NationStates Jolt Archive

joke which isn't as funny as a dead baby.

...tasty side dish. :)

I'm not religious.

But abortion is murder.

Are you referencing the born or the unborn?

You didn't include stillborn.

Racist.

I don't see what abortion has to do with babies, are you sure you didn't mean fetus?
And wouldn't it have been better to start your thread with an actual argument, and preferably not make it but post your argument in the threads we already have about abortion?
Also, I don't think a baby is a person, so I don't see anything wrong with euthanising unwanted babies (including wanted for adoption)

Are you referencing the born or the unborn?

Are you referencing the born or the unborn?

Does it matter?

Can we abort this thread? *gets a coat hanger*

I'm not religious.

But abortion is murder.

I agree that abortion is murder.

But I still support it and would be willing to undergo it myself if it were not for my current non-pregnant state due to being male.

Does it matter?

Oh course not, seeing as those ungodly anti-life subhumans are actively murdering born babies.
The baby does unquestionably exist fully developed inside it's mother while aware and conscious. Just as god intended.

...juicy.

Can we abort this thread? *gets a coat hanger*

No, it must linger on in agony for at least 15 pages.

Only if it's a white baby thread. The brown baby threads got to live so they can take over the United States thread as part of the global conspiracy to oppress the white threads.

Oh. Yeah, I almost forgot about that.

What do we call conservative politicians and voters who oppose such measures as sex education, contraceptives, social services, the educational and economic empowerment of women, and all kinds of other measures that would effectively abolish the practice of abortion entirely?

Babies?

I don't see what abortion has to do with babies, are you sure you didn't mean fetus?
And wouldn't it have been better to start your thread with an actual argument, and preferably not make it but post your argument in the threads we already have about abortion?
Also, I don't think a baby is a person, so I don't see anything wrong with euthanising unwanted babies (including wanted for adoption)

And why, of all things, would a baby not be a person (I'm not talking about fetuses but actual babies)? Clearly alive and equipped with human DNA, why would it be anything but?

What do we call conservative politicians and voters who oppose such measures as sex education, contraceptives, social services, the educational and economic empowerment of women, and all kinds of other measures that would effectively abolish the practice of abortion entirely?

Paulbots. :)

My opinion on this is that the child is officially a human being distinguishable from the mother from the point at which it could conceivably grow into adulthood if separated from the mother. Abortion is the mother's business prior to this point, but an infringement on the child's rights after it.

Can we abort this thread? *gets a coat hanger*

Only if it's a white baby thread. The brown baby threads got to live so they can take over the United States thread as part of the global conspiracy to oppress the white threads.

A baby is a human, but a fetus is not a baby.

Don't you see? You are murdering babies! MURDERING SMALL, CUTE, BABIES! YOU MONSTER! I hope you die and go to hell!

But abortion is murder.

What do we call conservative politicians and voters who oppose such measures as sex education, contraceptives, social services, the educational and economic empowerment of women, and all kinds of other measures that would effectively abolish the practice of abortion entirely?

A baby is a human, but a fetus is not a baby.

What do we call conservative politicians and voters who oppose such measures as sex education, contraceptives, social services, the educational and economic empowerment of women, and all kinds of other measures that would effectively abolish the practice of abortion entirely?

Stupid. We could avoid the entire controversy by some better sex-ed and the like.

Only if it's a white baby thread. The brown baby threads got to live so they can take over the United States thread as part of the global conspiracy to oppress the white threads.

This thread is white. Can't you see the background?

This thread is white. Can't you see the background?

Oh, well I'm liberal... I'm colorblind. I just figured it was a really pale pinkish yellow-green, since that's the color used for almost all paper and stuff.

fetus =/= baby.

Oh, well I'm liberal... I'm colorblind. I just figured it was a really pale pinkish yellow-green, since that's the color used for almost all paper and stuff.

That's exactly what the Jewish-Communist Conspiracy wants you to think... DONT GIVE IN TO THE ISLAMOFASCISTS!!!

Paulbots. :)



Stupid.


I was going for "murderers," but these are accurate as well.

And why, of all things, would a baby not be a person (I'm not talking about fetuses but actual babies)? Clearly alive and equipped with human DNA, why would it be anything but?

It doesn't have the level of consciousness and other attributes required to be considered a person imo. A baby can't even wish to stay alive since it can't grasp the concept of living.

If you consider a baby to be a person, what makes a baby a person and a fetus not a person? Fetuses are alive and equipped with human DNA as well. So are zygotes, but I don't see how you can call one cell a person.

A baby is a human.

However a fetus is a choice.

Once again, as I say to every pro-lifer. Call it murder if you please, but if you really thought 40 million children were being legally murdered in your own country, you would have rioted and lit DC on fire by now.

fetus =/= baby.

Aha, but a fetus WILL BE a baby, if it isn't murdered before it gets a chance to!

Therefore it's like killing a baby.

...

Also, a baby WILL BE a corpse, so killing babies is really just like killing corpses. They're already dead, it's perfectly OK morally. Thank you, Christian Fundamentalism, for your logic.

Stupid. We could avoid the entire controversy by some better sex-ed and the like.

Right, because surely no one would ever, anywhere engage in irresponsible sexual activity if we instructed them a little better and handed out free condoms.

So, if politicians decided to educate a little better (even though I was instructed quite adequatly even in an abstinance only system), and raise taxes to give condoms to thirteen-year olds, no one ever, anywhere, in any situation, at any time, for any reason would ever get an abortion.

What if the condom breaks, is defective, or is used improperly and unwanted pregnancy results? Well, clearly no abortion could ever happen ever again anywhere ever, as you stated in your post, so I guess the baby would by default be wanted because of an educational label difference.

Thats just stupid.

The 'whole' debate will never be ended, you have people on one side arguing for the rights of living beings!

You have people on the other side arguing for the rights of living beings!

It is stupid to think that legislation in either, or any possible direction will make one side 'realize' that they are wrong.

Can we abort this thread? *gets a coat hanger*
*attaches coat hanger to power drill*

2500 RPM's of abortive power.

Don't you see? You are murdering babies! MURDERING SMALL, CUTE, BABIES! YOU MONSTER! I hope you die and go to hell!

The "die" part I can do...hell, well...we'll all see about that soon enough.

and fetus still doesn't equal baby.

It doesn't have the level of consciousness and other attributes required to be considered a person imo. A baby can't even wish to stay alive since it can't grasp the concept of living.

If you consider a baby to be a person, what makes a baby a person and a fetus not a person? Fetuses are alive and equipped with human DNA as well. So are zygotes, but I don't see how you can call one cell a person.

That's no reason to go about euthanizing it. Your view makes me question your humanity, should I come over and euthanize you? Fetuses during the second and third trimester are alive. Before that point the ground gets shaky, and it's during this uncertain first trimester that most abortions take place.

So, if politicians decided to educate a little better (even though I was instructed quite adequatly even in an abstinance only system), and raise taxes to give condoms to thirteen-year olds, no one ever, anywhere, in any situation, at any time, for any reason would ever get an abortion.


Please explain why politicians or taxes are necessary in order to provide the sex education, contraceptives, social services, economic and social empowerment and other measures necessary to bring an end to abortion. Politicians are the ones who have screwed this all up to begin with.

Seriously, if religious and other conservatives put half as much of their own labor and lucre into the above as they put into stacking courts Supreme, abortion would be a non-issue.

I went with other.
A baby is a baby. Not entirely human, nowhere near a choice for most people, see China law on only 1 child (i think).
You could argue a baby is a blank slate or if you're feeling fancy (tabla rasa), they are innocent. Does anyone remember that thread about those fake babies made? (not dolls but made to look as real as possible), very odd things they were, but those people would love the choice to have a baby (i'll assume they can't have babies) so you could argue as a result of being denied a baby they have no choice but to gain a baby by another means so a baby to them is a demand not a choice.
And i suppose you could argue abortion is murder, but not the sort of blood and guts murder you might think of, as no one knows what that fetus could grow up to be, or how much suffering was diverted from killing that fetus maybe that fetus (according to Buddhist belief) had committed a voilent crime and deserved to die. Touble with these arguments are they are fairly cold and do not do justice to what other humans really are and make an assumption at some point.
Yet in a ideal society no abortions would need to be carried out, however because society is not ideal in the least abortions are demanded in some cases to be carried out for certain circumstances.
I know my arguments are not ideal for supporting abortion but this is not an ideal world either.
I hope that helps, okay got to go for now, look back in a few days.

Click Stand;13404173']Guys remember that when a girl askes you to have sex, if you don't say yes, you are a MURDERER. you are ending a potential lif each time you don't wear provocative clothing.

There is a big difference between a potential potential life and a potential life.

Lets say I have 5 dollars. Now, this could potentially be exchanged for some sort of five dollar item, like... Uraguay.
However, waiting for someone to pay me 5 dollars so I could potentially buy a country is another matter entirely.

Guys remember that when a girl askes you to have sex, if you don't say yes, you are a MURDERER. you are ending a potential lif each time you don't wear provocative clothing.

Click Stand;13404173']Guys remember that when a girl askes you to have sex, if you don't say yes, you are a MURDERER. you are ending a potential lif each time you don't wear provocative clothing.

No worries. I don't want to be convicted of homicide. Gosh!

It doesn't have the level of consciousness and other attributes required to be considered a person imo. A baby can't even wish to stay alive since it can't grasp the concept of living.

If you consider a baby to be a person, what makes a baby a person and a fetus not a person? Fetuses are alive and equipped with human DNA as well. So are zygotes, but I don't see how you can call one cell a person.

I would say that being human and being a person are too separate things. A human fetus is different than a chicken fetus, because neither will develop into the other. A person, on the other hand, is a human in a much more advanced stage of development than a fetus, and it is too peoplethat we accord rights (and responsibilities). Given that only a human fetus will develop into a person, a pregnant mother has a responsibility to ensure the survival of a fetus to allow it to develop into a person, at least from a net biological standpoint. However, she is under no obligation to do so; religious and moral stipulations aside, a fetus is not a person, though it is human, and technically only the mother can make the decision to abort the pregnancy. So, then, the question becomes (or already has been, but in different terms): is murder committed against people, or is it against humans? If the latter, then it is not murder, but moral (read: religious) opposition that defines abortion. I am of the opinion that to terminate a pregnancy is an act of killing, but it is not murder, at least as we define it as a criminal and moral offense.

In this way it is similar to a preventive war. The act is perpetrated on the grounds that Country A may, eventually, constitute a threat to the interests of Country B, and so B acts to prevent what could be, though it is not yet the reality.

Likewise, an abortion is used on a human fetus that might develop into a person, given the right (normal) conditions, but the person has yet to be realized. Abortion prevents the normal development into personhood, but as it is not a person cannot be accorded the same rights and recognition actualized people.

In short, abortion is not murder because fetuses, though human, are not people.

A baby is a human, but a fetus is not a baby.

A baby is not human. A human is an animal that can communicate with words

A human is an animal that can communicate with words

So, deaf-mute people are not human? People who have expressive aphasia aren't human? People who have no larynx aren't human?

So, deaf-mute people are not human? People who have expressive aphasia aren't human? People who have no larynx aren't human?

Yes.

Sorry Im not the one who came up with that criteria.

Yes.

Sorry Im not the one who came up with that criteria.

Who did?

Who did?

I don't know but I've heard it from many different people

I don't know but I've heard it from many different people

As far as I know, you might not be a person.

So, deaf-mute people are not human? People who have expressive aphasia aren't human? People who have no larynx aren't human?

Good call on that one! And on top of that, babies can grow and learn and will eventually talk (unless they have some sort of disease or birth defect that would otherwise prevent this). Their basic structure and the structure of their DNA isn't any different than any other human's. And if they're not human, than what the Nazi's did in concentration camps to them could count as, I don't know, sport perhaps.
BTW, what they did was toss them in the air and shoot them for target practice.

As far as I know, you might not be a person.

Yeah I'm a quiet person so I guess I'm less human
And bilingual people are extra human

This didn't seem to make too much sense. If we were talking about a fetus this might make sense in a way.

People who post on NSG aren't human either. I am quite sure I read that somewhere.

I don't know but I've heard it from many different people

Those people didn't just happen to be in your head, did they?

Goes great with Pork Chop and Veal! :D

...potentially productive member of society. Their right to exist is entirely dependent upon the need for additional people. Up until the point that they actually contribute to society, that right can be restricted. It is living in the same sense that a monkey is alive.

Yeah I'm a quiet person so I guess I'm less human
And bilingual people are extra human

NO ONLY PEOPLE WHO TALK LIKE THIS ARE EXTRA HUMAN!:upyours:

Emoticon for extra emphasis.

Those people didn't just happen to be in your head, did they?

No :( its number 7 on this list.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080120172720AABmbtj
But this is not the only place I've heard it

...fully formed human who can survive without being connected to his mother's uterine wall.

No :( its number 7 on this list.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080120172720AABmbtj
But this is not the only place I've heard it

I should hope not. Yahoo Answers is like an unmoderated version of Wikipedia.

...tasty side dish. :)

What I was thinking.

the future that for a precious nine months makes the woman it inhabits sexier than usual.


PRREEEYEOOWWWWWWWWWWW :p

I don't see what abortion has to do with babies, are you sure you didn't mean fetus?
And wouldn't it have been better to start your thread with an actual argument, and preferably not make it but post your argument in the threads we already have about abortion?
Also, I don't think a baby is a person, so I don't see anything wrong with euthanising unwanted babies (including wanted for adoption)

I DONT THINK YOUR A PERSON, I THINK YOUR A COLD BLOODED SNAKE, ITS YOU THAT SHOULD BE EUTHANISED

This didn't seem to make too much sense. If we were talking about a fetus this might make sense in a way.

A FETUS IS A BABY YOU FREAKS

I don't know but I've heard it from many different people

So? What gives them the right to determine who is human?I have heard from several people that astrology is correct. Nevertheless, the movements of Jupiter do not control me.

A FETUS IS A BABY YOU FREAKS

7/16ths of an inch.

A baby is a human, but a fetus is not a baby.

AND HOW DO YOU FIGURE THAT

People who post on NSG aren't human either. I am quite sure I read that somewhere.

From what I've seen of humans lately, I take it as a compliment. :)

a Fetus Is A Baby You Freaks

O Rly

THE WILLIAMSONS, cut it out now!

This entire post is flaming:I DONT THINK YOUR A PERSON, I THINK YOUR A COLD BLOODED SNAKE, ITS YOU THAT SHOULD BE EUTHANISED

The bolded part of this is a flame:

A FETUS IS A BABY YOU FREAKS

Continued flaming will get you banned.

BTW, posting in capitals is considered shouting, and shouting is not a viable argument.

You are not the only poster who opposes abortion. Others, however, manage to do so politely, without reflecting on the posters who hold different opinions.

They also use arguments. I strongly recommend you learn to do so too, or your career on NS will be short and inglorious.

I'm pretty sure The Williamsons is a puppet anyhow.

I'm pretty sure The Williamsons is a puppet anyhow.

Having a hand up his ass would certainly explain why he's so tense. *nod*

Can we abort this thread? *gets a coat hanger*
/thread

...commodity.

a baby is something humans make way too many of. it is a small one of themselves. not that it has any less 'right' to survive then any other life form, but, humans are screwing up their planet by making too many of them.

the obvious and rational answer would be to painlessly and otherwise harmlessly lower all human fertility accross the board without bias or exception. and NOT starting with the smallest or most 'inconvenient' population segments either, but with the largest and/or most dominant, should the latter not also be the former.

this needs to be done in a far more thoroughly and long lastingly effective manor then mere verbal aggrements, whatever emotions of commitment go with them, nor overtly draconian measures, such as grand old lets all wipe out as many of each other as we can either. (which btw, has the unfortunate cosiquence of whenever they get a break between doing so they just make more babies twice as fast, thus preventing this approach from really accomplishing the desired end other then relatively briefly)

i would suggest putting something totally nondiscriminatory and otherwise harmless to all nonhuman life forms, that would simply lower all human fertility, somehow into either the hydrologic or atmospheric cycles. or possibly the food supply, but it may be harder to prevent that last from being discriminatory, where as air and water can be nearly guaranteed to be.

=^^=
.../\...

I'm not religious.

But abortion is murder.
true, unless it was due to rape, or would kill the mother, then your just being a selfish bastard, sicne you knew what you were getting into

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/iatebaby.wav

:)

...tasty side dish. :)And makes a nice handbag. You've been reading too much Swift.

So, deaf-mute people are not human? People who have expressive aphasia aren't human? People who have no larynx aren't human?

Deaf-mutes could be using words to post on this forum, right now. Same with the no larynx people.

Does it matter?

Yes.

The unborn (either embryo or foetus) is a potential human individual - it isn't actual yet, because it exists only because of its parasitic relationship (in the strict meaning of it: it survives and grows because it uses a direct access to another human body's systems, while not having the same genoma of the hosting body). It isn't an individual (individual = a single unit, that cannot be split into two parts, each of those parts being still functional and retaining previous identity).

The born is an actual human individual.

AND HOW DO YOU FIGURE THAT

Because otherwise we would not need the term "fetus."

That's no reason to go about euthanizing it. Your view makes me question your humanity, should I come over and euthanize you? Fetuses during the second and third trimester are alive. Before that point the ground gets shaky, and it's during this uncertain first trimester that most abortions take place.

No, I'm a person, babies and fetuses aren't. If you can wish to stay alive you have the right to live, babies and fetuses don't know they are alive therefore have no right to live.
Let's say you have a baby and it is really severely handicapped, let's say it's deaf, mute and in constant pain, doctors estimate it won't live more than 5 years, but in agonizing pain. I think actively euthanizing it would be better than waiting until it dies from natural causes.
Also note that I said that euthanasia would be ok only if the parents want it and nobody wants to adopt it (I also assumed that abortion is legal, so people don't have to carry their baby to terms if the pregnancy was unwanted), this only applies in very limited circumstances. Actually the only situation I can see it happen is where the baby is severely handicapped. It's already a routine procedure to check the baby for severe handicaps in the womb so people can consider abortion if they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term, I don't see why I would support that and not infanticide.

I DONT THINK YOUR A PERSON, I THINK YOUR A COLD BLOODED SNAKE, ITS YOU THAT SHOULD BE EUTHANISED

I'm quite certain I'm a person and not a snake. And since I wish to stay alive I think euthanizing me would be wrong. Fetuses and babies can't wish this, since they aren't self-aware and can't see themselves as a person independent from time and space and don't have other attributes necessary to be considered a person :fluffle:

A FETUS IS A BABY YOU FREAKS

No it isn't. Here, read some wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus).
A fetus is a mammal after the embryonic stage and before birth. A baby is a human being after birth and before it can walk, or becomes one year or some similar meaningless limit.

So, deaf-mute people are not human? People who have expressive aphasia aren't human? People who have no larynx aren't human?

Can I just say that as a person on a deaf studies course with deaf friends, family, colleagues and tutors this is one of the most offensive things Ive ever heard (dont worry Fass, I know its not your opinion!)


Deaf people (the term 'deaf-mute' is fairly offensive) have every bit as much humanity and right to life as a 'normal' baby. The Deaf Culture and Deaf Community are extraordinary and have every right to exist - why should they be forced to perish because someone decides that they are wrong?

I don't know but I've heard it from many different people

Anyone in particular? Anyone with credibility?

...very Bad Idea.

Does it matter?

Yeah, I'd say it matters if we're talking about a collection of cells multiplying or something that's vaguely sentient...:rolleyes:

Yeah, I'd say it matters if we're talking about a collection of cells multiplying or something that's vaguely sentient...:rolleyes:
Well, you can understand why anti-choicers would oppose using sentience as a required element of human personhood...

baby.

Do I win?Anyone that asks automatically loses.

E´DIT: Even before they ask, apparently... =D

baby.

Do I win?

Am I too late to reference the fact that I eat babies?

Am I too late to reference the fact that I eat babies?
It's never too late for baby-eating.

It's never too late for baby-eating.Yes it is. Ireland's economy is booming and the potato famine is history.

Yes it is. Ireland's economy is booming and the potato famine is history.

Pst...

>.>
<.<

I'm not supposed to tell you, but... the Irish grow babies in the fields these days. And eat them in stew, they're cheaper than potatoes. Only occasionally they keep them as pets, and then they grow up and the family forces them to emmigrate to the US and Australia.


Don't tell anyone!

But's it's always good to have a backup plan in the event of a market crash.Wait for people to run out of handbags before blowing the dust off a Modest Proposal :p

Yes it is. Ireland's economy is booming and the potato famine is history.

But's it's always good to have a backup plan in the event of a market crash.

Yes it is. Ireland's economy is booming and the potato famine is history.

The potato famine isn't gone, we still don't have any potatoes. We just subsist on babies now. They're like potatoes, except bigger, and with more protein.

Depends. I happen to think they are a waste of money, however, when discussing the subject with my girlfriend, I think they're a wonderful blessing.

No, I'm a person, babies and fetuses aren't. If you can wish to stay alive you have the right to live, babies and fetuses don't know they are alive therefore have no right to live.

So it should be legal to kill me while I sleep?

Let's say you have a baby and it is really severely handicapped, let's say it's deaf, mute and in constant pain, doctors estimate it won't live more than 5 years, but in agonizing pain. I think actively euthanizing it would be better than waiting until it dies from natural causes.

It would be better with any human.

Also note that I said that euthanasia would be ok only if the parents want it and nobody wants to adopt it (I also assumed that abortion is legal, so people don't have to carry their baby to terms if the pregnancy was unwanted), this only applies in very limited circumstances. Actually the only situation I can see it happen is where the baby is severely handicapped. It's already a routine procedure to check the baby for severe handicaps in the womb so people can consider abortion if they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term, I don't see why I would support that and not infanticide.

Because you do not know if infants are aware or not. I am betting they are to some degree.

I'm quite certain I'm a person and not a snake.

Indeed. Snakes are much more noble.

And since I wish to stay alive I think euthanizing me would be wrong. Fetuses and babies can't wish this, since they aren't self-aware and can't see themselves as a person independent from time and space and don't have other attributes necessary to be considered a person :fluffle:

A "person" is a biological definition. Not some philosophical stage. It is like being told you are "grown-up". The legal period is 18 (in this nation) despite emotional maturity. You also gain the rights of person in this nation once you have fully developed the the body structure (brain, liver, heart, ect.), and are alive.

A "person" is a biological definition.
No, actually, it is not.

Biology does not tell you what definition you should use for "personhood."

Biology can tell you if something is human. It can tell you if something has complex organs. It can tell you if something has a nervous system. Biology can help you evaluate the various capabilities, needs, and functions of a given living thing.

But biology cannot tell you if something is a "person."

If you decide on a definition of what a "person" is, biology can tell you whether or not a given living thing has the qualities you have defined as being necessary for personhood. But biology cannot tell you whether or not you picked the "right" qualities for your definition.

No, actually, it is not.

Biology does not tell you what definition you should use for "personhood."

Biology can tell you if something is human. It can tell you if something has complex organs. It can tell you if something has a nervous system. Biology can help you evaluate the various capabilities, needs, and functions of a given living thing.

But biology cannot tell you if something is a "person."

If you decide on a definition of what a "person" is, biology can tell you whether or not a given living thing has the qualities you have defined as being necessary for personhood. But biology cannot tell you whether or not you picked the "right" qualities for your definition.

I was under the impression that "person" and "human" were synonymous. If you know of something contrary to that notion, please do share.

A "person" is a biological definition. Bullshit.

I was under the impression that "person" and "human" were synonymous.

Biologically speaking, they absolutely positively are NOT.

Biologically speaking, every cell of your body is human. But every cell of your body is obviously not a person.


If you know of something contrary to that notion, please do share.
Biology doesn't really deal with "personhood." Biology cannot tell us how we should define "personhood."

Now, if you want to point at something and say, "This is a person," Biology can tell you a whole fuckton about that individual.

If you point at something else and say, "This is not a person," Biology can tell you a lot about that, too.

If you then point at a third something and say, "Is this a person?" Biology can tell you which qualities that third something shares with your Person and which it shares with your Not-Person. But Biology cannot tell you which qualities are most important for Personhood. It cannot tell you what your standards should be. Biology doesn't do "shoulds" of that sort.

So it should be legal to kill me while I sleep?

No, you're a person, even if you sleep, babies aren't.

It would be better with any human.

I agree, unfortunately this isn't how it's done right now, there are enough stories of handicapped children that are being kept alive against the parents their will, and there is no active way to terminate their life. (although I must admit that I think this is how it is done, maybe a lawyer could clear up the specifics about euthanasia-law)


Because you do not know if infants are aware or not. I am betting they are to some degree.

Maybe they are aware to some degree, but I don't think you can call them persons. They have no concept of life and death, they don't have a biographical identity, they can't see themselves separate from space and time etc. They don't care if they live, because they can't know that they live.


A "person" is a biological definition. Not some philosophical stage. It is like being told you are "grown-up". The legal period is 18 (in this nation) despite emotional maturity. You also gain the rights of person in this nation once you have fully developed the the body structure (brain, liver, heart, ect.), and are alive.

No, person is philosophical, human is biological.

Biologically speaking, they absolutely positively are NOT.

Biologically speaking, every cell of your body is human. But every cell of your body is obviously not a person.


Biology doesn't really deal with "personhood." Biology cannot tell us how we should define "personhood."

Now, if you want to point at something and say, "This is a person," Biology can tell you a whole fuckton about that individual.

If you point at something else and say, "This is not a person," Biology can tell you a lot about that, too.

If you then point at a third something and say, "Is this a person?" Biology can tell you which qualities that third something shares with your Person and which it shares with your Not-Person. But Biology cannot tell you which qualities are most important for Personhood. It cannot tell you what your standards should be. Biology doesn't do "shoulds" of that sort.

Science in general doesn't. What we consider to be a person is effectively who we decide to give rights to. Science has nothing to do with rights. Unless someone discovers a molecule of a right..........

It's actually a particle. And it's called the right-on.

If you're talking about quarks I should get a medal for realising it. If not, lets just pretend this post never happened.

Science in general doesn't. What we consider to be a person is effectively who we decide to give rights to. Science has nothing to do with rights. Unless someone discovers a molecule of a right..........

It's actually a particle. And it's called the right-on.

Biologically speaking, they absolutely positively are NOT.

Biologically speaking, every cell of your body is human. But every cell of your body is obviously not a person.


Biology doesn't really deal with "personhood." Biology cannot tell us how we should define "personhood."

Now, if you want to point at something and say, "This is a person," Biology can tell you a whole fuckton about that individual.

If you point at something else and say, "This is not a person," Biology can tell you a lot about that, too.

If you then point at a third something and say, "Is this a person?" Biology can tell you which qualities that third something shares with your Person and which it shares with your Not-Person. But Biology cannot tell you which qualities are most important for Personhood. It cannot tell you what your standards should be. Biology doesn't do "shoulds" of that sort.

I see. So human is a biological term, but person is a ethical term. It seems a bit arbitrary to me, but I certainly trust you on it.

No, you're a person, even if you sleep, babies aren't.

But you have to be "self-aware" to be a person. While I am sleeping I am not. A prime time to terminate me.

I agree, unfortunately this isn't how it's done right now, there are enough stories of handicapped children that are being kept alive against the parents their will, and there is no active way to terminate their life. (although I must admit that I think this is how it is done, maybe a lawyer could clear up the specifics about euthanasia-law)


You will not find any arguments here. I think any kind of suicide should be legal.


Maybe they are aware to some degree, but I don't think you can call them persons. They have no concept of life and death, they don't have a biographical identity, they can't see themselves separate from space and time etc. They don't care if they live, because they can't know that they live.

I do not care if I live while I sleep, nor do I know. You still said I would be human.

No, person is philosophical, human is biological.

I do not really believe personal philosophies should decide our laws.

Well, you can understand why anti-choicers would oppose using sentience as a required element of human personhood...

Ba-Zing! :D

But you have to be "self-aware" to be a person. While I am sleeping I am not. A prime time to terminate me.

EDIT: You have an interest in staying alive, a baby doesn't since it can't wish to stay alive. Even if you don't wish to stay alive at a certain moment (because you sleep for instance) you have an interest to stay alive because you have made plans etc. Babies don't make plans, they don't know that they're alive and they don't know what death is, they don't even know that they are an entity separate from their surroundings or time. So they don't have an interest in staying alive.


You will not find any arguments here. I think any kind of suicide should be legal.

Babies can't commit suicide.

I do not care if I live while I sleep, nor do I know. You still said I would be human.

Of course you would be human, a baby is human too.

I do not really believe personal philosophies should decide our laws.

:confused: What do you think should decide our laws then? All laws are guided by the personal philosophies of the people who make them.

If we wake you up you are, if we wake the baby up they aren't.

They take time to grow. What if I were heavily sedated?

You've also made plans etc for the future, babies haven't. Killing you would stop you from executing those plans and stop future happiness.

That is quite cute. Where you get the idea that I have "made plans", I know not. Where you get the idea that the future will bring me happiness, I know not.

Babies can't commit suicide.


No, they cannot. But we can calculate the possibilities of what they would prefer.

Of course you would be human, a baby is human too.

Sorry, "person".

:confused: What do you think should decide our laws then? All laws are guided by the personal philosophies of the people who make them.

I think our laws should have a logical goal for society at large, and then strive toward that goal by any means required. I find abortion reprehensive for instance (it is against my philosophy), but I still think it should be legal.

I'm not religious.

But abortion is murder.

nah. the way i see it, a ball of cells is

a) not sentient, and as such not particlarly alive (by my standards)... and certainly not a baby

b) very much similar to the ball of cells a woman will pass out of her body in menstruation EVERY MONTH. if abortion is murder, are all women murderers also?

c) on the assumption abortion is muder, miscarriages (aka "spontaneous abortions") are also murder, no? what should happen to these murderous women?

I see. So human is a biological term, but person is a ethical term. It seems a bit arbitrary to me, but I certainly trust you on it.
It may seem arbitrary, but it really is kind of a huge ethical point for biologists.

It's really, really important to understand that science can't answer this type of question for you. Science can't tell you which moral values to hold. It just doesn't work that way.

One of the reasons it's so important to get this is because you have to know that ethics aren't built in to science. Science is amoral. Not moral, not immoral, just amoral. Science isn't going to guide itself toward ethical and moral ends. Ethics and morals have to come from PEOPLE.

Surely a baby is a human, but fetus is not. Simply as hell.

It may seem arbitrary, but it really is kind of a huge ethical point for biologists.

It's really, really important to understand that science can't answer this type of question for you. Science can't tell you which moral values to hold. It just doesn't work that way.

One of the reasons it's so important to get this is because you have to know that ethics aren't built in to science. Science is amoral. Not moral, not immoral, just amoral. Science isn't going to guide itself toward ethical and moral ends. Ethics and morals have to come from PEOPLE.

Well, to be honest I think most of the morals humans have come-up with do more harm than good.


moral, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right. Having the quality of general expediency.

It is sayd there be a raunge of mountaynes in the Easte, on one syde of the which certayn conducts are immorall, yet on the other syde they are holden in good esteeme; wherebye the mountayneer is much conveenyenced, for it is given to him to goe downe eyther way and act as it shall suite his moode, withouten offence.
- Gooke's Meditations

Well, to be honest I think most of the morals humans have come-up with do more harm than good.
Regardless, humans are the only source for morality that we've got. Science won't provide morality for anybody.

Believe me, there are times I wish it could. ;)

nah. the way i see it, a ball of cells is
a) not sentient, and as such not particlarly alive (by my standards)... and certainly not a baby


b) very much similar to the ball of cells a woman will pass out of her body in menstruation EVERY MONTH. if abortion is murder, are all women murderers also?
Very much similar as in not at all alike. Remember, for a fetus to develop the egg requires a sperm cell. On top of that, there is a massive difference between a natural, involuntary action, and a voluntary medical procedure.
c) on the assumption abortion is muder, miscarriages (aka "spontaneous abortions") are also murder, no? what should happen to these murderous women?
Again....there is a massive difference between a biological, involuntary action, and a voluntary medical procedure.

Very much similar as in not at all alike. Remember, for a fetus to develop the egg requires a sperm cell.

1) No, it doesn't. (Yay science!)
2) A fetus also requires a whole crapton of other substances in order to develop, substances which are all currently more essential than a sperm cell. Yet we still have people insisting that it's the Magic Sperm which confers personhood, and not any of these other substances. Why is that?
3) Fertilized eggs are routinely expelled from the female body. Indeed, a fertilized egg is statistically more likely to be expelled from the female body than it is to ever develop into an embryo (let alone a fetus or an infant).


On top of that, there is a massive difference between a natural, involuntary action, and a voluntary medical procedure.

There's also a massive difference between a fertilized egg and a human fetus, but such distinctions don't seem to matter much in this discussion.

Wait.. a fetus can develop with only an egg and no sperm?:confused:

Two eggs, actually. Yay science. :p

1) No, it doesn't. (Yay science!)

Wait.. a fetus can develop with only an egg and no sperm?:confused:
2) A fetus also requires a whole crapton of other substances in order to develop, substances which are all currently more essential than a sperm cell. Yet we still have people insisting that it's the Magic Sperm which confers personhood, and not any of these other substances. Why is that?
I was not aware of that. Probably due to male bias in society. *nod*
3) Fertilized eggs are routinely expelled from the female body. Indeed, a fertilized egg is statistically more likely to be expelled from the female body than it is to ever develop into an embryo (let alone a fetus or an infant).
Crazy. Fertilization is like a death sentence it seems.
There's also a massive difference between a fertilized egg and a human fetus, but such distinctions don't seem to matter much in this discussion.
I guess not. But at any rate, having a miscarriage is not quite the same as opting for an abortion.

Why oh why, do we have two abortion threads on the front page?:headbang:

Anyone else getting sick of the debate?

I guess not. But at any rate, having a miscarriage is not quite the same as opting for an abortion.

fair point. there is a large difference there. but its still ok by me considering bottle's quote below



There's also a massive difference between a fertilized egg and a human fetus, but such distinctions don't seem to matter much in this discussion.

booya!

Wait.. a fetus can develop with only an egg and no sperm?:confused:

Yep.

It's actually not that surprising, really, though it's pretty cool science. Sperm basically don't contribute anything except for genetic material. All the necessary cellular machinery is present in the egg cell. The sperm doesn't provide any of the raw materials needed to build a zygote or embryo or fetus or baby, either, since those are provided by the female body (or, theoretically, by artificial means).

We currently have the technology to fertilize human eggs without ever needing a human sperm. It's not how things work in the wild, of course, but it is certainly possible.

Crazy. Fertilization is like a death sentence it seems.

Well, a fertilized egg has about a 40-50% chance of implanting, on average. Between 10 and 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (depending on which sources you use), and the majority of these miscarriages occur so early on that the woman is not even aware that she was pregnant.

This is one of the main reasons that it is very silly to insist that human personhood begins at fertilization. Statistically speaking, a fertilized egg isn't likely to ever become an embryo, let alone a born human infant, and that's even assuming that the mother WANTS to become pregnant.

Every born human person is actually an example of a fertilized egg which beat the odds!


I guess not. But at any rate, having a miscarriage is not quite the same as opting for an abortion.
True.

Why oh why, do we have two abortion threads on the front page?:headbang:

Anyone else getting sick of the debate?
Frankly?

Yes. Yes I am.

I'm very tired of having to explain the same fundamentals over and over. I'm tired of having to refute the same craptacular non-arguments over and over. It's not really that fun to demolish lazy, sloppy statements made by ill-informed individuals.

But I keep doing it because I feel it is important not to let their ignorance stand unchallenged. I don't think it's good to let folks post flawed logic or factually incorrect statements without being called out on their bunk.

Maybe it's just that I've watched Spiderman one too many times (definitely possible), but I believe that with knowledge comes responsibility. One of those responsibilities is to help educate others. Another is to identify bunk and smoosh it.

We currently have the technology to fertilize human eggs without ever needing a human sperm. It's not how things work in the wild, of course, but it is certainly possible.

We almost have the technology. One group has reported successful cloned embryos, but it hasn't been confirmed by other groups yet. Also, trying to have that embryo implant and create viable offspring will be a whole new technological hurdle.

At least, cloning is what I assume you're talking about. Parthenogenesis doesn't really happen in human beings either, and while egg fusion has been attempted, it also has not resulted in viable offspring in human beings.

Unless you're aware of some really cool technology that I am not?


Edit: I just noticed you only said "fertilize". I don't think it really answers Ban-ned's question though:
Wait.. a fetus can develop with only an egg and no sperm?

The answer to this would be no, when referring to a human fetus. But that "no" will likely be a "yes" at some point.

We almost have the technology. One group has reported successful cloned embryos, but it hasn't been confirmed by other groups yet. Also, trying to have that embryo implant and create viable offspring will be a whole new technological hurdle.

We've been able to do this with non-human species for a very long time. Personally, I think we'd have been able to accomplish it long since if all that we were worried about was the technical considerations. It's the ethical strictures which have really slowed things down. Not that I'm saying those are bad, mind you, just saying that if developing the technology were the ONLY concern then it wouldn't be a problem.


At least, cloning is what I assume you're talking about. Parthenogenesis doesn't really happen in human beings either,

Depends on which men you talk to...;)


and while egg fusion has been attempted, it also has not resulted in viable offspring in human beings.
Well, I don't know that anybody's actually tried to use egg fusion to produce viable human offspring. Have they?

The answer to this would be no, when referring to a human fetus. But that "no" will likely be a "yes" at some point.
It's a yes right now. A human fetus could develop without the need for sperm at any point along the process. Just because we can't make it happen this instant doesn't mean it can't occur. :D

ROTTEN POLL.

I would not support using abortion as birth control. However, the decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester is a choice between the woman carrying the fetus and her conception of God, conscience, karma, what have you.

For people like the OP poster to trivialize such a grave decision with politically polarizing rhetorical childishness is truly indicative of the problem with politics...as well as some other possible problems.

ROTTEN POLL.How so? Babies most certainly are a choice, or a consequence thereof, while other creatures have babies, so they aren't universally human.

How so? Babies most certainly are a choice, or a consequence thereof, while other creatures have babies, so they aren't universally human.

The poll is obviously not asking those questions unloaded. It's disingenuous at best and childish at worst. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife" poll.

Either a kitten or a puppy, depending on what you're looking for in a pet.

Stupid opening premise. Stupider poll.

Ok, everyone knows a baby is a human.


The fetus is what is always in question.

I'm enjoying having this thread in General. Every time I open General, I see the phrase

"A baby is a..."

and the last part is provided by the thread below it. Often, it reads: A baby is a abortion. Other nice ones include: a baby is a aliens found at last? and A baby is a '08 election.

Oooh! At last this thread serves a function!

Oooh! At last this thread serves a function!

It was serving a function before.

Not everyone faps to porn.

I'm enjoying having this thread in General. Every time I open General, I see the phrase

"A baby is a..."

and the last part is provided by the thread below it. Often, it reads: A baby is a abortion. Other nice ones include: a baby is a aliens found at last? and A baby is a '08 election.

Hehehehe, excellent.

It was serving a function before.

Not everyone faps to porn.

I'm enjoying having this thread in General. Every time I open General, I see the phrase

"A baby is a..."

and the last part is provided by the thread below it. Often, it reads: A baby is a abortion. Other nice ones include: a baby is a aliens found at last? and A baby is a '08 election.

These two posts are made of win.

Also, currently: a baby is a RTS or TBS

These two posts are made of win.

Also, currently: a baby is a RTS or TBS

Obviously an RTS, babies don't stop and give the other children a turn.

c) miscarriages, like periods, are biological processes and not intentional. Without intent, it is not murder.

Without a dead person it's not murder either.

nah. the way i see it, a ball of cells is

a) not sentient, and as such not particlarly alive (by my standards)... and certainly not a baby

b) very much similar to the ball of cells a woman will pass out of her body in menstruation EVERY MONTH. if abortion is murder, are all women murderers also?

c) on the assumption abortion is muder, miscarriages (aka "spontaneous abortions") are also murder, no? what should happen to these murderous women?

a) if a fetus can be considered to be in a parasitic relationship, it is alive. Biologically, it is a living organism. What it is not, is a person.

b) an unfertilized egg is not a fetus

c) miscarriages, like periods, are biological processes and not intentional. Without intent, it is not murder.

baby.

Do I win?

You can never win The Game.

Does it matter?

Yes ... and it matters the stage of the development as well
At least if you want to ... you know be honest

You can never win The Game.

Son of a bitch

Well I lost

We currently have the technology to fertilize human eggs without ever needing a human sperm. It's not how things work in the wild, of course, but it is certainly possible.
:eek: I am obsolete...
Every born human person is actually an example of a fertilized egg which beat the odds!
...but awesome! :p

We almost have the technology. One group has reported successful cloned embryos, but it hasn't been confirmed by other groups yet. Also, trying to have that embryo implant and create viable offspring will be a whole new technological hurdle.

At least, cloning is what I assume you're talking about. Parthenogenesis doesn't really happen in human beings either, and while egg fusion has been attempted, it also has not resulted in viable offspring in human beings.

Actually, the science already exists to fertilize a human egg with another human egg. Talk to Bumboat over on GM about it, she's mentioned in the past being involved in that sort of stuff in her work.

joke which isn't as funny as a dead baby.

Epic threadsteal is epic!

Ok, everyone knows a baby is a human.Erp! Wrong!

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/eisbaer_baby_knut_421x270_p.jpg

c) miscarriages, like periods, are biological processes and not intentional. Without intent, it is not murder.

True... but I believe manslaughter is equally criminal and carried only slightly reduced prison sentences?

A baby is a lego turns 50 abortion!

A baby is a lego turns 50 abortion!

A baby is a diseases.

True... but I believe manslaughter is equally criminal and carried only slightly reduced prison sentences?

It would some sort of sick mind to equate a miscarriage with manslaughter. But technically speaking, I guess it would be involuntary at least.

We almost have the technology.

When we do will we be able to make them better, faster, stronger?

not as cute as a kitten, or puppy.

I DONT THINK YOUR A PERSON, I THINK YOUR A COLD BLOODED SNAKE, ITS YOU THAT SHOULD BE EUTHANISED



A FETUS IS A BABY YOU FREAKS

in your opinion

Stinky...

Sooo damn cute I wanna serbert them all.

Erp! Wrong!

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/eisbaer_baby_knut_421x270_p.jpg

How does a bear know what footballs is?

A baby is a...

----------------------------------------------------------------


...mini verision of ourselves.

I always ask people who support abortion this: What if YOUR parents were thinking about aborting YOU? Looking back from now, would you support their want to abort you? (Saying yes means you would be dead, saying no would prove you hypocritical)

I always ask people who support abortion this: What if YOUR parents were thinking about aborting YOU? Looking back from now, would you support their want to abort you? (Saying yes means you would be dead, saying no would prove you hypocritical)

The reason you fail in asking this question is that being pro-choice doesn't mean one supports abortion. It means one supports the right to choose between abortion and continued pregnancy.

Until you realize that, your little hypothetical is unworthy of a response.

Let's extend ths: Suppose you were going to be born to a parent or parents that didn't want you and couldn't afford you. Perhaps she's a crack whore who doesn't even know who your father is. Would you rather be born to them, or would you rather be aborted, spend a few weeks in the Celestial Waiting Room and be born to parents that actually love you and can affrd you?

If I was certain that there was any sort of afterlife, I'd be less uneasy about abortion. But I'm not, so abortion disturbs me.
Besides, abortion's not just limited to crack whores- I'm sure sometimes it's two people who love each other and just forgot to use a condom. In which case I'd want to be born, not just thrown out as too much responsibility.

I always ask people who support abortion this: What if YOUR parents were thinking about aborting YOU? Looking back from now, would you support their want to abort you? (Saying yes means you would be dead, saying no would prove you hypocritical)

Let's extend ths: Suppose you were going to be born to a parent or parents that didn't want you and couldn't afford you. Perhaps she's a crack whore who doesn't even know who your father is. Would you rather be born to them, or would you rather be aborted, spend a few weeks in the Celestial Waiting Room and be born to parents that actually love you and can affrd you?

I think even if I was going to be born into a bad family, I'd rather be allowed to live and then put up for adoption by a better family.
Of course, that doesn't always happen. For some reason, poor, miserable families keep their kids and don't wear condoms.

I'm think this thread might have been a fill-in-the-blank joke thread but the poll options may have distorted that slightlyy. If it is an abortion thread then I'm wrong.

Let's extend ths: Suppose you were going to be born to a parent or parents that didn't want you and couldn't afford you. Perhaps she's a crack whore who doesn't even know who your father is. Would you rather be born to them, or would you rather be aborted, spend a few weeks in the Celestial Waiting Room and be born to parents that actually love you and can affrd you?



One of the few serious posts Ive seen you make you and nail him, grats.


Conservative Morality, that doesnt work, because people dont usually get abortions because its fun. They get thm because they cannot support either emotionally or financially another kid.


So if my parents couldnt afford me or didnt want me, Id rather be aborted. Talk to kids who do live with parents who didnt want them, it aint fun.

Most of the time in the second situation you name, people dont just say "Man, I really just dont want to take care of the little womb booger", usually when that happens its because they cannot support a kid monitarially or dont have the emotional ability to.

Agreed. I wasn't dismissing all people who got abortions as bad people. I just think I'd rather the mother put up with 9 months of my company, give birth, and then they put me up for adoption afterwards.
If they're not emotionally ready, then it still seems like a question of responsibility to me. But again, I'm not asking to be raised by my biological parents- just to live.

If I was certain that there was any sort of afterlife, I'd be less uneasy about abortion. But I'm not, so abortion disturbs me.
Besides, abortion's not just limited to crack whores- I'm sure sometimes it's two people who love each other and just forgot to use a condom. In which case I'd want to be born, not just thrown out as too much responsibility.


Most of the time in the second situation you name, people dont just say "Man, I really just dont want to take care of the little womb booger", usually when that happens its because they cannot support a kid monitarially or dont have the emotional ability to.

A Dingo Treat.

A baby is a future, an extension of ourselves, a miracle. There really isn't a good word to describe what your own baby means to you. It is an amazing experience.

A Dingo Treat.

*chuckles* Nice.

A baby is a future, an extension of ourselves, a miracle. There really isn't a good word to describe what your own baby means to you. It is an amazing experience.

I imagine so, though I hope not to have one for quite some time, [still in high school:rolleyes:]

However, I absolutely hate abortion, however, I can see realistically that even if it is banned, people in desprate situation will find a way to abort and wind up possibility kill themselvs by accident. So if it stays leagal, then we will have less accidents in done by backalley clinics.

I'm not religious.

But abortion is murder.

Well said.

Well said.


murder

• noun 1 the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another.

OED (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/murder?view=uk)

It would help if you people would get your terminology straight.

Otherwise all we get is a mudslinging contest of who can come up with the most incorrectly applied, emotionally loaded misnomers.

Let's extend ths: Suppose you were going to be born to a parent or parents that didn't want you and couldn't afford you. Perhaps she's a crack whore who doesn't even know who your father is. Would you rather be born to them, or would you rather be aborted, spend a few weeks in the Celestial Waiting Room and be born to parents that actually love you and can affrd you?
1 Problem with that: I don't believe in reincarnation. And (For Me) The answer would be no. Besides, if she's a crack addict, she'll probably get the abortion someplace she can get the abortion and have enough for some crack afterwards*COUGH*Backalley*COUGH* and therefor it would probably be quite painful.
The reason you fail in asking this question is that being pro-choice doesn't mean one supports abortion. It means one supports the right to choose between abortion and continued pregnancy.

I don't support that option. I believe 2 CONSENTING ADULTS should be allowed to do whatever they want but this concerns the one whose life is in question who is not consenting nor an adult.

OED (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/murder?view=uk)

It would help if you people would get your terminology straight.

Otherwise all we get is a mudslinging contest of who can come up with the most incorrectly applied, emotionally loaded misnomers.

?

I suppose it depends on whether you see the embryo as a person or not.

?

I suppose it depends on whether you see the embryo as a person or not.

It also depends on whether it's unlawful or not.

I don't support that option. I believe 2 CONSENTING ADULTS should be allowed to do whatever they want but this concerns the one whose life is in question who is also not an adult.

Which would lead directly to the question when life starts.
Personally, I think that since we assume life ends once the brain is dead, it's fair to assume that life starts when the brain of the foetus begins to function. That's usually around the 20th week of the pregnancy.
Up to that point, you're not killing anyone by having an abortion. After that point, abortions should be legal only in exceptional cases (health problems for the mother, etc)

Which would lead directly to the question when life starts.
Personally, I think that since we assume life ends once the brain is dead, it's fair to assume that life starts when the brain of the foetus begins to function. That's usually around the 20th week of the pregnancy.
Up to that point, you're not killing anyone by having an abortion. After that point, abortions should be legal only in exceptional cases (health problems for the mother, etc)
I You're right, I agree with you about when life starts(When the brain begins to function) In fact I completly agree with your stance. I can't believe I'm saying this but... You've changed my stance on abortion (If only slightly).

I You're right, I agree with you about when life starts(When the brain begins to function) In fact I completly agree with your stance. I can't believe I'm saying this but... You've changed my stance on abortion (If only slightly).

Glad to assist. :)

A baby is an...

annoying little bastard you just have to love anyway :D

...incredible responsibility some cannot take on or do not choose to take on.

I have an idea -- all the folks who think they have a right to control what goes on in someone else's uterus... agree to have said unwanted embryos implanted into your bodies to develop until they are able to be born.

If you don't want to do this, why not?

I'm not religious.

But abortion is murder.

Fail

I agree that abortion is murder.

<SNIP>

And again Fail

Don't you see? You are murdering babies! MURDERING SMALL, CUTE, BABIES! YOU MONSTER!

Fail

I hope you die and go to hell!

I'll most definitely do the former, as to the latter *shrug* who knows?

I DONT THINK YOUR A PERSON, I THINK YOUR A COLD BLOODED SNAKE, ITS YOU THAT SHOULD BE EUTHANISED



A FETUS IS A BABY YOU FREAKS

Ah, the old yell until everybody agrees with you style of debate :rolleyes:

Erp! Wrong!

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/eisbaer_baby_knut_421x270_p.jpg

That's not a baby, that's a cub ;)

This thread needs more videos of babies eating lemons..

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oly1X75C8_4

Now it is "A baby is a wall E"

...incredible responsibility some cannot take on or do not choose to take on.

I have an idea -- all the folks who think they have a right to control what goes on in someone else's uterus... agree to have said unwanted embryos implanted into your bodies to develop until they are able to be born.

If you don't want to do this, why not?

I think a lot of people would actually do that, some because they genuinely believe it is right, and some because they're REALLY self-righteous.
As for me, I think it's fair to ask a woman to put up with the presence of a child (in her body, that is) for 9 months, and if she can't handle the responsibility of raising one, she should allow the child to be cared for by others when it's born.
If people can't handle the responsibility of a child, they can use condoms (I know, condoms don't always work, but 9 months of pregnancy isn't the most terrible price you can pay for that.)
I'm not totally sure when life begins. When unsure, I think it's best to go with the safer option- better to risk a little under a year's worth of discomfort than risk killing a child.

This thread needs more videos of babies eating lemons..

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oly1X75C8_4

Or Baby LemonParty?
LemonBabyParty?
LemonParty Baby?
*cringe*

That’s not a baby, that’s a cub ;)
Whatever it is, it’s cute/knut!

Whatever it is, it’s cute/knut!

Very true

I think a lot of people would actually do that, some because they genuinely believe it is right, and some because they're REALLY self-righteous.
As for me, I think it's fair to ask a woman to put up with the presence of a child (in her body, that is) for 9 months, and if she can't handle the responsibility of raising one, she should allow the child to be cared for by others when it's born.
If people can't handle the responsibility of a child, they can use condoms (I know, condoms don't always work, but 9 months of pregnancy isn't the most terrible price you can pay for that.)
I'm not totally sure when life begins. When unsure, I think it's best to go with the safer option- better to risk a little under a year's worth of discomfort than risk killing a child.

Would you accept that life ends once the brain dies? Cause that is the current medical definition.
So why not accept that life begins when the brain starts working?

And besides, no, it's not fair to ask anyone to put up with anything being done to their bodies without their consent. That's why we don't have mandatory organ or blood donations every fortnight.

I think a lot of people would actually do that, some because they genuinely believe it is right, and some because they're REALLY self-righteous.
As for me, I think it's fair to ask a woman to put up with the presence of a child (in her body, that is) for 9 months, and if she can't handle the responsibility of raising one, she should allow the child to be cared for by others when it's born.
If people can't handle the responsibility of a child, they can use condoms (I know, condoms don't always work, but 9 months of pregnancy isn't the most terrible price you can pay for that.)
I'm not totally sure when life begins. When unsure, I think it's best to go with the safer option- better to risk a little under a year's worth of discomfort than risk killing a child.

And I think that if one does not want to have a child, nor bear it, one need not do so. Clearly, if someone uses condoms, birth control pills, or other contraceptives and they fail, their intent was NOT to have a child and no one should force them to have one against their will.

Bearing a child is extremely taxing to a woman -- a developing fetus leeches calcium from a woman's bones, not to mention nausea, vomiting, birth complications that can lead to the woman's death, hemorrhoids, varicose veins, rH factor complications, gestational diabetes... you name it, there are tons of reasons NOT to bear children if you do not want to be a mother. It's more than inconvenience -- it's economically, physically, mentally and emotionally taxing, and to have it dismissed as not "the most terrible price you can pay" and mere "discomfort" is utterly ignorant and/or dismissive of the right of a woman to her body and her health.

Why do we define that life ends once the brain dies? It seems stupid. Someone who is breathing and has a beating heart obviously isn't dead.

Why do you use breathing and heart beat to define when a person is alive?

Are you aware of the mechanics of organ donation? Do you realize that when somebody agrees to donate their heart at the end of their life (as I have done), that heart will still be alive and beating when it is removed and donated to another person?


Why just not accept the obvious and realize that an embryo or a person without a working cortex is as alive as us, but don't have as much of a right to life as us - because they aren't rational, they can't see themselves separate from now and here etc.
The human body contains living cells for a very long time after the heart stops beating and the lungs stop working. If you actually wanted to define "death" as when ALL tissues are completely dead, then the vast majority of people are buried, cremated, or otherwise disposed of while still "alive."

Would you accept that life ends once the brain dies? Cause that is the current medical definition.
So why not accept that life begins when the brain starts working?

Why do we define that life ends once the brain dies? It seems stupid. Someone who is breathing and has a beating heart obviously isn't dead. Why just not accept the obvious and realize that an embryo or a person without a working cortex is as alive as us, but don't have as much of a right to life as us - because they aren't rational, they can't see themselves separate from now and here etc.

Why do you use breathing and heart beat to define when a person is alive?

Because it seems weird to me to call someone who still breaths, has a beating heart, some hormonal activity and maybe some reflexes dead (I'm not sure, but I think these aren't controled by the cortex, there might be other functions still active.).
And I don't define alive by breathing and having a beating heart, I thought it was pretty obvious trees or one-cellular organisms etc are alive too.

Are you aware of the mechanics of organ donation? Do you realize that when somebody agrees to donate their heart at the end of their life (as I have done), that heart will still be alive and beating when it is removed and donated to another person?

yes and my organs will probably be donated to. (the system we have here assumes you donate your organs, your family can still stop it if you didn't explicitly say so, but they know I want to donate them, maybe I should fill in that form but tbh death isn't really on my mind that much, being 20 etc)

The human body contains living cells for a very long time after the heart stops beating and the lungs stop working. If you actually wanted to define "death" as when ALL tissues are completely dead, then the vast majority of people are buried, cremated, or otherwise disposed of while still "alive."

I agree, maybe "all tissue is dead" isn't a good definition either, but that doesn't make "no brain activity" a good definition. Would you find it normal to go to the funeral of someone who still breaths? And how do you explain that life originates from something which isn't alive (an embryo which doesn't have a functioning brain)?
I think it's pretty clear that embryo's are alive, but I don't think this is a very good argument against abortion. You could probably save many more lives by becoming a vegetarian than being against abortion.

Why do we define that life ends once the brain dies? It seems stupid. Someone who is breathing and has a beating heart obviously isn't dead. Why just not accept the obvious and realize that an embryo or a person without a working cortex is as alive as us, but don't have as much of a right to life as us - because they aren't rational, they can't see themselves separate from now and here etc.

If the brain is dead, the person usually doesn't have a heart beat nor do they breathe. Unless helped by machinery, that is. With machinery attached, a brainded person can go on breathing and having a heartbeat for a very long time. But once the brain is dead, the process is irreversible. You cannot revive a braindead person.
That's why we take it as the line between life and death. And that's also why it would make sense to consider it the line for the begining of life.

That's not a baby, that's a cub ;)Baby and cub are not mutually exclusive. Also, the caption reads "Baby Polar Bear", so nyah!

I agree, maybe "all tissue is dead" isn't a good definition either, but that doesn't make "no brain activity" a good definition. Would you find it normal to go to the funeral of someone who still breaths? And how do you explain that life originates from something which isn't alive (an embryo which doesn't have a functioning brain)?
I think it's pretty clear that embryo's are alive, but I don't think this is a very good argument against abortion. You could probably save many more lives by becoming a vegetarian than being against abortion.

Well, as you said, trees are alive and they manage just fine without a brain.
Humans, however, don't work without one. The brain is what allows them to be human, it's what guides their actions, it's the one thing that absolutely need to be alive. It's what makes a human being.

Life alway originated from something that's not alive. There's nothing new there. What we need to decide is when something constitutes life, and when it doesn't. A braindead person is not living human being. A 3-week old zygote is not a living human being.

Well, as you said, trees are alive and they manage just fine without a brain.
Humans, however, don't work without one. The brain is what allows them to be human, it's what guides their actions, it's the one thing that absolutely need to be alive. It's what makes a human being.

I think that a functioning brain makes one a person, but even without a brain someone is a human, I don't think one can deny that an embryo is a human being (member of the species homo sapiens) even though it doesn't have a developed brain. The loss of a body part (the brain for instance) doesn't make someone not-human unless you think someone without legs is not a human being. Someone who doesn't have legs can't run, someone without a brain can't be a person, but they're both human beings.

Life alway originated from something that's not alive. There's nothing new there.

sperm and eggs aren't dead, they move, have a metabolism etc.

What we need to decide is when something constitutes life, and when it doesn't. A braindead person is not living human being. A 3-week old zygote is not a living human being.

What we need to decide is when something is a person and when it's not. A 3-week old zygote isn't a person, neither is a brain dead person, neither is someone who has no functioning cortex but still breaths and has a pulse etc. I don't think human life has any intrinsic worth, only the life of a person does.


We're probably just debating on the -not so important- meaning of certain words, and probably nobody finds this interesting, so just proceed with the OP if you want. :)

I also agree that brain dead persons are really dead, I thought brain deads also included people with most functions like the heart and lungs etc working but without a working cortex. I don't think these are dead, but I also don't think their life has an intrinsic value.

sperm and eggs aren't dead, they move, have a metabolism etc.Do they reproduce on their own?

Do they reproduce on their own?

no. I don't reproduce on my own either.

potato.







End of story.

The loss of a body part (the brain for instance) doesn't make someone not-human unless you think someone without legs is not a human being. Someone who doesn't have legs can't run, someone without a brain can't be a person, but they're both human beings.


So if legs didn't have a pelvis, abdomen, thorax, head (and brain, etc) would they still be a human being?

So if legs didn't have a pelvis, abdomen, thorax, head (and brain, etc) would they still be a human being?

Hmm, good question, a leg is probably as much human as the rest of the body even if it is detached, as long as it has a working metabolism and other random criteria of what is alive, but as I said it isn't a person, and it doesn't posses other moral criteria (like the ability to feel pain etc) so it's morally irrelevant.

Even if an embryo was dead (which I believe it's not) it doesn't posses any intrinsic morally important characteristics.

Because it seems weird to me to call someone who still breaths, has a beating heart, some hormonal activity and maybe some reflexes dead (I'm not sure, but I think these aren't controled by the cortex, there might be other functions still active.).
And I don't define alive by breathing and having a beating heart, I thought it was pretty obvious trees or one-cellular organisms etc are alive too.

You're edging closer to the real issue.

As has been pointed out already, a sperm cell can be both alive and human. Same with an egg cell.

Your cheek cells are living and human, and you could scrape off tens of thousands of them by simply swishing your finger gently along the inside of your mouth. They'd then die.

Obviously what is at issue here is not whether or not something is merely alive and human, but whether it is a living human person. A dead human person may have living tissues remaining in their body, and a live human person may have dead tissues in their body. Clearly, there is something we must use to define when A PERSON is alive, as opposed to when there is simply living human tissue or human cells.


yes and my organs will probably be donated to. (the system we have here assumes you donate your organs, your family can still stop it if you didn't explicitly say so, but they know I want to donate them, maybe I should fill in that form but tbh death isn't really on my mind that much, being 20 etc)

If a person receives your lungs as a transplant, would you then say that YOU are alive while THEY are dead? Technically speaking, they aren't breathing any more..."you" are breathing for them. Your lungs, not theirs.


I agree, maybe "all tissue is dead" isn't a good definition either, but that doesn't make "no brain activity" a good definition. Would you find it normal to go to the funeral of someone who still breaths?

I don't find funerals normal. I've only attended a handful in my lifetime.

For me, an individual is dead when their brain is dead. No other tissue in the body matters. If a person's leg dies, or their kidney, or their heart, that doesn't mean the individual is dead. One of my cousins has a transplanted heart, and she didn't magically transform into another person when her heart stopped or when it was replaced with another person's heart. However, when her brain stops working, the person she is will cease to be.


And how do you explain that life originates from something which isn't alive (an embryo which doesn't have a functioning brain)?

An embryo is alive. Whether or not an embryo is a living human person is the issue of debate. It's totally reasonable to me that a non-person entity could develop into a person.


I think it's pretty clear that embryo's are alive, but I don't think this is a very good argument against abortion. You could probably save many more lives by becoming a vegetarian than being against abortion.
Indeed. We are talking, in essence, about personhood. I don't see any reason why any standard other than brain activity should be used to define personhood. But maybe that's because I've known a quadriplegic, and he was very much a person despite having lost the use of most of his body. None of the rest of his body was required for him to be a person.

Wow there's an unbiased poll, NOT.

Choice or Human... hmmm.... nah, no bias at all >.>

I have my opinions, but I'll share them when the poll is changed.

Wow there's an unbiased poll, NOT.

Choice or Human... hmmm.... nah, no bias at all >.>

I have my opinions, but I'll share them when the poll is changed.

Don't hold your breath...

Obviously what is at issue here is not whether or not something is merely alive and human, but whether it is a living human person. A dead human person may have living tissues remaining in their body, and a live human person may have dead tissues in their body. Clearly, there is something we must use to define when A PERSON is alive, as opposed to when there is simply living human tissue or human cells.

No, The issue is if a being is a person. Life or death are irrelevant (although a death human can't be a person). Only the life of a person has intrinsic value to me. Cells might be human, and alive, but they aren't persons. Some humans might be alive but not a person (embryo's). Etc...


If a person receives your lungs as a transplant, would you then say that YOU are alive while THEY are dead? Technically speaking, they aren't breathing any more..."you" are breathing for them. Your lungs, not theirs.


My lungs would be alive, the rest of the body of the person receiving my lungs would be alive. A person can't be alive or death, only a body can, life is already included in the term person. You can't be a person without being alive (at least now you cant, maybe science will find a way to make persons that aren't alive, AI for instance, but that's an other issue, for now we can say no dead persons exist). My person would just stop to exist once my body dies.

(my use of the word person might be a little bit different from the normal use of the term, I don't use it to refer to a body but to a characteristic of the body, imagine 'you' got transplanted to a different body, would your old body still be you or would the new body be you? I think the new body would be you, so a person is separate from a body.)

(I also know that my person is inseparable from my brain, because that's the organ which makes me able to be a person, like legs make me able to walk)


I don't find funerals normal. I've only attended a handful in my lifetime.

Good, but the question wasn't about funerals, I thought you would understand that it was really about if you could consider someone with a living body dead. I wouldn't, I would think that person to have stopped to exist, but his body would still be alive.

For me, an individual is dead when their brain is dead. No other tissue in the body matters. If a person's leg dies, or their kidney, or their heart, that doesn't mean the individual is dead. One of my cousins has a transplanted heart, and she didn't magically transform into another person when her heart stopped or when it was replaced with another person's heart. However, when her brain stops working, the person she is will cease to be.

I think we pretty much agree. I think I only made my first comment to point out that the body is morally irrelevant, and that being a person is what counts.

Indeed. We are talking, in essence, about personhood. I don't see any reason why any standard other than brain activity should be used to define personhood. But maybe that's because I've known a quadriplegic, and he was very much a person despite having lost the use of most of his body. None of the rest of his body was required for him to be a person.

I think that being rational and being able to see itself inseparable from space and time (= realizing you have a future and a past) are far more important than brain activity. Fish have brain activity too, but I think we agree they aren't persons.

I think this debate is mainly about semantics, but it does raise some interesting questions. For instance, is it important if the person is human? or; should we really continue to think that the life of a non-person human is intrinsically important?

And I think that if one does not want to have a child, nor bear it, one need not do so. Clearly, if someone uses condoms, birth control pills, or other contraceptives and they fail, their intent was NOT to have a child and no one should force them to have one against their will.

True, if someone takes those countermeasures, it's clear they don't want a child. But I've personally known at least one girl who didn't use birth control, who wasn't raped, and who wasn't in a steady relationship- she was just irresponsible. I just ask people to keep in mind that if you make it legal for victims to have abortions, you're making it legal for people who don't want to be bothered with contraceptives, too. You're making it legal for people who want to prove a point about their freedom, for people who got drunk at a party, for girls who don't want to face their parents, for people who found out their baby will be a girl and wanted a boy... it goes on.

Bearing a child is extremely taxing to a woman -- a developing fetus leeches calcium from a woman's bones, not to mention nausea, vomiting, birth complications that can lead to the woman's death, hemorrhoids, varicose veins, rH factor complications, gestational diabetes... you name it, there are tons of reasons NOT to bear children if you do not want to be a mother. It's more than inconvenience -- it's economically, physically, mentally and emotionally taxing, and to have it dismissed as not "the most terrible price you can pay" and mere "discomfort" is utterly ignorant and/or dismissive of the right of a woman to her body and her health.

Not the tone I was trying to strike. Apologies.
It's not the most terrible price you can pay- not compared to destruction of a human life. After giving it some thought, I guess that I lean more towards the view presented that life doesn't begin until the brain starts functioning. I may think about it more or find out something new that makes me change my mind later. I'm still not sure. This doesn't make me completely comfortable with abortion.
I think you misunderstood me on my "discomfort" line about pregnancy. I know many mothers who have described how hard pregnancy was and given me the same information you just did (if not in such great detail). Pregnancy can cause health problems, that's true. But I know numerous mothers, and they all appear to be fine despite year-long ordeals with child-bearing a few years back.
That said, pregnancy is discomfort- severe discomfort, but discomfort nonetheless. I viewed it as a better alternative to murder. But like I conceded in this post, not all abortion needs to be considered murder (and someone said that since it's legal, it doesn't count).
Sorry if I offended you.

I DONT THINK YOUR A PERSON, I THINK YOUR A COLD BLOODED SNAKE, ITS YOU THAT SHOULD BE EUTHANISED


Do you think you're helping or something?

True, if someone takes those countermeasures, it's clear they don't want a child. But I've personally known at least one girl who didn't use birth control, who wasn't raped, and who wasn't in a steady relationship- she was just irresponsible. I just ask people to keep in mind that if you make it legal for victims to have abortions, you're making it legal for people who don't want to be bothered with contraceptives, too. You're making it legal for people who want to prove a point about their freedom, for people who got drunk at a party, for girls who don't want to face their parents, for people who found out their baby will be a girl and wanted a boy... it goes on.
So what? So they should be punished for a mistake, or for being afraid? or more accurately, the child they don't want and are saddled with should be punished by being raised by them?

Whether through rape, contraceptive failure, or the realization that "oh hell, I really can't do this financially, emotionally, or physically," abortion is and should remain an option. If YOU don't want to have one, fine and dandy. Judgmental attitudes are not a criteria for how others should live their lives.

Not the tone I was trying to strike. Apologies.
It's not the most terrible price you can pay- not compared to destruction of a human life. After giving it some thought, I guess that I lean more towards the view presented that life doesn't begin until the brain starts functioning. I may think about it more or find out something new that makes me change my mind later. I'm still not sure. This doesn't make me completely comfortable with abortion.
I think you misunderstood me on my "discomfort" line about pregnancy. I know many mothers who have described how hard pregnancy was and given me the same information you just did (if not in such great detail). Pregnancy can cause health problems, that's true. But I know numerous mothers, and they all appear to be fine despite year-long ordeals with child-bearing a few years back.
That said, pregnancy is discomfort- severe discomfort, but discomfort nonetheless. I viewed it as a better alternative to murder. But like I conceded in this post, not all abortion needs to be considered murder (and someone said that since it's legal, it doesn't count).
Sorry if I offended you.

It's not that I was offended -- it's that many people (males especially, and obviously I can't peer through the computer to discern your gender) say that it's only an inconvenience when in truth it can be very risky medically. Even if it were not -- why should someone go through three quarters of a year's discomfort and pain if they don't wish to?

To take away the right to one's bodily integrity is to diminish their personhood and treat them as chattel.

Warning, this reply is chock full of....*gasp* controversy. Like all ...five of my posts have been so far. What a great way to start on the forums, eh? ;)

I'm in agreement here for the most part. If you're using contraceptives and you still end up pregnant, that's a shame, yes. However, a KNOWN side-effect of sex is risk of pregnancy. Why not own up to your own actions, and at least put the child up for adoption if you can't/won't take care of it yourself?

As for rape...that's a different story. I may be on the other extreme end of the spectrum, but I can see why women would want to abort in this case...It does not mean that I support people who do such, as again, adoption...But I agree you have a right to choose if you wish.

Otherwise, you had the choice, you knew the risks, own up to it. Why murder a child just so you won't be troubled? I don't believe all pro-choice women feel this way, and some do have legitimate struggles emotionally and morally to make the decision, but the ones who go to get an abortion 'just because'....I can't forgive that.



Nor am I, even given some circumstances...But some choice should be allowed, I suppose. Again, above.



Indeed! But again....back to my point above.

End controversy...oh no! :eek:

Those who make an exception for rape are hypocritical. If it's ok in the case of rape to terminate a pregnancy, then it is inconsistent to forbid it in other circumstances and call it 'murder'. And your permission, or forgiveness, are neither necessary nor wanted by any woman who has to face this difficult medical decision.

But I've personally known at least one girl who didn't use birth control, who wasn't raped, and who wasn't in a steady relationship- she was just irresponsible. I just ask people to keep in mind that if you make it legal for victims to have abortions, you're making it legal for people who don't want to be bothered with contraceptives, too. You're making it legal for people who want to prove a point about their freedom, for people who got drunk at a party, for girls who don't want to face their parents, for people who found out their baby will be a girl and wanted a boy... it goes on.

Warning, this reply is chock full of....*gasp* controversy. Like all ...five of my posts have been so far. What a great way to start on the forums, eh? ;)

I'm in agreement here for the most part. If you're using contraceptives and you still end up pregnant, that's a shame, yes. However, a KNOWN side-effect of sex is risk of pregnancy. Why not own up to your own actions, and at least put the child up for adoption if you can't/won't take care of it yourself?

As for rape...that's a different story. I may be on the other extreme end of the spectrum, but I can see why women would want to abort in this case...It does not mean that I support people who do such, as again, adoption...But I agree you have a right to choose if you wish.

Otherwise, you had the choice, you knew the risks, own up to it. Why murder a child just so you won't be troubled? I don't believe all pro-choice women feel this way, and some do have legitimate struggles emotionally and morally to make the decision, but the ones who go to get an abortion 'just because'....I can't forgive that.


This doesn't make me completely comfortable with abortion.


Nor am I, even given some circumstances...But some choice should be allowed, I suppose. Again, above.


That said, pregnancy is discomfort- severe discomfort, but discomfort nonetheless. I viewed it as a better alternative to murder.

Indeed! But again....back to my point above.

End controversy...oh no! :eek:

So what? So they should be punished for a mistake, or for being afraid? or more accurately, the child they don't want and are saddled with should be punished by being raised by them?

You seem to be under the impression that being a child's biological parent means that you are tied to the child for life- that because you had sex, you must raise, feed, and pay for this child until he or she reaches adulthood. This is incorrect. As people keep saying and you keep not addressing, an option called adoption exists.

Whether through rape, contraceptive failure, or the realization that "oh hell, I really can't do this financially, emotionally, or physically," abortion is and should remain an option. If YOU don't want to have one, fine and dandy. Judgmental attitudes are not a criteria for how others should live their lives.

That last sentence needes some clarification, please. Everything preceding it is a matter of opinion that no amount of arguing will change, so I won't bother.

It's not that I was offended -- it's that many people (males especially, and obviously I can't peer through the computer to discern your gender) say that it's only an inconvenience when in truth it can be very risky medically. Even if it were not -- why should someone go through three quarters of a year's discomfort and pain if they don't wish to?

Well I am male, I admit that, even if it might hurt my argument. So I admit that I wouldn't have as much experience as, say- a woman who's actually been pregnant. However, as I said before, I know plenty of women who gave birth to one or more children and are currently leading healthy lives. I have a feeling you probably do, too. Don't make it sound like once a woman has a baby, her health goes irreversibly down the drain- that's not the case.
I think someone should go through three-quarters of a year's discomfort and pain if there's a chance, even a one in one thousand chance, that the alternative involves killing a baby. If you disagree, that's your call.

To take away the right to one's bodily integrity is to diminish their personhood and treat them as chattel.

I don't think it's the mother's choice whether another human should live or die. If my mom came at me with a knife right now, I don't think I'd be okay with dying.
Now I'm not in the womb, as I'm sure you'll point out. But I do still, to a certain degree, depend on my parents for food, water, shelter, the list goes on. Now I might be able to survive if I was deprived of these things now, but when I was say... four? I would not have been able to continue without my parents. I would've had to find a new home, just as if you remove a frozen fetus from the womb and place it in a new uterus, it will grow, live, and eventually be born.
A four-year-old is a person.

You seem to be under the impression that being a child's biological parent means that you are tied to the child for life- that because you had sex, you must raise, feed, and pay for this child until he or she reaches adulthood. This is incorrect. As people keep saying and you keep not addressing, an option called adoption exists.



That last sentence needes some clarification, please. Everything preceding it is a matter of opinion that no amount of arguing will change, so I won't bother.



Well I am male, I admit that, even if it might hurt my argument. So I admit that I wouldn't have as much experience as, say- a woman who's actually been pregnant. However, as I said before, I know plenty of women who gave birth to one or more children and are currently leading healthy lives. I have a feeling you probably do, too. Don't make it sound like once a woman has a baby, her health goes irreversibly down the drain- that's not the case.
I think someone should go through three-quarters of a year's discomfort and pain if there's a chance, even a one in one thousand chance, that the alternative involves killing a baby. If you disagree, that's your call.



I don't think it's the mother's choice whether another human should live or die. If my mom came at me with a knife right now, I don't think I'd be okay with dying.
Now I'm not in the womb, as I'm sure you'll point out. But I do still, to a certain degree, depend on my parents for food, water, shelter, the list goes on. Now I might be able to survive if I was deprived of these things now, but when I was say... four? I would not have been able to continue without my parents. I would've had to find a new home, just as if you remove a frozen fetus from the womb and place it in a new uterus, it will grow, live, and eventually be born.
A four-year-old is a person.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_impact/
It has long term emotional impacts on the parents giving up the child for adoption. So no, it is not simply an inconvenience.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/07/london/main3587865.shtml
When there is a lawsuit where it's argued that a SPERM DONOR should have to pay child support, there is the possibility of an ongoing financial impact for parents giving up their children for adoption.

Adopted children often seek their birth parents, who may want nothing to do with them. It is emotionally devastating to the adopted child when they are rejected -- a second time -- by their birth parents.

http://www.womenshealthchannel.com/teenpregnancy/index.shtml
The health risks, despite your rejection of them, can be significant.
http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/pregnancy/PGW_wrong.html


If you think that a four year old is in any danger of abortion, you are seriously misinformed.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_impact/
It has long term emotional impacts on the parents giving up the child for adoption. So no, it is not simply an inconvenience.

I never said it was "simply" an inconvenience. You seem to think I have a narrow, dismissive perception of pregnancy as a walk in the park. I don't. Don't worry.
http://www.afterabortion.info/hope/arti17.htm
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_9.asp#What%20about%20psychological%20problems%20after%20abortion?
http://www.watton.org/studies&stories/abortion/part_2.htm

It's not much fun no matter what you do. It seems people feel just as guilty about preventing their baby from living as they do about allowing their baby to live and giving him or her up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/07/london/main3587865.shtml
When there is a lawsuit where it's argued that a SPERM DONOR should have to pay child support, there is the possibility of an ongoing financial impact for parents giving up their children for adoption.

But is there a link about such a thing happening? The sperm donor case is interesting, and I'll have to find out what the verdict was, but I have a feeling (just a feeling, nothing more- we could check more closely) that there are guarantees made to biological parents that their adopted children will not need money from them. As soon as you give your children up, I think the government absolves you of responsibility. I'll look for a link after I post this.

Adopted children often seek their birth parents, who may want nothing to do with them. It is emotionally devastating to the adopted child when they are rejected -- a second time -- by their birth parents.

But at least this way the children have a choice, at least this way they have the possibility for a better life. At least this way they can seek therapy or support from friends and (adopted) family to get them through their trauma. They're not being euthanized and thrown away with no say in the matter.

http://www.womenshealthchannel.com/teenpregnancy/index.shtml
The health risks, despite your rejection of them, can be significant.

When did I reject the health risks of pregnancy? As I remember it, I acknowledged them, and asked you to acknowledge that many mothers have their children and then continue living healthy lives. You haven't done so, and that's your choice.
Your link seems to be more about teen pregnancy than about pregnancy in general. This seems somewhat misleading since the most common age at which women receive abortions is 20-24.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/04/nabor04.xml
http://www.nathaniel.org.nz/?sid=142
http://www.ssb.no/en/weekly_bulletin/editions/9916/1.shtml

I agree that it seems like children will have a hard time if born to a teen mother- all the more reason to increase education about the use of contraceptives. As long as we're talking about changes in legislation, I think a change from the current "abstinence only" education system, and enforcement of mandatory prenatal care, would do a great deal of good.

http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/pregnancy/PGW_wrong.html


If you think that a four year old is in any danger of abortion, you are seriously misinformed

I think you missed the point, which is understandable since maybe I wasn't very clear. I know four-year-olds are in no danger of being aborted. I was making a comparison with a hypothetical situation.
Some people (including you, earlier) argue that because a fetus cannot survive outside its mother's womb, it should not be given the rights of a person. Because I would not have been able to survive without my mother, outside my mother's house, when I was four, I arguably fit into the same category. I wasn't an independent organism. I could not provide food for myself. I could not provide my own shelter. If left alone, I would have probably died.
However, like a fetus, if I were to be placed in a healthier home, I would continue to grow and develop like everyone else. Anyone willing to nurture me would be able to, whether they were my biological mother or not.

Adopted children often seek their birth parents, who may want nothing to do with them. It is emotionally devastating to the adopted child when they are rejected -- a second time -- by their birth parents.


I felt this deserved special attention.

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/106786/FAMOUS-ADOPTED-PEOPLE%2FADOPTIVE-PARENTS

I felt this deserved special attention.

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/106786/FAMOUS-ADOPTED-PEOPLE%2FADOPTIVE-PARENTS

And your point is?

Snack.

Isnt there already an abortion thread?

Kat...your a mod...you should be ashamed of yourself;)

However, like a fetus, if I were to be placed in a healthier home, I would continue to grow and develop like everyone else. Anyone willing to nurture me would be able to, whether they were my biological mother or not.

Well, when we can implant fetuses from unwilling women into whomever wants them, then perhaps you would have a case. Until then, sorry -- women own their own bodies, and can do what they find best with them.

I didn't ignore that most women have perfectly fine pregnancies. I don't believe, and thank God I live somewhere where the laws agree, that she should have to tax her body (definitely) and risk her health (possibly) because someone else does not approve of her personal decisions and thinks she should live with the consequences.

And your point is?

That though being adopted may lead to trauma later in life, plenty of people whose parents clearly didn't want them still managed to lead successful lives. These people wouldn't have existed if their parents aborted them.
When given the chance, adopted children, just like every other child, can excel in life. And just like every other child, they can have sad lives, too. That doesn't make it our place to judge what would be "better" for them- being adopted or being aborted.

Well, when we can implant fetuses from unwilling women into whomever wants them, then perhaps you would have a case. Until then, sorry -- women own their own bodies, and can do what they find best with them.

I didn't ignore that most women have perfectly fine pregnancies. I don't believe, and thank God I live somewhere where the laws agree, that she should have to tax her body and risk her health because someone else does not approve of her personal decisions.

Well, I guess it boils down to a matter of opinion. I don't think it's a woman's decision whether her child should be allowed to live or not, I think it should be the child's decision. You see things differently than I do, and I'll respect that.

Isnt there already an abortion thread?

Kat...your a mod...you should be ashamed of yourself;)

there can never be too many!


oh...wait...

Well, I guess it boils down to a matter of opinion. I don't think it's a woman's decision whether her child should be allowed to live or not, I think it should be the child's decision. You see things differently than I do, and I'll respect that.

And how exactly do you propose to get consent from the fetus? "Knock once if you don't want to be aborted."
...waits...
"Ok, let's do it."

And how exactly do you propose to get consent from the fetus? "Knock once if you don't want to be aborted."
...waits...
"Ok, let's do it."

You seem to be aware that fetuses do not answer questions... a weakness I was hoping you wouldn't spot lol
What I mean is that people should let the child be born and lead a life, and if at some point your offspring grows tired of living, he or she can act accordingly :).
I doubt most people will feel like being euthanized, but that seems like good reason not to euthanize them.

You seem to be aware that fetuses do not answer questions... a weakness I was hoping you wouldn't spot lol
What I mean is that people should let the child be born and lead a life, and if at some point your offspring grows tired of living, he or she can act accordingly :).
I doubt most people will feel like being euthanized, but that seems like good reason not to euthanize them.

So women should be forced to be baby factories?

So women should be forced to be baby factories?

Apparently. I wonder how quickly this argument would be ended if males could bear children.

So women should be forced to be baby factories?

It's what they are. Blame nature.

It's what they are. Blame nature.

I seriously hope that you're not that much of an ignorant bigot.

Apparently. I wonder how quickly this argument would be ended if males could bear children.

Are you implying that if males could give birth that they would all support abortion, just to avoid the pain of pregnancy?

It's what they are. Blame nature.

You're just kidding, aren't you?

Are you implying that if males could give birth that they would all support abortion, just to avoid the pain of pregnancy?

I think what Kat is saying is that men had to go through the rigors of childbirth, more of them would be pro-choice.

I think what Kat is saying is that men had to go through the rigors of childbirth, more of them would be pro-choice.

Well that may be a fair statement.

I think a baby is bad. Baby = Communist, thats what I think.

Can we abort this thread? *gets a coat hanger*

Oh man, I'm going to hell for that giggle.

Are you implying that if males could give birth that they would all support abortion, just to avoid the pain of pregnancy?

More or less. As an example, have you ever passed a kidney stone? If so, imagine that it was about ten times bigger. That's roughly what giving birth is, only with a larger opening and a larger object. Proportionately, it's about the same, though.

A form of Torture.

Especially if their mothers keep on insisting that you, being a 'lonely' bachelor have the pleasure of babysitting them while they're out.

Apparently. I wonder how quickly this argument would be ended if males could bear children.
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Tasty.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Oh, come on.

No, it must linger on in agony for at least 15 pages.

OK, it's on page 16 now. I guess it's time to put it out of its misery. So I won't post here.

True, if someone takes those countermeasures, it's clear they don't want a child. But I've personally known at least one girl who didn't use birth control, who wasn't raped, and who wasn't in a steady relationship- she was just irresponsible. I just ask people to keep in mind that if you make it legal for victims to have abortions, you're making it legal for people who don't want to be bothered with contraceptives, too. You're making it legal for people who want to prove a point about their freedom, for people who got drunk at a party, for girls who don't want to face their parents, for people who found out their baby will be a girl and wanted a boy... it goes on.


Yes, you are.

As well you should.

More or less. As an example, have you ever passed a kidney stone? If so, imagine that it was about ten times bigger. That's roughly what giving birth is, only with a larger opening and a larger object. Proportionately, it's about the same, though.
also, add in the labor bit, think of having your abdomen sliced in two with a rusty saw.......slowly and painfully every 5 minutes for about 12 hours. All the while having people tell you if it hurts too bad and you want medicine then you are a bad person.

also, add in the labor bit, think of having your abdomen sliced in two with a rusty saw.......slowly and painfully every 5 minutes for about 12 hours. All the while having people tell you if it hurts too bad and you want medicine then you are a bad person.

My answer would be....

GIVE ME DRUUUUUUGS!!!!
KNOCK ME OUT TILL THE KID'S IN COLLEEEEEEEGE!

:D

also, add in the labor bit, think of having your abdomen sliced in two with a rusty saw.......slowly and painfully every 5 minutes for about 12 hours. All the while having people tell you if it hurts too bad and you want medicine then you are a bad person.

it is SO ridiculous! "oh if you take drugs the baby will be groggy"

well geee even without drugs the baby is groggy after having been squeezed out of your body. YOU will be far happier if you dont have to spend 18 hours in excruciating pain, however.

My answer would be....

GIVE ME DRUUUUUUGS!!!!
KNOCK ME OUT TILL THE KID'S IN COLLEEEEEEEGE!

:D
no matter how much I screamed something similar yet not as lady-like, they wouldn't give me anything with the first one, except about 20 hours in I got a shot of toradol and then nothing else until I fired my doctor and got a new one that would cut the kid out of me......I was in labor nearly 3 freaking days, the kid didn't want out, someone had to go get her! (she is still a stubborn little twit)