NationStates Jolt Archive

I was told this by a Christian who does not support abortion while at work today. I am not in favor of abortion, in the sense that I think no abortion is ever entirely a good thing, but I think it is necessary for it to be legal and overseen by the state etc. etc.

So he basically is against abortion and gave me this very awkward comparison that "Abortion has murdered more people than all the American wars combined" claiming it was 43 million or so since Roe v. Wade.

Is that kind of comparison valid? I don't think so, and would like to know how you would respond to a pro-life advocate if they said that to you.

You can't kill it unless it's alive.

I'd ask for sources.

Then I'd ask for sources showing that all 43 million would have grown up to be viable, health, non-birth-defected fetuses.

Then I'd win by TKO.

I'd ask them to tell me their source. I'd think it would be hard to get just such a statistic without some fabrication.

I'd ask for sources.

Then I'd ask for sources showing that all 43 million would have grown up to be viable, health, non-birth-defected fetuses.

Then I'd win by TKO.

YOU BEAT ME TO IT!! :mad: :( :p

Not having sex has killed more than have ever lived, in the billions and billions of lives.

I think its the woman's choice. But I also think the woman should not be slutty and use abortion as a form of contraception.
If they do that, hell, they don't deserve an abortion.

Anyway, abortion is extremely traumatic for women to go through. So its their own personal hell if they want it.

I'd ask for the source. Also keeping in mind that there were abortions before then and a lot even now are illegal as they're teenagers that are having them.

You can't kill it unless it's alive.
.

You can't kill it unless it's alive.

A fetus is alive.

I'd ask them to tell me their source. I'd think it would be hard to get just such a statistic without some fabrication.

That's probably a straightforward good response, but it kind of opts out of directly countering the observation for it's validity. Suppose it's true. Does it give one the right to say that abortions have had worse tolls on America than all its wars combined?

Abortion is a noun; it doesn't do anything. Concepts don't murder. God I hate when people say that abortion has killed people.

A fetus is alive.
Not human life. Certainly not during the time periods when it is permitted/occurs (first trimester).

Abortion is so Catch-22 an issue I won't even start on it

You can't kill it unless it's alive.

Fetuses are alive. You can kill a fetus just like you can kill a cell or a group of cells. It is not, however, murder if it is not legally recognized as a human being.

But a fetus does not have concious thought. It might be physically alive, but not emotionally or spiritually or anything like that; don't those qualities make us alive?

A fetus is alive.
Yeah, I was going to say, there is the that debate, too, and if you tell them "you can't kill what wasn't alive" they could be like 'ohh it was alive'- but is it really alive? Is it alive in the same way than an American soldier who fought the Revolutionary war was alive?

A fetus is alive.
I concede that they're alive past a certain point. However, I had thought abortions in many states weren't allowed after some point? Not sure on that one.

Now, what I'm saying isn't alive is early-stage embryos. Define 'alive', then we'll talk.

You can't kill it unless it's alive.

So having a heartbeat and a unique genetic makeup and a functioning brain doesn't make something alive? Hmmmm...this really makes me wonder about what I've been referring to as my life. Perhaps I should refer to it as my "existence". And really, I can't call myself a human by those standards. Does "animate mass of tissue" work?

1million abortions a year for 30 years is 30million abortions

while that seems fairly shocking, its not like they were babies and its not like they werent "replaced"... a 15 year old having an abortion goes on to get married and have 2 childrent. she replaces the child she could not have at that time. its not really any worse than calculating all the children who COULD have been conceived if we didnt use contraception.

I concede that they're alive past a certain point. However, I had thought abortions in many states weren't allowed after a certain point.

Now, what I'm saying isn't alive is early-stage embryos. Define 'alive', then we'll talk.

Alive is exactly what it is. I wasn't taking any moral stances, I was simply stating that fetuses are in fact alive. A dog is alive. A cell is alive. And so forth.

So having a heartbeat and a unique genetic makeup and a functioning brain doesn't make something alive? Hmmmm...this really makes me wonder about what I've been referring to as my life. Perhaps I should refer to it as my "existence". And really, I can't call myself a human by those standards. Does "animate mass of tissue" work?
Read the post directly above yours.

Not human life. Certainly not during the time periods when it is permitted/occurs (first trimester).
I think this is the most spot on response I've seen so far. It points out that "killing" by abortion (as they would call it) is different from the killing that occurs in wars and they can't be compared because it forces all these assumption on abortion as if it were dealing with human life in the same way wars are.

Good post!

I would simply tell him "Wars are Crimes against humanity"...

I am really Anti-abortion, but I see the problem with that statment. First of all,
how many of those abortions would have been miscarriages?
Different people believe life begins at different points, so from what point is it an abortion of a living being or soul?
ECT.


Now I see the problems with that statement, but I am anti-abortion anyways like I said. What point does it become a tragedy though is imaterial if its 43 or 43 million really dosnt matter, it is life that was denied its chance at life by the 1 or 2 people who should care for it most. Now you can argue at what point life begins, however my standpoint is this: ,If you have sex and if by not doing something to prevent it, would a child have been born? Now you can help a miscarriage or some other accident, but any action done at any stage to prevent the life is to me atleast, stopping what would have naturally happened.

Alive is exactly what it is. I wasn't taking any moral stances, I was simply stating that fetuses are in fact alive. A dog is alive. A cell is alive. And so forth.
Hmm, I see I should have used a different word than "alive". Oops. A cell is alive, but is it alive in the same way that a human is alive?

I can't think of the word that I mean to use. Someone will have to help me out here, because I don't know quite enough to continue arguing while actually making any sense.

Conscious is the word people seem to like to use.

And off I go from the abortion thread.

I concede that they're alive past a certain point. However, I had thought abortions in many states weren't allowed after some point? Not sure on that one.

Now, what I'm saying isn't alive is early-stage embryos. Define 'alive', then we'll talk.
I think that's exactly the problem. Saying 30 million or 43 million lives were taken in a way that can equate itself to lives lost in battle... really puts a strain on the definition of "alive" and it resorts to a definition that we don't really use in everyday life...

Hmm, I see I should have used a different word than "alive". Oops. A cell is alive, but is it alive in the same way that a human is alive?

I can't think of the word that I mean to use. Someone will have to help me out here, because I don't know quite enough to continue arguing while actually making any sense.

You can't murder what isn't a human being. That's the argument that I've seen more commonly. No one denies that a fetus is in fact biologically alive; it's whether or not it is a human being.

You can't murder what isn't a human being. That's the argument that I've seen more commonly. No one denies that a fetus is in fact biologically alive; it's whether or not it is a human being.
Aha. See, Sdaeriji, unlike me, actually makes sense.
Don't listen to me and my accidental use of 'life' where it didn't make sense.

Thanks for clearing everything up Sdaeriji.

A fetus is alive.
How is a fetus alive? The organs are not fully developed when a (soon to be) baby is a fetus. like the brain and heart for example

I think that's exactly the problem. Saying 30 million or 43 million lives were taken in a way that can equate itself to lives lost in battle... really puts a strain on the definition of "alive" and it resorts to a definition that we don't really use in everyday life...

It is deliberately emotive language, designed to provoke a reaction in people. It's a disingenuous way to debate a point. You could make the same claim that each year, heart disease kills more Americans than died in World War I and World War II combined, or that freak gasoline fight accidents kill more Americans each year than died in the entire Civil War. It's using emotion as a debating tactic, and generally frowned upon.

I would simply tell him "Wars are Crimes against humanity"...
at that point he will have 2 main options...

#1 He will try to make the point that Wars are not Crimes..wich will take him away from his debate strategy...

Or

#2 He will try to make the point that abortions are as big a crime...wich is a position impossible to defend.

<<< for more debate advice...wait for my book "Life and Dead on the WorldWide BattleGrounds" >>> :D

Aha. See, Sdaeriji, unlike me, actually makes sense.
Don't listen to me and my accidental use of 'life' where it didn't make sense.

Thanks for clearing everything up Sdaeriji.

That's because I'm so awesome.

I have a solution to abortion.

Force the woman to have the child. Then I will personally come down and shoot the baby. No abortion needed, problem solved.

How is a fetus alive? The organs are not fully developed when a (soon to be) baby is a fetus. like the brain and heart for example

It's biologically alive, as stated. You sincerely think that it isn't alive? Are you saying that underdeveloped organs doesn't constitute something as alive? Drawing from this, does this mean people with reduced mental capacity or any other debiliatating disease are officially not alive since their organs aren't fully developed?

I have a solution to abortion.

Force the woman to have the child. Then I will personally come down and shoot the baby. No abortion needed, problem solved.

Or more condensedly - I'm against abortion, but for killing babies.

Eh i think the guidelines put forth in "A Modest Proposal" are much better than anything an abortion can do.

So you guys are pointing out two major flaws in the statement, it looks like.

1. "alive" for a phetus and "alive" for a human are not identical things, and they cannot be compared side-by-side as if identical.

2. "murder" is not a valid term either- or at least it is absurd to say that the act of aborting a phetus is in any way the same as a human being perishing by explosion or gunshot.

Right?

So you guys are pointing out two major flaws in the statement, it looks like.

1. "alive" for a phetus and "alive" for a human are not identical things, and they cannot be compared side-by-side as if identical.

2. "murder" is not a valid term either- or at least it is absurd to say that the act of aborting a phetus is in any way the same as a human being perishing by explosion or gunshot.

Right?wrong...the main flaws is to compare abortion to War.

It's biologically alive, as stated. You sincerely think that it isn't alive? Are you saying that underdeveloped organs doesn't constitute something as alive? Drawing from this, does this mean people with reduced mental capacity or any other debiliatating disease are officially not alive since their organs aren't fully developed?

I agree, retarded people are not alive. Lets kill them off too.

Or more condensedly - I'm against abortion, but for killing babies.

Exactly ^_^

It is deliberately emotive language, designed to provoke a reaction in people. It's a disingenuous way to debate a point. You could make the same claim that each year, heart disease kills more Americans than died in World War I and World War II combined, or that freak gasoline fight accidents kill more Americans each year than died in the entire Civil War. It's using emotion as a debating tactic, and generally frowned upon.

A second great post by Sdaeriji! I think this is exactly the observation that I was looking for to turn the absurd observation on it's head- and it's a great point. The point of it is to evoke an emotion- and it stretches and distorts two definitions ("life" and "killing") so it can justify an emotional reaction.

The distortions don't hold up, and so neither does the assertion. It tries to tap itself into the emotion we reserved for heriosm of America in the World Wars and Revolutionary war by trying to make this issue comparable to them, when the fact is, it's not comparable at all.

wrong...the main flaws is to compare abortion to War.

Hadn't thought of that! Indeed war is a much bigger and much more vicious comparison that tries to slip itself in- and with it, subtle connotations (the sacrifices and death of war and all the tragedies and horrors we associate with it) can try to slip in as well and trick you into attributing such vicious tags to abortion.

Good call, OceanDrive.

Let us never forget the great gas fight accident of 1984, and the 0.8 million who died as a result...

I have a solution to abortion.

Force the woman to have the child. Then I will personally come down and shoot the baby. No abortion needed, problem solved.

This reminds me of another point the same guy brought up. I admit that diving into this will get us off of the focus of how to respond to the quote and all of that, and will mix these two discussions, but the posters at NS are smart enough hopefully to deal with it.

He brought up the suggestion that even if raped- the mother should give birth and let the child be adopted. Responses???

What no one else here likes the plan given to us in "A Modest Proposal"?

This reminds me of another point the same guy brought up. I admit that diving into this will get us off of the focus of how to respond to the quote and all of that, and will mix these two discussions, but the posters at NS are smart enough hopefully to deal with it.

He brought up the suggestion that even if raped- the mother should give birth and let the child be adopted. Responses???

(Just incase you didnt realize, I'm not on your side. Im Pro-choice.)

It's biologically alive, as stated. You sincerely think that it isn't alive? Are you saying that underdeveloped organs doesn't constitute something as alive? Drawing from this, does this mean people with reduced mental capacity or any other debiliatating disease are officially not alive since their organs aren't fully developed?
Define reduced. If someone has no higher mental functions, then they are not alive. This is the matter at hand in the Schiavo case.

I was told this by a Christian who does not support abortion while at work today. I am not in favor of abortion, in the sense that I think no abortion is ever entirely a good thing, but I think it is necessary for it to be legal and overseen by the state etc. etc.

So he basically is against abortion and gave me this very awkward comparison that "Abortion has murdered more people than all the American wars combined" claiming it was 43 million or so since Roe v. Wade.

Is that kind of comparison valid? I don't think so, and would like to know how you would respond to a pro-life advocate if they said that to you.

Using that logic, then billions upon trillions are killed each day by masturbation.

What no one else here likes the plan given to us in "A Modest Proposal"?
:confused:
What is this "A Modest Proposal"?

So having a heartbeat and a unique genetic makeup and a functioning brain doesn't make something alive? Hmmmm...this really makes me wonder about what I've been referring to as my life. Perhaps I should refer to it as my "existence". And really, I can't call myself a human by those standards. Does "animate mass of tissue" work?

The vast majority of (and damn near all elective) abortions occur before there is a functioning brain.

You can't murder what isn't a human being. That's the argument that I've seen more commonly. No one denies that a fetus is in fact biologically alive; it's whether or not it is a human being.

Or even an organism, at least at the early-embryonic stage, it does not meet the biological requirements to be deemed as a separate organism. Every individual cell is alive in the same way that a skin cell is alive, but a skin cell does not qualify as an organism.

I was told this by a Christian who does not support abortion while at work today. I am not in favor of abortion, in the sense that I think no abortion is ever entirely a good thing, but I think it is necessary for it to be legal and overseen by the state etc. etc.

So he basically is against abortion and gave me this very awkward comparison that "Abortion has murdered more people than all the American wars combined" claiming it was 43 million or so since Roe v. Wade.

Is that kind of comparison valid? I don't think so, and would like to know how you would respond to a pro-life advocate if they said that to you.This is a very convincing anti-war arguement.

It's biologically alive, as stated. You sincerely think that it isn't alive? Are you saying that underdeveloped organs doesn't constitute something as alive? Drawing from this, does this mean people with reduced mental capacity or any other debiliatating disease are officially not alive since their organs aren't fully developed?

Those with reduced mental capacity meet all of the biological requirements to be classified as a living organism. Their organs have not developed properly, but have developed enough to be used in basic life processes.

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]everyone a fetus is alive and kicking ok i think it does kill and it is definitly wrong people disgust me when doing that it is definitly wrong and abortian should be demolished i mean how hard is it after haveing a baby and let good parents adopt it or unless people would rather kill a living fetus or baby you should be ashamed of anyone that does stuff like that it is very wrong!

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]everyone a fetus is alive and kicking ok i think it does kill and it is definitly wrong people disgust me when doing that it is definitly wrong and abortian should be demolished i mean how hard is it after haveing a baby and let good parents adopt it or unless people would rather kill a living fetus or baby you should be ashamed of anyone that does stuff like that it is very wrong!http://img.penny-arcade.com/2002/20021011l.gif

Not human life. Certainly not during the time periods when it is permitted/occurs (first trimester).


It certainly is human....it's not a dog or a cat~~!!! hehe haha I heard my baby's heartbeat during the first trimester at 9 weeks.

Define reduced. If someone has no higher mental functions, then they are not alive. This is the matter at hand in the Schiavo case.

Not precisely; the two are seperate but related questions. The question in that case wasn't whether Terry was alive or not (I'm assuming if it takes two weeks to starve, you're pretty alive), but what constitutes "extraordinary measures" to preserve/maintain a life.

The question here is when the soul implants in the body. Many Christians insist that it implants at conception. I personally find that ridiculous, as it calls into question how a soul is distributed in the body: if the soul starts with a zygote, then we might well assume that there is ensoulment of every part that grows out of that zygote. This, however, is an absurd proposition; if you amputate a foot, you aren't removing a portion of someone's soul. Moreover, Levitican law does not seem to adhere to this tenet, as it clearly states that if someone causes a woman to miscarry through injuring her (which is fairly analogous to abortion; many potential mothers took headers off the stairs before Roe V. Wade to miscarry), then Levitican law specifies a less significant punishment than for the crime of murder, so we can reasonably conclude that Levitican Law distinguishes between abortion and murder. Finally, there is the fairly obvious empirical observation that the mind and the brain are connected, albeit loosely and unclearly, together. Fetuses before the first trimester don't have brains, or more accurately, their brains are profoundly incapable of doing the things our brains can. Thus it is reasonable to assume that if the mind and the soul are one and the same (which it is), and fetuses don't have any but the most primitive form of minds, then it is reasonable to conclude that they haven't been ensouled.

Why is everyone always talking about:
- USA;
- UK;
- abortion;
- and God(s) ??

You know, there are other topics to discuss... like the Smurfs, and ... dogs... and other things... y'know... It would be chill, even sweet, dude!

I think its the woman's choice. But I also think the woman should not be slutty and use abortion as a form of contraception.
If they do that, hell, they don't deserve an abortion.
If she can pay for it she deserves it!

I have no moral qualms about abortion. However I don't think that the taxpayers should have to pay for it.

Abortion is so Catch-22 an issue I won't even start on it
Every issue in politics is catch-22 when dealt with realistically (i.e. not the US Libertarian party way).

Take a stand!

I would simply tell him "Wars are Crimes against humanity"...
He would say, "so are abortions."

but any action done at any stage to prevent the life is to me atleast, stopping what would have naturally happened.
Yes, this is what an abortion is. That's why it's called "abortion".

I can't think of the word that I mean to use.
Sentient.

I believe that no one should be forced to have an abortion against their will. However, I've noticed that lots of people don't want other people to have abortions even when they freely choose to have them. I'm not sure why. I've always been against war and murder because they generally involve people killing other people, who don't want to die, and I wouldn't particulary want to be killed that way. However, abortion is not quite the same. If a healthy person wanted to kill themselves I would try to talk them out of it because I think that life can be enjoyable, and worries about money, grades, and relationships aren't that big a deal. But if a terminally ill person wanted to kill themselves, it wouldn't worry me. If they were a friend of mine I might be sad to see them go, but I'm not them, so I can't appreciate how they feel, and I'd respect their decision. It's similar to abortion. Abortion is not a matter of people killing people, but a woman decideing to kill part of herself that has the potential to become an independant human being. I wouldn't interfer in that situation, because I'm not the woman making the decision. It's not my choice to make. Some people say it's murder. I can sort of understand that. A fetus is like a little person, and killing people is murder. If it's murder, then it's not a serious murder. Smoking and drinking causes many fetuses to be aborted, but we don't charge the smokers and drinkers with murder. We just accept the fact that life has risks and try to minimize them where practical.

You can't kill it unless it's alive.

An unborn child is alive. Whether it's "human" or not (and I believe it is), depends on your perspective, though.

You can't kill it unless it's alive.

deffine alive

He would say, "so are abortions."what would you say ???

One thing that has always struck me as odd about this "At what point does a fetus become alive business?" is that the process of growth from day 1 doesn't actually end at birth; it ends in the persons early 20s. Birth is simply the point where the mothers body is no longer required for the delivery of nutrition and the infant is capable of enduring an open environment. This child is no where near self-sufficient is only fractionally finished with its development. One could hardly say that the organs and potential for thought are fully developed at birth, or even for years after birth. What gives here? If you want to get into birth defects, why not "abort" after birth? After all you are saving the child from a life of suffering, isn't a little cruel to force that on a child? If you REALLY want to get into the child’s best interest why not go for the free trail run and see if you are a good mother or not? You know, if things start to go apeshit you can always off your kid in his or her early tweens. After all, God only knows how screwed up that kid could be in the future and he only has the potential to be something in the future and that thing could be bad. It surely must be in the child’s best interest. It's not like its human yet or anything.

I call for post-birth abortions post-haste! Think of the poor children out there suffering from our small minded laws!

I would simply tell him "Wars are Crimes against humanity"...

More like humanities favorite sport.

Dinner has killed more organisms than any other source.

I think its the woman's choice. But I also think the woman should not be slutty and use abortion as a form of contraception.
If they do that, hell, they don't deserve an abortion.

Way to throw around the sexist stereotypes!

Do you realize that more than half the women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime?

Anyway, abortion is extremely traumatic for women to go through. So its their own personal hell if they want it.

Not true.

Abortion happens to be safer and have less negative psychological and emotional effects than childbirth.

So having a heartbeat and a unique genetic makeup and a functioning brain doesn't make something alive? Hmmmm...this really makes me wonder about what I've been referring to as my life. Perhaps I should refer to it as my "existence". And really, I can't call myself a human by those standards. Does "animate mass of tissue" work?

Unless you are deliberately playing fast and loose with "functioning," the subjects of almost all abortions are without a functioning brain.

:confused:
What is this "A Modest Proposal"?

Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a satrical essay.

A copy may be read here (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/modest.html).

"Abortion has murdered more people than all the American wars combined"

I had to write about this except using the harvesting of ICM in blastocysts, anyways basically similar stuff:

Merriam-Webster OnLine defines ‘murder’ as:

“to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”.

I am sure that the scientists who do this do it fully lawfully and bear no hate against the blastocyst. MWO also define ‘human being’ as:

“a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs”

The blastocyst is not at all bipedal. It resembles a hollowed out egg. To call it a mammal would be questionable. The brain doesn’t start to develop until roughly two months after the formation of the blastocyst. It can’t feel pain until around the twenty-sixth week. Therefore, harvesting cells from blastocysts is closer to scooping the yolk out of your hardboiled egg than it is to murder.

I was told this by a Christian who does not support abortion while at work today. I am not in favor of abortion, in the sense that I think no abortion is ever entirely a good thing, but I think it is necessary for it to be legal and overseen by the state etc. etc.

So he basically is against abortion and gave me this very awkward comparison that "Abortion has murdered more people than all the American wars combined" claiming it was 43 million or so since Roe v. Wade.

Is that kind of comparison valid? I don't think so, and would like to know how you would respond to a pro-life advocate if they said that to you.

Ask the idiot to look up a murder statute.

Hmm, I see I should have used a different word than "alive". Oops. A cell is alive, but is it alive in the same way that a human is alive?

I can't think of the word that I mean to use. Someone will have to help me out here, because I don't know quite enough to continue arguing while actually making any sense.

You'll get lots of terms recommended.

The important concept is personhood.

Persons have rights.

A zygote-embryo-fetus is not a person.

1. Well a pile of scum isn't really a person.
2. I doubt there have been even half that many abortions.

Fetuses are alive. Sperm are not alive. THey have half of the genetics they need to live. Their swimming motion is caused by a chemical reaction. Hope that debunks the masturbation=murder. TO further prove it that would mean menstruation is m,urder. And that's just silly.

1. Well a pile of scum isn't really a person.

You are correct!

2. I doubt there have been even half that many abortions.

Not to pick on you to disagree with, but that is an accurate figure for abortions in the US since 1973. (Of course, it does not count illegal abortions or abortion prior to 1973).


In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place in the US, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2000, more than 39 million legal abortions occurred in the US.

Here (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) is a reliable source.

Fetuses are alive. Sperm are not alive. THey have half of the genetics they need to live. Their swimming motion is caused by a chemical reaction. Hope that debunks the masturbation=murder. TO further prove it that would mean menstruation is m,urder. And that's just silly.

Just about as silly as abortion = murder.

Fetuses are alive. Sperm are not alive. THey have half of the genetics they need to live. Their swimming motion is caused by a chemical reaction.
Life is caused by chemical reactions.
Hope that debunks the masturbation=murder. TO further prove it that would mean menstruation is m,urder. And that's just silly.
Sperm is alive. Masturbation equal killing but masturbation does not equal murder. murder and killing are two different things. Every time I scratch my head I kill a lot of skin cells.

It is an issue which really cannot be proven either way. Nobody can really say when life begins. All divisions are purely arbitrary. However, I am anti-abortion, merely because I cannot see why anybody can say that a baby which has been born is any more a person than a baby that has not yet been born. It is not as if a new born can "think" as an adult can think, or do anything like an adult can. If anything, we should probably just let all babies be born and then drown the ones we don't like.

Sorry for the rather poor phrasing, but I am tired.

what would you say ???
It's not possible to convince pro-lifers about abortion because they think that a foetus is a sentient human.

I'm an atheist, and it mildly angers me to see people using the "soul" debate against abortion. What soul? What is this magical property you attribute to every collection of identical genetic makeup? Where do you base this idea? Where is its proof?

and etc. I'm short for time, but maybe I'll continue later.

It is an issue which really cannot be proven either way. Nobody can really say when life begins. All divisions are purely arbitrary. However, I am anti-abortion, merely because I cannot see why anybody can say that a baby which has been born is any more a person than a baby that has not yet been born. It is not as if a new born can "think" as an adult can think, or do anything like an adult can. If anything, we should probably just let all babies be born and then drown the ones we don't like.

Sorry for the rather poor phrasing, but I am tired.

Rather feeble arguments.

You -- like most you are anti-choice -- wholly ignore the only undeniably human, living person with rights effected by abortion: the mother. She is an autonomous moral agent with rights to self-ownership and bodily integrity.

Even if you make the rather ridiculous assumption that a zygote is entitled to rights, those rights do not supercede those of the woman to her own body. That you so casually strip women of the most basic human rights -- making them body slaves to clumps of cells -- because you claim we "merely" cannot be sure if zygotes are persons displays a shocking degree of either misogyny or discrimination.

A very bright line can be drawn between the viable unborn and the born or viable unborn. One set requires the usurpation of a woman's body against her will and the other does not. Q.E.D.

Moreover, viability convenient errors on the side of caution regarding personhood. Abortion in the US is not legal beyond the point of viability (roughly the end of the second trimester) except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. (Or, in a handful of states, in similar extreme cases such as rape of a minor child or extreme fetal abnormality.)

Almost 90% of all abortions in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with 59% within the first 8 weeks. Thus, the vast majority of abortions occur during the embryonic period.

Only 4.3% of abortions are performed between 16 and 20 weeks. About 1.4% are performed at over 20 weeks. Only about 0.08% are performed after 24 weeks.

So, almost no abortions -- and essentially no "elective" abortions -- occur when a fetus is remotely capable of consciousness.

Your strawman "line" between a child just before being born and just after (a) ignores the important question of being within an undeniable peson and (b) ignores the reality of both abortion law and practice.

I would gladly challenge you to explain why an embryo is entitled to a right to life that supercedes the rights of a woman to her own body but a pig lacks rights sufficient to supercede our desire for bacon.

Not human life. Certainly not during the time periods when it is permitted/occurs (first trimester).

now see i believe that life starts at conecption but really i honestly dont bother to really get involved with all the arguing screaming yelling and whatnot... i mean Abortion is GREAT if its used correctly like say a female is raped and ends up concieving then i say if she chooses Abortion then let it go but otherwise i think its absolutly wrong... thats why they make Adoption Agency's now am i right or am i wrong? i mean im open to all kinds of feed back here good or bad... i just stated an honest opinion so please dont take it wrong

What about in the case of a minor? Imagine if a girl was not legally able to have sex, got conned into it anyway, then got pregnant. Would this girl be forced to carry the child to term?

Otherwise, abortion should be generally discouraged. Not outlawed, though. Most women who choose to have an abortion (I would assume) have been thinking about it a bit. Especially if they are grown women. The women who actually get one might have actual good reasons.

You can't kill it unless it's alive.
exactly

I believe abortion is murder.

This is not the reason but for those of you who say that it's ok if the child has a disability then here's something to read anyway...

My mum was pregnant with her second child, the doctors said to her "Your baby has Down's and CF, abortion is an option and we recommend you take it"
She said that she was going ahead with the pregnancy and no she wasn't going to have an abortion. My brother was born perfectly normal.

I also know a woman who has Down's and i have known her my entire life. Her life hasn't been as easy as mine but she loves living all the same and is grateful that she wasn't aborted but instead adopted.

I believe abortion is murder.

Then you appear understand neither the concept of abortion nor the concept of murder.

But so long as you keep your belief to yourself, fine. Don't have one.

This is not the reason but for those of you who say that it's ok if the child has a disability then here's something to read anyway...

My mum was pregnant with her second child, the doctors said to her "Your baby has Down's and CF, abortion is an option and we recommend you take it"
She said that she was going ahead with the pregnancy and no she wasn't going to have an abortion. My brother was born perfectly normal.

I also know a woman who has Down's and i have known her my entire life. Her life hasn't been as easy as mine but she loves living all the same and is grateful that she wasn't aborted but instead adopted.

Heartwarming. Completely irrelevant, but heartwarming.

You can't kill it unless it's alive.

A foetus is alive. Maybe a not a person, but that's not the same thing.

Not having sex has killed more than have ever lived, in the billions and billions of lives.

Now there the 'you can't kill it if it's not alive' line is actually applicable. Not having sex doesn't kill anyone.

A foetus is alive. Maybe a not a person, but that's not the same thing.

Agreed -- and if you paid any attention, you would know that Neo-Anarchists recognized this almost immediately.

Agreed -- and if you paid any attention, you would know that Neo-Anarchists recognized this almost immediately.
It's not a matter of 'paying attention', it's a matter of bothering to read through the pages of posts. I visit NS only occasionally, and don't have the time to trawl through pages and pages of responses everything I want to respond to something. I make no apologies for this.

It's not a matter of 'paying attention', it's a matter of bothering to read through the pages of posts. I visit NS only occasionally, and don't have the time to trawl through pages and pages of responses everything I want to respond to something. I make no apologies for this.

Apparently you didn't make it a few post further than the one you respond to -- all the way to page 2.

That is fine. No one demanded an apology.

And, as I stated, your correction was accurate. In fact, you get two gold stars for recognizing the proper question is "person" -- neither alive nor human being.

I believe abortion is murder.

This is not the reason but for those of you who say that it's ok if the child has a disability then here's something to read anyway...

My mum was pregnant with her second child, the doctors said to her "Your baby has Down's and CF, abortion is an option and we recommend you take it"
She said that she was going ahead with the pregnancy and no she wasn't going to have an abortion. My brother was born perfectly normal.

I also know a woman who has Down's and i have known her my entire life. Her life hasn't been as easy as mine but she loves living all the same and is grateful that she wasn't aborted but instead adopted.

Same thing happened to me. Some of the placenta leaked out and all the protines fooled the test. But abortion is hardly murder. The definition of murder is: 'To kill with the intent to do malice'.
If a seventeen year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant I wouldn't call aborting the pregnancy malicious. I'd call it merciful.
I dont agree with 30 year old women aborting pregnancies just because their husband forgot to wear a rubber. But in cases where someone is raped or a naive teenager gets pressured into sex, I don't think that they should have to live with it for the rest of their life.
I don't think that putting the baby up for adoption is a good idea. The vast majority of adopted children expierience depression and become very confused about their identity.
I do agree with abortion under certain circumstances but I don't agree with abortion for convinience,