Finally had the time to post in my favorite thread, so here it goes:
Often times, abortion comes as an option when it would considerably stress the community to care for a child the parents themselves would not be able to alone. Since the child, therefore, would simply end up being a net-loss for the community, there is little reason for them to support it.
Look at animals in nature. A duck is born with deformities that inhibit it from swimming? What does the mother do? Certainly not tell the little duckling that he'll be alright and that the rest of the family will support it for it's entire life.
No, she chucks the useless baby into a stream and walks away while it drowns or is washed away.
When a kitten is born with horrible deformities, what does the mother do?
She smothers it until it is dead, or she refuses to feed it until it starves.
We know we are in trouble when we start comparing animals to human beings. Since as you said they can't think the way we do, and don't have a conscience. They act solely on instinct, while most people ignore theirs and do what they want. Other than that, this whole post has nothing to do with anything imo
Well that still deducts from the life it could be living and maybe the life is better off not existing at all.
It will never deduct it to the severity that an abortion would, which is eliminating any chance of happiness or success that individual could have had. Also adoption isn't necessarily deducting anything. You can end up with better parents, or ones that at the very least care for you. I know people that were adopted, it greatly helped their life and took them out of worse circumstances.
Another issue with this is why is it up to another person to decide if a person is suffering or happy? It is no one's place to say that someone can't live because they won't be happy, you have no way of knowing what they feel. Let them see for themselves what life is like and not put that opportunity into the hands of another individual. Especially with an abortion where the individual is committing a selfish act.
I wasn't sure whether you were arguing against abortions or against masturbation and menstruation. The resulting ejected cells from those things also have the potential to become human. Just because something has potential to be something doesn't mean it has to become that. I can potentially become the richest man on earth but that doesn't mean I was robbed if I don't end up as the richest man.
Abortion should remain legal.
Masturbation is completely different, there is no sperm cell meeting egg cell in that activity. It on its own can't become anything. Come on Skully we all know that the cells will become a human being and only a human being. It won't be a dog, or a germ, or a plant. It will be a person, that is something that you should know from science
Also I am not sure if pebble is trying to say it should be illegal but saying that it is immoral and it is just another form of murder.
No you're not denying a child that because it's not a child.
It is a child. Its heart is beating and has brain waves before any abortion could occur, and it can move and respond to touch in the 2nd month. Also what grows that doesn't live? It is living and it can only grow into a person. Are we not made up of cells, are you saying we are not people because we have cells. Because saying it is not a child is using that kind of logic. Right now it is like we are suggesting it iis an alien, which would also be living if that was the argument
Yup, this is the argument I was going to make.
An embryo is not conscious. It's quite literally a parasite, it cannot live without its host.
It is not conscious, alright lets go with that logic for just a minute. We also can't remember anything that happens in the first 2-3 years of our life, does that mean we didn't exist for that time period? That also means if I am in a coma and I manage to get out of it that I wasn't alive during the coma? Does that mean I rose from the dead then? If I get a concussion and it causes me to become unconscious then I am not alive? Seriously Skully I don't have a clue what you are trying to say by that.
A parasite, but that would mean that animals also encounter this situation. How else can you support it without giving nutrients? Also viability occurs in the 6th month. So since it is not a parasite by this point that means any abortions occurring at or after this point is murder right? Aborting a baby at that stage is pointless as it has to be removed anyway, so why not let it live and put it for adoption. We know that on some occasions the baby comes out and is still alive and is crying before it is successfully killed. So that goes against the conscious theory when they are experiencing pain and directly reacting to it. There are also rare occasions where the abortion fails and the child lives its life thanks to the failed abortion. Actually have a story on this scenario just need to find it.
Your last sentence is the embodiment of my entire stance on this. Having a child is probably the most life-changing event that could happen to you. Nobody should have a child forced upon them, so everyone should have the option to abort.
It is not forced, don't have sex if you can't handle the intended result of it. It is just a consequence for using sex other than its intended purpose of creating life. If they were that concerned they would take necessary precautions. A women should know her cycle well enough to know when she can have sex without becoming pregnant anyway, being careless is different that being forced. Also you are forcing the child not to be able to live the life it was entitled to and not giving it a chance to do what it wants. Skully you said you were for euthanasia right? You said because it was the person's choice. Well the baby doesn't have the choice to live or not when an abortion takes place, so doesn't that completely ruin your stance about people being entitled to decided whether they can live.
(cells that have potential to be human) != (a child)
It is also never "guaranteed" life beyond being the clump of cells that it is.
The mother could be killed the next day. She could miscarry. The cells could misdevelop and cause it to never become a child anyway.
There is no guarantee that that "child" would ever see the light of day.
Would you like to know what is actually guaranteed?
That it will, eventually, cease to exists. It will die. That is guaranteed.
Something having the potential to do something is not a guarantee that it will do it.
It really is a guarantee. A miscarriage is a natural death, it just died before it could lives its life outside of the womb. The cells could be misdeveloped, can you explain that please? Abortions only take place when a woman recognizes that she is pregnant. If they are misdeveloped, then she isn't pregnant and an abortion wouldn't occur. Unless you mean something else when you say that.
At the stage in which
the vast majority of the abortions take place, the embryo is not a child. It's not a human. It has no conscience, in fact, it has no functioning brain. It's a clump of mostly stemcells. It's a parasite by definition.
Even after that, the border gets a bit more blurry but it is still not an individual living organism.
After roughly 30 weeks the fetus could live on its own, and at that point I am against abortion by choice as it's only a few weeks untill you could put it up for adoption if you don't want it. But regardless at that point I an fairly certain the only abortions that do happen are because the mother's life is in danger or if the child would have a serious handicap/illness.
Oh ok so you do think it is wrong when it could survive on its own. In that case I guess you will have to disregard my earlier question. A serious illness is not a reason for an abortion. It is something you can be able to live through, and the doctors aren't always right. A doctor told my mom when I was 2 or 3 that I had autism. Are you suggesting that because of what a doctor thinks I shouldn't live. Anyway he was dead wrong and I am happy for that as people like you show no mercy or respect to people who don't have all the abilities that you do. Although we are all imperfect so to suggest one should die because of an imperfection is being a hypocrite.
At 6 weeks a baby already has brain waves and has had a beating heart anywhere on the 18th day after conception. It is already alive and can do so many things. If it is living and can only be a person when the pregnancy is over then what is it? How can we argue that is not a living organism when it does everything that a living organism does? Using this logic I will say the germs and plants are not alive because they have no functioning brain.
You do know that no birth control works 100% and that accidents do happen? Do you want to outlaw sex for pleasure entirely?
Well from a religious standpoint sex is reserved for marriage and intended to create life and not for pleasure. So it is already supposed to be out of the picture to most people, but like I told you in that other thread people don't listen to things their religion teaches. Not the religions fault, they have no way of enforcing what goes on in a person's life. Unless they become like Big Brother
If only humans laid eggs...
Great idea Skully, then there will be no reason for abortions to take place
Well, lets consider what separates euthanasia from murder? The choice of the concerned party. An embryo cannot choose to live, it does not have a brain you can not say that it doesn't want to be killed.
So no murder. Unless the person wants to live, killing it cannot be called murder. Since want cannot exist without thoughts, I don't see how the entire process falls under the definition of murder.
Using this logic it can't chose to die and therefore should not be killed. That argument is a 2 sided coin, can't just ignore the other side. Also this is the strangest definition of murder I have seen :heh:
Then you call euthanasia murder? Because its premeditated, and kills someone not deserving to die(regardless of the fact that he wants to)
This debate was never about the law or proving something. Just as you cannot prove the embryo will develop into a child and there will be no tragedy. If someone cannot think, cannot want to live or die, I don't see how its murder?
Yes it is murder, just as is any other technique of taking a life away from someone. Euthanasia is no different than suicide, which most people would agree is murder. So if a criminal kills a person that doesn't think then it is ok. I know plenty of living people who can't think and just go with the crowd or go with whatever they are told. Since they don't think for themselves that means if someone killed them it wouldn't be murder? I hope you realize how little sense that makes.
It happens every day, but also every day tragedies happen. So it can not be considered guaranteed. So you blame people for murder because the cells which may or may not turn into human were removed?
It is a guarantee that tragedies happen in the world, because they already have. As for this potential thing I will tell you to refer to one of the previous things I quoted. The way we are talking right now it sounds like even death isn't a guarantee with the logic people have used.