that you should respect, even if they seem nonsensical to you.

Apparently, a chicken doesn’t feel anything once it’s head is cut off. I forget where I read that, so don’t quote me.

To your point, it is a chicken. Most people believe that humans (in any form, pro-life or pro-choice) are different from chickens. They do not have the same rights as humans in Western society, especially humans that have been born. That’s why this is a fairly shallow point.

I’m telling you that it’s not a cut-and-dry issue. You can take a stance, but you’re only going to sound silly if you try to simplify it.

@Sting

Don’t be a jerk.

And yet, people disagree with PETA all the time about treating animals like humans, because animals are fuckin’ delicious!

Yeah, because meat eaters are the only ones against PETA

Anyways, this argument is very shallow, as Verbose said. We don’t kill unborn children for the sake of nutritional value.

Intergalactic Joe wrote:

If you’re not going to treat a chicken like it deserves equal rights because it’s living, why are you treating fetuses like they deserve rights, too?

Uh.

First thing: In this sentence, you used the word “because” in this post. Either I misunderstand or this was poor phrasing on your part. To enunciate what I interpret your post to be saying: Chickens are living beings. Therefore, we should not treat them equally.

Um, what?

There’s another way to interpret this, though: Chickens are living, so we should give them rights.

(Punctuation can make ALL the difference.)

I also have an answer for that.

Yes, chickens are living beings. But, like Verbose said, they don’t have the same rights in Western (and, I should hope, all) society, not “because they’re living”, to quote you again, but because they’re chickens, to address your other argument. I do think that most people will agree that humans are not chickens, and if they disagree, then God help humanity. Point being, we don’t see chickens as being equal to us (for the most part). However, correct me if I’m wrong, but some people do believe in animal rights, no? From what I interpret the most extreme animal rights activists’ points to be, this means that we should treat animals more as people than as property, and that they should be entitled to possession of their lives and of aversion from suffering. So, there’s that, isn’t there? Essentially, there are people who do believe that other animals deserve to be treated equally and to be given rights, and there are people who aren’t quite as such. So I think that’s a flawed argument.

Second thing: I think this also depends on your definition of personhood. A fetus, needless to say, doesn’t have a say in their potential life. But take into account that, just as with animal rights, there are people who do believe that fetuses deserve rights. I know that that isn’t your point, but I’m going somewhere with this. People who believe that fetuses do deserve rights are logically less likely to abort, or to support abortion. People who believe that fetuses deserve rights tend to be pro-life. People who are pro-life tend to believe that personhood starts early on in conception, and thus tend to believe that abortion is murder. When a person believes personhood begins is a very crucial part in determining their stance on abortion. Thus, I believe that whether or not a fetus “deserves rights” is dependent on when, from the point of view of the person looking at the issue, personhood begins.

I believe that personhood begins in the later stages. Logically, a person is a person when they can be recognized as a person (by my definition). People deserve rights, regardless of their age. So, when a fetus enters personhood, I think that that is when they deserve rights. This is just my point of view, though. As I stated earlier, abortion is not murder before the fetus reaches personhood. And the fetus doesn’t have a say in the matter anyway. So, this leads me to arrive at the conclusion that before personhood, the fetus doesn’t need equal rights, because the fetus is not a “person” yet. But there are people who will disagree with me, obviously.

Overall, quite a shallow argument, as Verbose said.

I mean, what if YOU were a chicken? How would YOU feel getting your head chopped off, am I right?

I don’t know how I would feel.

How would YOU feel? Are chickens intelligent enough to know that their heads are going to be chopped off? And I assume the process wouldn’t be very painful.

And yet, people disagree with PETA all the time about treating animals like humans, because animals are fuckin’ delicious!

(I’m addressing your points all out of order, based on priority to my interests.)

Yeah, like Crimson Locks said, it’s not only meat eaters that disagree with PETA. Not only that, but animals “being delicious” isn’t the only reason that people could have for not supporting or disagreeing with PETA. I dislike their obnoxious attitude and I don’t think their agenda makes very much sense, so I don’t support them.

Once again, a very shallow argument.

sting_auer wrote:

omg don’t muder this humn biengs its inuhman! htis is a humna!

Don’t be a dick, dude.

Could that argument BE any less shallow?

Chew on this for a second, what’s more acceptable in society(and to you)? Eating a chicken sandwichs or eating human meat? That should tell you why that argument is pretty dumb.

Sorry if I came off dickish in that last comment, I was trying to make a point of how little sense the argument that an early fetus is the same as a baby makes.

How is it not a baby? A fetus is offspring of two parents immediately from the beginning. A complete combination of two gametes bearing a full sequence of genetic code for a complete human being and is actively in the process of becoming one.

You see just a few cells trying to be a human. I see a human growing from just a few cells. Try to look at things from others point of view

regardless of what it could turn into, it’s not currently a human.

the fact that it could be something someday doesn’t change what it is now.

If this logic were valid, we would have to stop killing microbial life because their offspring could eventually lead to the creation of a new sentient race.

Genetically it is, and that’s what I go by. Not that it matters anyway because pure definitions of what a fetus is, or how alive it may be is a Red Herring Argument as I had already addressed numerous times in this thread.

People aren’t trying to rewrite the dictionary. They simply don’t like the idea of taking the chance of living a human life away from humans entering life regardless of the biological classifications of what life is. When a fetus is aborted, it loses it’s chance at life. That fact that isn’t waived by mere technicalities regarding the definition of a human. The abortion debate is a philosophical, ethical question so it needs a philosophical, ethical answer

Also the process of evolution for single cell species to multicellular species is not comparable to the rapid growth and development of an induvidual lifeform. That’s ‘potential’ of a wholly different magnitude. And that’s besides the fact that nobody cares about anything other than humans in this context

@PETA
PETA fails on so many levels it’s not even funny. They’re bloody animal murderers, for one. Send a pet to PETA, expecting the utmost of care? Nah, they’ll just kill it and then illegally throw it into a dumpster. Animal rights!

@Verbose
I understand where you’re coming from, but I do have a question for you (and every other pro-life person):
Even if you find the concept of abortion to be morally reprehensible, do you believe the government should be allowed to determine whether it is or is not right?

@Twins

do you believe the government should be allowed to determine whether it is or is not right?

(I know you addressed Verbose, but you were asking pro-life people in general anyway and while I remain neutral, I still have a pro-life view point) The way I see it, the morality of abortion is one thing and how it should be regulated is another. Those who see abortion as amoral do so for reasons that are too personal to use as a basis for a whole nation to follow.

So I guess that comes down to what kind of government you want. But the more I think about it, the more it seems to be something that’s out of the governments hands. At the very least I can see a government regulating the use of abortion to only the most rational of reasons but there is no way a government can make a flat out blanket decision on the matter for the whole nation (part of the whole problem is trying to instigate that) simply because there’s no fair and logical way the courts can agree on it. For that reason, I think it does need to come down to the induvidual and what they think is right.

Short answer: Of course not.

I’m going to back up Blue Screen’s statement here. I believe in small government, and so I don’t like the idea of governments making decisions for an individual. Because abortion is such a wide open argument and falls on a different part of the morality scale for everyone, It would be very unfair for a government to make a decision like this for its people. It’d be different than enforcing a law that bans robbery because most people agree that robbery is wrong. If a large majority of the people in the US (and I mean like 90% of the population) decided that abortion was wrong then I would understand laws being passed to ban it. As it stands right now, with a bunch of people on both sides of the argument, banning abortion would feel more like a case of a government official forcing his own opinion on the people.

Even if you find the concept of abortion to be morally reprehensible, do you believe the government should be allowed to determine whether it is or is not right?

Well, my stance is that “killing” a fetus intentionally is the same as murder.

So my stance would be the same as how governments enforce killing a person. You basically don’t allow it unless it endangers the person’s actual life.

If a person is in a abusive relationship, then the person being abused cannot kill the person unless they are trying to defend themselves in that moment (even though the relationship is psychologically harmful to the abused partner.)

I think the same applies to a fetus. Unless the life of the mother is endangered or she had no responsibility for the conception of the child, I think responsibility still lies with the parents for the child’s existence and well-being.
 
 
Again, I don’t think unwanted (or even unprepared childhood) is worse than intentional death. In cases where murder is considered, governments everywhere agree that an unwanted outcome other than defending one’s actual life does not justify killing another human, regardless of what they are doing to you.
 
 
You can’t kill a born child, because he’s preventing you from living life in the way that you want. You can’t kill and abusive partner unless they are making an active attempt on your life.
You’re responsible for manslaughter (if not vehicular homicide) for reckless driving.
 
 
There’s a difference between a a fetus and a born human being, but I’ve already argued that I don’t see that difference as being the passing through a womb

The birth is very likely to occur. The child still develops after birth. My argument is not there.

Responsibility would play a part in that as well. I think not being able to have any control over whether or not a woman became pregnant is not a reason to expose her to that drastic change of a life (or the seriousness of pregnancy and childbirth.) In murder or attempted murder cases, the victim never wants to die.

(And even if that person did, then it would still be a crime for another person to kill them. It’s something akin to euthanasia, except it’s not done out of easing pain.)
 
 
However, I fear that rape cases where the rapist cannot be proven guilty beyond a doubt might happen. The mother would have to immediately have to go report the rape (which women do not always do for various reasons,) go through the judicial system, and have the abortion in a few months.

Serious cases like that are never resolved that quickly if there is an argument as to whether there has been a rape.

Even with those instances and considerations in mind, I do not think that it justifies “killing” a child.

So I’d say the government would have as much say as it has in murder and manslaughter cases. However, you wouldn’t charge the mother with mother nor the physician. No one would do the procedure unless certain criteria were met (until a black market for abortion appeared, then it would be prosecuted.)
 
Ugh, “certain criteria” just sounds bad in this instance…but that’s where my logic lies.
 
I recognize the problems with that, but I don’t think abortions should be simply at the will of the mother/parents because they don’t want the child. The abortions that most people are questioning are of this nature, correct?
 
 
Like I’ve said, sex is heavy. I’m not saying don’t have sex. I’m saying that it comes with known risks that have to be taken when you consent to sex (birth control or not), and “killing” because you took that risk strikes me as being far worse than a life change. (Are we going to regret the child being born after we have it? Is that something we’d believe about your child in any situation?)
 
*I keep putting “killing” in quotation marks, because not everyone believes it is killing, and I don’t want to make that claim without some sort of disclaimer.

However, I believe the logical argument for saying that abortion is the intentional death of a human being is stronger than saying it is not. So the only way I can honestly question myself is in asking:

“Does the potential life of the mother and unborn child justify the death of the unborn child?”

• I think more pro-life opinions say it does.
• I say it does not.

*In practicality, I wouldn’t have a say personally. If I impregnated a woman, then I’d say that I would not want an abortion, but it’s her decision. I’m not going to try and stop her beyond saying that I was strongly opposed to it.

Anticipating another question based upon the above statement, you might say that if I won’t force a woman I’ve impregnated to not have an abortion, then I shouldn’t call for a government to make that decision for all women, but I believe that is different.

I feel like it would be more morally wrong to act as a vigilante, even though I’d try to stop other murders or assaults if I saw them in progress.

So I do think abortion is somewhat different from out-and-out murder. So would I try to undermine her decision by using psychological warfare? No. She would think that she is just as right as me.
 
But since I feel like it is basically murder (even with its own reasons, because most murders have a reason), I feel like the government can restrict abortion in the same way that it does not allow murder or manslaughter.
 
 
So yeah…

You always have a lot more to say about everything, don’t you?

Well I think you’ve made it clear where you stand on the issue, and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me, were I to be from your standpoint.

And in the spirit of discussion, let’s get into semantics.

Would you consider abortion to be commensurately wrong (can’t think of a better word) as plain old murder?

To me, it would seem like although it could technically be considered murder, it is on a totally different scale. I mean, with a fetus, you have someone who knows nothing of the concept of life (of course, the mind does develop at a certain point, but no one in their right mind gets abortions that late), and although he or she would eventually have such an opportunity, it would be best for a mother to decide what would be the best for her unborn child, at least as such an early state.

And even if it is the intentional taking of a human’s life, I don’t think it is fair to call it murder. It’s just too strong of a word, and is loaded with connotation, the implication being that it is a truly disgusting, vile act, a sin against God, against humanity, while in reality, even if you believe abortion to be akin to murder, you wouldn’t be that unequivocal (I think). Take “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Out of context, this are perfectly positive words. Everyone supports life; everyone supports choice. When you apply that to abortion, though, is when things get hazy. Abortion in my mind is one of those acceptable exceptions (dat phrasing).

What about intent? Does that count for anything?

I’m sure that over 99% of the women who get abortions would never even dream of committing such crime as murder (which it isn’t from their viewpoint). The mother does have the best intentions for her child, of course, and if she believes that her yet undeveloped baby would be better off without the gift of life, she should have such a right. As a fetus is entirely within the ward of a mother, I do not think the government has the capacity to extend its jurisdiction over something entirely of the mother’s (and father’s) child.

Oh, and just to make this clear- for me, there is definitely a limited time frame in which one can get an abortion (special circumstances aside). It’s not the same to abort a child a month into pregnancy after the father suddenly leaves the mother on her own with no means of substenance for herself, let alone another human being, than five months later when you go, “wait, maybe this isn’t such a good idea.” The mother has to be rational before being entrusted with the fate of her child’s life. The best way to go about it, of course, is contraception or abstinence, but if worse comes to worse, abortion should be always be available as a fail-safe option imo.

And how would a government restrict abortion? People are going to do it anyways if they feel the need to, regardless of what the government says. I’d say that regulation of such a potentially dangerous procedure as abortion would be the only way to ensure the safety of both the mother and the child being aborted.

Kinda like prostitution, if you forgive the horrible analogy here. The government can say it is illegal and all (which it does in most countries), but you can’t stop it. And you shouldn’t punish the women (and men) providing such services; you go after the big guys running the scene. Can I get a confirmation on that? That if the government were to crack down on abortion, you wouldn’t want the mothers to start getting punished for it? That you would get the illegal aborters instead?

(sorry if this sounds like an interrogation, I just like to get inside the minds of others; feel free to fire back with your own questions of morality, many of which I will probably struggle to answer)

I hope you never have Sex, or your God will be very pissed off. Most sperm die, and if they didn’t, pregnancy would be a death sentence.

Anyway, personal view on it, if you abort, you need to havea damn good reason for it. You either can’t support the baby, it’ll kill you if you don’t, it’ll die anyway, it won’t have a life worth living, or some other legitimate reason.

Just aborting the baby because you don’t want it, because you want to still look good, hell no.

Good day, all. :3

This thread is never going to reach that auto-lock huh?

I have a question here for the pro-life users (and pro-choice if you share that opinion): Would you adopt an orphan?

The reason I’m asking this is because it’s noble and everything saying each child born from a mother who’s unable to take care of it can still be put up for adoption and with that be given a chance at life, but it kinda kills the whole message if you’re not willing to give them that chance at life yourself, as you’re basically just demanding their birth only to then tell them to go fuck themselves afterwards and leave the work to others.

“Would you adopt an orphan?”

Why the hell not?

As a person primarily undecided on the issue, I’m going to stay as unbiased with my opinion as possible and say that the final decision that a fetus should be abandoned weighs heavily on whether the impregnated individual has the willpower and enough understanding of the importance of any life to be entrusted with the care of a thinking-and-feeling organism. And that goes for animals, too, even as far as a house plant.
Essentially I’m basing my answer on the intelligence of society, and I’m not so sure about the intelligence aspect these days.

I suppose you can conclude that I lean towards pro-life instead of the latter, because I was aware of such an important decision for a while, in a vague sort of way.

An example I like to use was a fantasy novel that I read in my elementary years called “The Mistmantle Chronicles” by M. I. McAllister. (Spoilers warning, by the way. Just in case.)
In the prolouge of the first of five books, a mother squirrel (“oh shit insouciant insect this is a story and this isn’t a human life we’re talking about how the heck do you know better”) washed up on the shore of an island just in time to deliver her baby, and before death, I quote: “‘Be happy,’ she whispered. ‘May someone find you and love you.’”
Eventually the story continues as the orphan squirrel has grown up in the care of a foster mother with whom the child comes to love and live unaware of the fact that neither of his real parents are alive, and was given the second chance by fate to survive and in time become a right-hand to the queen of the island within the course of the stories.

To me, the series made me realize how far the life of even the most pitiful living beings in today’s society’s eyes can be led down the right path and be loved enough to success, even if it’s unable of being raised by the original caregiver. Perhaps I don’t have the strongest example for the conditions of life-in-the-present-day’s demands, but what do I know? I’m a guy.

Still, I believe that parenting takes effort, and if none is that is optimally present, the child needs to be put into better-loving hands, as they are normally thrust into unfavorable circumstances, and I am comfortable enough with my stance on the issue to state that I would step in as a foster parent to perhaps provide the solution. I can’t care for every unloved child in the world, but everything can be done a piece at a time.

That’s all I have to say.

I personally think abortion should be socially acceptable, but not promoted. I’m against unprotected sex before marriage (even though I’m not a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise), and think that abortion is fine in cases where a condom or birth control pill fails. In the case that the two partners had unprotected sex without realizing the consequences, then I also think abortion is alright, but I resent that a life would have to be taken needlessly.

I don’t think we should encourage abortion, especially to the demographic that will likely be the most interested in sex (teenagers and young adults). We shouldn’t have people thinking that it’s a “get-out-of-jail-free card” of sorts when it comes to pregnancy after unprotected sex. But I think abortion isn’t a bad thing if it’s happening for valid reasons.

People know that sex=children. So they shouldn’t have unprotected sex to begin with unless they are fully prepared to have a child. And oftentimes, people aren’t. But like I said, I resent taking a life unnecessarily because of a poor decision on behalf of the two partners.

I think that I lean towards being pro-life a little bit, but I recognize that abortion is alright in the right cases. I’m more against unprotected sex than I am against abortion.