Pro-Life argument, Strictly Scientific

[Scornic]

By far the best Pro-Life argument I have ever heard. I take 0 credit for this, I did not write a word of it. I am aware that it has one line that speaks about God, but if you put aside the entire argument because of that one line, (which is actually irrelevant to the argument,) you are very closed-minded.

Link (http://www.hscca.org/articles/aretheunbornhuman.html)

If all arguments were like this, instead of emotional "It's my right!" "No it's the babies right!" debates, maybe we would get somewhere.

[DarkReality]

The line about god is very relevant. It claims that we may not choose over life and death. Why not? Why are we allowed to kill murderers and call it just, but not kill unborn children? This argument is too far up on a logical scale. It makes no difference whether an unborn child is human or not. We control other humans daily, directly and indirectly. We take away their sanctity of life and freedom, so why should an unborn child be any different?

The argument only touches on the humanity of an unborn child, which is in all respect, flawed. Killing people in an offensive war is absolutely correct. Civilians are bad, but what about the soldiers? Does anyone care about Iraqi soldiers (those who have no killed a single person)? Does anyone care if they're killed? We can't bring "all human life is sacred" as an argument and then keep living the way we do. It's hypocrisy at it's best.

And what's with the patriotic #### at the end? Another 9/11? Yea, we all weep over the unborn souls -_- Lets count the stars on the flag to think about the poor, poor aborted children and the lives of the mothers that haven't been destroyed.

A hypothetical question for you: assuming that following the birth of a child, a mother goes into post-natal depressions, causing pain to both herself and the child, potentially killing both.

Or let's just assume that this woman has no education yet, no money and parents that would kick her out if she got pregnant? Is it right to force the child and it's mother to grow up in such a harmful environment? Because let's assume this isn't uptown New York, but the poorer regions of Rio de Janeiro, where gang warfare really IS an every day thing and living on the street would mean certain death or forced prostitution of the unborn girl, once she's old enough to talk.

By what right can we condemn BOTH lives into agony only to save the life of one? And don't give me the "sanctity of life" bull####. There's a difference between being alive and actually living, just as there's a difference between biological and psychological humanity: or would you claim a sociopath serial killer with no intention of stopping has the right to live? And if so, do we not infringe on his human right by locking him away? This "great argument" only touches the biological aspects of humanity, implying that anything that can reproduce with other humans has human rights. Which is absolute bull####.

We can't be utilitarian and believe in the sanctity of life at the same time. It simply doesn't work. If an unborn child must not be killed, then no criminal may either.

[Jared]

The world is overpopulated anyways who really cares if a few die honestly?
I personally don't.

[Squidude]

I believe that no on should be killed. Not criminals, not babies, not fetuses. I think a sociopath serial killer with no intention of stopping has the right to live. I happen to be very liberal, except on the stance of abortion.

I say, obviously people deserve the right whether or not to be pregnant, but a fetus is not an extension of the mother. In a perfect world, birth control would be foolproof, and used when needed to prevent such situations in the first place. However, this is not the case, so certain things must be accounted for.

For one thing, a fetus is composed of half of the genes of the mother and half from the father, so the father should have say it this too. It's not their fault that humans are placental mammals, and the female carries the unborn offspring.

Also, if the figure that humans have beating hearts after 15 days is true, abortion should be carried out before then. If the unborn child is aborted while a blastula, I could not raise an objection, but anything with the beginnings of typical life is not alright to kill in my book.

[DarkReality]

So if it has human DNA, it's ok to kill it, as long as it isn't developed enough? o.O Sort of lacking logic, if you ask me. What should a human heart change about the status of "alive"? It still needs to be inside its mother. The heart is simply necessary as the structure of the embryo is so complex at that point, that the cells cannot feed themselves as they did before the heart started beating.

Also, how is birth control alright then? It's ok to prevent a baby from being conceived, but it's not ok to prevent it from being born? Both are unaware of their surroundings (apart from the automatic awareness of the cells), or do you remember your time in your mother's stomach? And if anyone wishes to claim "but babyz r aware of deir surroundings LOL!": proof or it didn't happen.

So apart from being just a step behind the embryo (but in all respects genetically human, at least half-human per egg/sperm), how is birth control morally correct?

[Anonymous]

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8040/wahmbulanceez4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[denacioust]

And if we don't allow Birth Control then how can we condone masturbation? Cause, really, no-one that says they go withou it goes without it. It's all just about keeping up appearances, and no-one knows what happens behind closed doors.

Also, if the figure that humans have beating hearts after 15 days is true, abortion should be carried out before then. If the unborn child is aborted while a blastula, I could not raise an objection, but anything with the beginnings of typical life is not alright to kill in my book.

How many woman do you think know within 15 days that they're pregnant, nevermind even having the time to decide on having an abortion.
And you said anything with the beginnings of 'life' is not alright to kill. I'm sure you meant 'human life' right? Because you don't eat meat. Nor wear leather, or anything that comes from an animal?


The world is overpopulated anyways who really cares if a few die honestly?
I personally don't.


Yeah, ask your parents what their views on it are. Then tell me you're not depressed.


However, just as a brief point, I'd like to take the Maddox stance on this. Aborting babies isn't murder, not aborting babies is. Think about all the murderous unaborted babies there have been, Hitler, Bin Laden, Hussein, Charlie Manson, the list goes on.

[Karl]

Killing anyone is wrong. The only time an abortion gets close to being acceptable is if the mother is a rape victim.

[Freddy]

What if giving birth kills the mother?
What if the baby is due to rape?
What if the mother can't support the baby (causing them both to suffer)?

And that whole 1/3 of his generation missing, thank gawd. Imagine an additional 33% more people in the world. Yeah, no thanks. We're multiplying just fine with abortion.

[e p]

Killing anyone is wrong. The only time an abortion gets close to being acceptable is if the mother is a rape victim.

what if the baby has a serious disease? (ex Harlequin Syndrome)

Would you want to be the one that raises that a child that has a life ruined from the get-go?

[Scornic]

Edit: Wow, I spent an hour on this and the forums crashed, I am so glad I thought to save it in word before posting.

The line about god is very relevant. It claims that we may not choose over life and death. Why not? Why are we allowed to kill murderers and call it just, but not kill unborn children? This argument is too far up on a logical scale. It makes no difference whether an unborn child is human or not. We control other humans daily, directly and indirectly. We take away their sanctity of life and freedom, so why should an unborn child be any different?

Here you are dodging the question. Before I give my counterargument, I need to know. Are you stating the unborn fetus IS indeed human, but it's ok to kill it anyway?

The argument only touches on the humanity of an unborn child, which is in all respect, flawed. Killing people in an offensive war is absolutely correct. Civilians are bad, but what about the soldiers? Does anyone care about Iraqi soldiers (those who have no killed a single person)? Does anyone care if they're killed? We can't bring "all human life is sacred" as an argument and then keep living the way we do. It's hypocrisy at it's best.

Ok then. If all human life is sacred, think of this situation. Infanticide. Let’s say a man and woman are married, and have a child. Three months after the child is born, the father dies. The family was lower-middle class, and the now single mother can't raise the child and work. This three month old child can't fend for itself, it's less developed, it's smaller, and it's in a very bad environment. Why can't the mother have this baby killed, since all life isn't sacred? All your arguments about the mother AND baby ending up worse off apply here. Take the life of one creature that can’t even walk instead of doom both to suffering, right?

And what's with the patriotic #### at the end? Another 9/11? Yea, we all weep over the unborn souls -_- Lets count the stars on the flag to think about the poor, poor aborted children and the lives of the mothers that haven't been destroyed.

Like I said, I didn't write this. However, attacking an argument based on a few random lines in there (which are HIGHLY irrelevant) is foolish. Please, take the time to make important responses, and leave out all the "That line was patriotic and stupid" nonsense.

A hypothetical question for you: assuming that following the birth of a child, a mother goes into post-natal depressions, causing pain to both herself and the child, potentially killing both.

Assuming a mother who did want a baby goes into post-natal depressions causing pain to herself and the child, potentially killing both? Should we pass a law that says all babies MUST be aborted?

Or let's just assume that this woman has no education yet, no money and parents that would kick her out if she got pregnant? Is it right to force the child and it's mother to grow up in such a harmful environment? Because let's assume this isn't uptown New York, but the poorer regions of Rio de Janeiro, where gang warfare really IS an every day thing and living on the street would mean certain death or forced prostitution of the unborn girl, once she's old enough to talk.

She shouldn't get knocked up, to start with. I'll get to the rape issue, just wait. However, the majority of abortions are not rape victims.

By what right can we condemn BOTH lives into agony only to save the life of one? And don't give me the "sanctity of life" bull####. There's a difference between being alive and actually living, just as there's a difference between biological and psychological humanity: or would you claim a sociopath serial killer with no intention of stopping has the right to live? And if so, do we not infringe on his human right by locking him away? This "great argument" only touches the biological aspects of humanity, implying that anything that can reproduce with other humans has human rights. Which is absolute bull####.

Ok, how many lives has the unborn fetus taken in cold blood? If the mother gets knocked up, and doesn't want the child, she can give it up for adoption. Maybe then she will learn to not be the village *****.

We can't be utilitarian and believe in the sanctity of life at the same time. It simply doesn't work. If an unborn child must not be killed, then no criminal may either.

Once again, how many crimes has the unborn child committed? By your logic, ok the unborn child should have the right to be killed, but why stop there? Many powerful armies practiced infanticide. Look at Germany. The master race. Kill any babies with birth defects or low IQ. Look how dangerous Germany was in WWI and II. Way smaller, yet almost took over the world. Look at Sparta. (Not movie reference, Spartans were real, and practiced infanticide, killing any weak or defective babies.) They were some of the fiercest warriors in all of history. If we can't kill babies for being weak to make the master race, why are we allowed to kill criminals?

The world is overpopulated anyways who really cares if a few die honestly?
I personally don't.

Ok, let's start with you. Then let's kill old people who are no longer a use for society. Then mentally disabled people. Then physically disabled people. They all can't contribute to society, so lets help stop overpopulation.


So if it has human DNA, it's ok to kill it, as long as it isn't developed enough? o.O Sort of lacking logic, if you ask me. What should a human heart change about the status of "alive"? It still needs to be inside its mother. The heart is simply necessary as the structure of the embryo is so complex at that point, that the cells cannot feed themselves as they did before the heart started beating.

Don't discredit my argument because of a statement by Squidude.

Also, how is birth control alright then? It's ok to prevent a baby from being conceived, but it's not ok to prevent it from being born? Both are unaware of their surroundings (apart from the automatic awareness of the cells), or do you remember your time in your mother's stomach? And if anyone wishes to claim "but babyz r aware of deir surroundings LOL!": proof or it didn't happen.

Teenagers are horny. With birth control, (minus the few times it fails), teenagers who are going to be horny anyway prevent pregnancy. Your argument is like saying, how is getting a dog spaid any different then killing their babies after they get it on with the neighbors dog? And let me ask you a question. When were you conceived?

So apart from being just a step behind the embryo (but in all respects genetically human, at least half-human per egg/sperm), how is birth control morally correct?

Birth control stops life from happening in the first place. Abortion kills something.


And if we don't allow Birth Control then how can we condone masturbation? Cause, really, no-one that says they go without it goes without it. It's all just about keeping up appearances, and no-one knows what happens behind closed doors.


I don't understand what you are saying. What does masturbation have to do with abortion?


How many women do you think know within 15 days that they're pregnant, never mind even having the time to decide on having an abortion.
And you said anything with the beginnings of 'life' is not alright to kill. I'm sure you meant 'human life' right? Because you don't eat meat. Nor wear leather, or anything that comes from an animal?

Once again, don't discredit my argument because of something Squidude said.

However, just as a brief point, I'd like to take the Maddox stance on this. Aborting babies isn't murder, not aborting babies is. Think about all the murderous unaborted babies there have been, Hitler, Bin Laden, Hussein, Charlie Manson, the list goes on.

Ok, so when we see a person saying they want to kill all the Jews, (Like Iran's leader) or they want to kill a bunch of innocent people, lets kill them because they might actually turn out bad. That's more justifiable then a fetus, because we can hear then saying they want to do it, while a fetus sits there and sleeps. Hey I think my neighbor might be plotting to kill someone, but I have no evidence to support it. Can I kill my neighbor anyway?

What if giving birth kills the mother?

Ok, so lets abort every baby ever conceived to prevent this problem.

What if the baby is due to rape?

This is the ONLY argument for abortions that is plausible. However, most of the abortions that take place are not rape victims. I will be honest to say I don't have a valid argument against this, but I will say that rape doesn't justify the vast majority of abortions. Using this to try to discredit all pro-life arguments is naïve.

What if the mother can't support the baby (causing them both to suffer)?

Refer back to my first example. Three months old the baby’s father dies. A mother can't work when she has a three month old baby to watch. That would cause both to suffer, why can't she kill her three month old?

And that whole 1/3 of his generation missing, thank gawd. Imagine an additional 33% more people in the world. Yeah, no thanks. We're multiplying just fine with abortion.

Once again. Attacking a few remarks that have nothing to do with the argument is flawed logic. Let me tell you something about this argument. This argument was developed by someone (I forget the name I'll find it if you want me to) who appears in Understanding the Times. The person who wrote the page I linked in my first post paraphrased his argument, and threw in these random "Patriotic ****" I figured if I posted his entire original argument all I would get is "tldr." It took two hours for him to present it.

Now, looking back on all your arguments, you have agreed that the fetus is a human person, have you not? You just think because it's not born yet, it's ok to kill it. What's the difference between the unborn fetus and the newborn child? So, if you agree that it's a human, a person, but we can still kill it, why don't we make our human race better, and kill all disabled people. Don't stop there, kill all people with an IQ under 120. Don't stop there, kill all obese people. Don't stop there, kill all people with a violent attitude. Human life isn't that important right? If we kill a disabled person, it's one life to save the entire family the discomfort.

[Anonymous]

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

Internets - 1
Scornic - 0

[Jared]

Yeah, ask your parents what their views on it are. Then tell me you're not depressed.

I never cared what my parent's thought and never will.
At any rate whatever the hell my parent's think has no baring on my opinon.

Ok, let's start with you. Then let's kill old people who are no longer a use for society. Then mentally disabled people. Then physically disabled people. They all can't contribute to society, so lets help stop overpopulation.

That's fine I'm ready to die at anytime.

[Vagrant]

What if giving birth kills the mother?Actually, in that instance, midwives can choose between saving the child or saving the mother. In the old days, people would save the child, but nowadays the mother is saved instead. So that question really doesn't apply here.

what if the baby has a serious disease? (ex Harlequin Syndrome)

Would you want to be the one that raises that a child that has a life ruined from the get-go?Philosophically speaking, aborting a fetus just because of a genetic disorder is like saying, "Oh, well, you won't live up to our standards, so we won't allow you to live." I'm not saying it's practical to keep a fetus with such a life-destroying genetic disorder as the harlequin syndrome, but the idea still remains.

I need to know. Are you stating the unborn fetus IS indeed human, but it's ok to kill it anyway?I believe he's saying that -- he's basically saying that there's no sanctity for human life.

So apart from being just a step behind the embryo (but in all respects genetically human, at least half-human per egg/sperm), how is birth control morally correct?What? The fact that you're alive today means that billions of single-celled organisms today will die. Are you saying that a sperm or egg cell, which contains only half of the DNA it needs, is somehow superior to those organisms? No, only when it's started to become the animal we know as human is it different.

However, just as a brief point, I'd like to take the Maddox stance on this. Aborting babies isn't murder, not aborting babies is. Think about all the murderous unaborted babies there have been, Hitler, Bin Laden, Hussein, Charlie Manson, the list goes on.And think if Einstein, Beethoven, or any other great thinker/artist had been aborted.

[DarkReality]

Killing anyone is wrong. The only time an abortion gets close to being acceptable is if the mother is a rape victim.

And what makes that correct but everything else wrong? Why are the mother's human rights suddenly weighed in more than the baby's human rights? That's the point I'm making with my argument: our view of "human rights" and "human morals" has more holes than a swiss cheese.

Here you are dodging the question. Before I give my counterargument, I need to know. Are you stating the unborn fetus IS indeed human, but it's ok to kill it anyway?

I am completely against the sanctity of human life. I'm not supporting mindless and unprovoked murder, but I believe that (for instance a criminal) has lost his human rights by taking others. It's essentially a variant of the "eye for an eye", but not on all levels (I won't steal from you if you steal from me just for the sake of having stolen something). Of course unborn babies aren't criminals, but I am for preserving the mother's status quo rather than forcing her to get a baby she might not be able to take care of, emotionally.

Infanticide example
(I'm going to shorten the quotes to keep my post smaller >_>)

Is the mother's life guaranteed to become better afterwards? As said, I'm for preventing the mother's (and father's, of course) life from becoming WORSE, but murdering someone to make it better is murder for profit, which I don't support. It's a fine and seemingly arbitrary line, but it's the motivation behind a killing that makes the difference to me.

Assuming a mother who did want a baby goes into post-natal depressions causing pain to herself and the child, potentially killing both? Should we pass a law that says all babies MUST be aborted?

No, because then we would be infringing on our free will. Forcing someone to abort a baby is just like forcing them to keep it. The only difference between the two is that the latter kills off our society :-)

She shouldn't get knocked up, to start with. I'll get to the rape issue, just wait. However, the majority of abortions are not rape victims.

So a mistake is punished with 18 years of childcare? Easy for you to say, since you're not affected. Accidents happen, sadly.

Once again, how many crimes has the unborn child committed? By your logic, ok the unborn child should have the right to be killed, but why stop there? Many powerful armies practiced infanticide. Look at Germany. The master race. Kill any babies with birth defects or low IQ. Look how dangerous Germany was in WWI and II. Way smaller, yet almost took over the world. Look at Sparta. (Not movie reference, Spartans were real, and practiced infanticide, killing any weak or defective babies.) They were some of the fiercest warriors in all of history. If we can't kill babies for being weak to make the master race, why are we allowed to kill criminals?

Once again I refer you to above argument about killing for profit. The motivation behind a killing makes it either a punishable murder or a justified "sacrifice" (I hate the word, but couldn't think of any better one). Both the nazis and spartans had criteria that didn't have to do with the baby's and mother's well-being, so they do not fit into this argument. And the Third Reich "only" lasted for about 12 years (1933 to 1945 are the start and end dates I'm using), so the baby's sorted out had very little effect on the war effort :-)

Birth control stops life from happening in the first place. Abortion kills something.

So simply the fertilization of an egg classifies "life"? :-) I admit, the birth control argument was very lacking. To my defense, I was rather tired when I wrote it.

To the topic of rape:

Everyone claims, out of some whim, that rape victims deserve more rights. It's ok to apparently abort the baby of a rape victim. By your logic, it would then also be ok to kill the born baby of a rape victim, as both deserve the same rights. It's then also ok to kill a 20 year old whose mother was raped and becase pregnant with him as a result. This is where my line of thought starts. There are simply far too many contradictions in our views on abortion. what makes a rape victim's life worth more? Because she doesn't want the baby? Lets assume a condom broke, or the pill didn't work for whatever biological reason. You say birth control is right, but then the people whose condom broke never made a mistake and an abortion should be allowed in their case (i think this is where by birth control argument was born and that's what I probably REALLY meant to say with it >_>).

So why are (or should) all these exceptions be allowed? Is the fetus any less human if his mother is raped? Does his heart start beating 3 months later? I take away all those contradictions by considering abortion (and even murder!) correct when intended to keep the status quo. If I hypothetically knew someone was about to commit a murder and there was no way to stop him (hypothetical, don't forget XD), then the preemptive murder is more than justified. Of course our human minds and methods are incapable of such foresight and Minority Report showed us what happens if we try to do it anyway, but that makes it no less justified to kill a potential school shooter seconds before he pulls his gun (once again assuming I couldn't simply knock it out of his hand). Before counterarguing, the bottom line is that murder should be the last line of defense

That's also the case with embryos. Sure, an adoption is better for everyone, but do you have any idea how FULL our child care homes are? Do you have any idea what kind of conditions these children are put out to? While all children would have a place to go in a utopia, we already have too many homeless children and too few places they can go. So should we force more children into that kind of environment? No. No one has ANYTHING to gain from it apart from the potentially happy life of the child. But what about the happy lives of the OTHER children?

Lets say there are 10000 foster parents worldwide and 45000 homeless children. 35000 homeless children will have no place to go. So now I put up my child for adoption, and it gets taken! Oh ####, now I took a homeless child's foster parents and 35001 children will now have no place to go and will most likely turn to crime (this goes into human psychology and development, so I'd ask we just ignore this obvious probability I'm using as an argument >_>). We should take care of what we have before putting more burden on the world (effectively destroying the status quo, as I've already mentioned.

SORRY 4 TEH LONG POST!

[Scornic]

And what makes that correct but everything else wrong? Why are the mother's human rights suddenly weighed in more than the baby's human rights? That's the point I'm making with my argument: our view of "human rights" and "human morals" has more holes than a swiss cheese.

I choose not to defend Naborr's arguments, I'm sticking to my own to avoid getting caught in a loophole someone else makes.



I am completely against the sanctity of human life. I'm not supporting mindless and unprovoked murder, but I believe that (for instance a criminal) has lost his human rights by taking others. It's essentially a variant of the "eye for an eye", but not on all levels (I won't steal from you if you steal from me just for the sake of having stolen something). Of course unborn babies aren't criminals, but I am for preserving the mother's status quo rather than forcing her to get a baby she might not be able to take care of, emotionally.

You still didn't answer the question. All my quote said was "Here you are dodging the question. Before I give my counterargument, I need to know. Are you stating the unborn fetus IS indeed human, but it's ok to kill it anyway?" All you did was say why you think criminals should be killed. I restate my question, do you believe the unborn fetus is human or not?


(I'm going to shorten the quotes to keep my post smaller >_>)

Is the mother's life guaranteed to become better afterwards? As said, I'm for preventing the mother's (and father's, of course) life from becoming WORSE, but murdering someone to make it better is murder for profit, which I don't support. It's a fine and seemingly arbitrary line, but it's the motivation behind a killing that makes the difference to me.

This part all boils down to my question. Is the fetus human or not? If it is what is the difference between it and the three month old? And yes, it would make the now single mother's life a lot worse to keep the baby. She can't work with a three month old. So once again, stop dodging my question. Is the unborn fetus human or not?



No, because then we would be infringing on our free will. Forcing someone to abort a baby is just like forcing them to keep it. The only difference between the two is that the latter kills off our society :-)

Then your argument about abortion to reduce the risk of labor-caused death is invalid.



So a mistake is punished with 18 years of childcare? Easy for you to say, since you're not affected. Accidents happen, sadly.

Ok, Let's say I make a mistake and accidentally break someone's windshield with a baseball. By your logic, I shouldn't be punished with paying for it to be fixed, because it was just a mistake eh? Accidents happen, sadly.



Once again I refer you to above argument about killing for profit. The motivation behind a killing makes it either a punishable murder or a justified "sacrifice" (I hate the word, but couldn't think of any better one). Both the nazis and spartans had criteria that didn't have to do with the baby's and mother's well-being, so they do not fit into this argument. And the Third Reich "only" lasted for about 12 years (1933 to 1945 are the start and end dates I'm using), so the baby's sorted out had very little effect on the war effort :-)

By your argument though, abortion is killing for profit though. The couple would rather not raise the child, so they profit by aborting it. You're begining to contradict yourself.



So simply the fertilization of an egg classifies "life"? :-) I admit, the birth control argument was very lacking. To my defense, I was rather tired when I wrote it.

Oh wait, now you are arguing living cells which are growing and if left alone will produce a human is not even life? Wow, I think I misunderstand the meaning of life.

To the topic of rape:

I clearly stated that I do not have a good argument about the rape victims, but remember that makes up the extreme minority of abortions. You can't justify all abortions because of a few rape victims.

That's also the case with embryos. Sure, an adoption is better for everyone, but do you have any idea how FULL our child care homes are? Do you have any idea what kind of conditions these children are put out to? While all children would have a place to go in a utopia, we already have too many homeless children and too few places they can go. So should we force more children into that kind of environment? No. No one has ANYTHING to gain from it apart from the potentially happy life of the child. But what about the happy lives of the OTHER children?

Lets say there are 10000 foster parents worldwide and 45000 homeless children. 35000 homeless children will have no place to go. So now I put up my child for adoption, and it gets taken! Oh ####, now I took a homeless child's foster parents and 35001 children will now have no place to go and will most likely turn to crime (this goes into human psychology and development, so I'd ask we just ignore this obvious probability I'm using as an argument >_>). We should take care of what we have before putting more burden on the world (effectively destroying the status quo, as I've already mentioned.

You are Naïve again. The reason so many kids are stuck in child care homes IS NOT because there are not enough willing families. The adoption centers often takes years to verify adoptions. For some reason unknown to me there are so many complications to adopting that makes it near impossible for some families. I personally know couples who have tried for years to adopt, who have no reasons whatsover they would be unfit to raise a child, yet the legal and governmental and who knows what issues cause them to fail to adopt. Does this justify abortion? Absolutely not. There are more then enough willing families, we just need a change in the adoption process.

Once again, you have dodged my main question, and many other smaller questions, only responding to what you felt confident about. Once again I ask, when were you concieved?

[DarkReality]

I choose not to defend Naborr's arguments, I'm sticking to my own to avoid getting caught in a loophole someone else makes.

Didn't you also claim that abortion is OK if it was a rape victim? In any case, that seems to be the common opinion: aborting a baby conceived during a rape is ok. Sort of an ugly twist on the entire "original sin" idea, if you ask me. Not like the baby can do anything for it's mother being raped.

You still didn't answer the question. All my quote said was "Here you are dodging the question. Before I give my counterargument, I need to know. Are you stating the unborn fetus IS indeed human, but it's ok to kill it anyway?" All you did was say why you think criminals should be killed. I restate my question, do you believe the unborn fetus is human or not?

And you can't read, apparently. I am for keeping the status quo. It plays absolutely no role whether it's human or not as I don't consider life to be an untouchable sanctity. It could be human, it might not be. It's certainly a genetic human. But is something that has no thought of its own a human? Is a parasite inside its mother's body a "human"? I don't touch on the subject, because a baby that is about to be born is obviously human, as it's just as developed as it will be immediately outside of the womb. So where is the transition? When is it human and when is it still a genetic clump that will be a human? I have no idea whatsoever.

I know a transition HAS to exist somewhere, because a fertilized egg is a cell and NOT a human. it has human genetic material, but it is by no means a human. But irrelevant of whether an embryo is human or not, I think it's ok to kill it if it's parents aren't willing to try to give it a life any self-respecting human being deserves.

So to answer your question: I believe the embryo starts out as a non-human and ends as a human. I don't know where the border lies and refuse to find one as it would simply create another opinionated "exception" and that's exactly what the entire subject doesn't need.

Then your argument about abortion to reduce the risk of labor-caused death is invalid.

I fail to follow. I merely stated that forcing someone to abort is just like forcing them to carry out a baby. It puts a boundary on us and prevents our personal self-preservation. If someone is willing to carry it out and dies, then it's sad, but it has nothing to do with abortion. My examples were purely hypothetical. Of course it's impossible to see if a baby will cause labor-induced death until it's already too late to abort it without cutting open the mother, in which case a c-section is far more... productive.

... did I even make that labor argument? I liked the post-natal depression argument much better.

>_>
<_<

I still don't follow, though.

Ok, Let's say I make a mistake and accidentally break someone's windshield with a baseball. By your logic, I shouldn't be punished with paying for it to be fixed, because it was just a mistake eh? Accidents happen, sadly.

You won't be paying for the next 18 years. Quit taking my arguments out of context, it's incredibly annoying. besides, your example doesn't work. Accidentally becoming pregnant causes no immediate damage, at least not in the form of a baseball destroying a windshield. Aborting the baby brings us back to square one, just as replacing the windshield would. There's no correlation between the two.

And it's punishment enough for a woman to abort a baby she could carry out and call her own. Maternal instincts are stronger than we imagine, but that's another direction of the argument that we really shouldn't pursue, as we're both not women (I think) :-)

By your argument though, abortion is killing for profit though. The couple would rather not raise the child, so they profit by aborting it. You're begining to contradict yourself.

No. By becoming pregnant, the couple put themselves in a position of disadvantage (at least if they feel they cannot raise a baby, whatever the reasons may be). Aborting it puts them back to square one, they repair the damage. Profit would mean that they gained something through the process, but that is not the case. For example: killing a born baby in order to sell it's kidneys is murder for profit because:

a) by not aborting, the couple accepted their child and accepted a change in their status quo. They were already given the choice to return to square one, didn't, and so put themself in a new position. Killing it is no longer considered "repairing damage".
b) They obviously earn money from this child's kidney

Oh wait, now you are arguing living cells which are growing and if left alone will produce a human is not even life? Wow, I think I misunderstand the meaning of life.

HUMAN LIFE. For the love of god, read the context. This is getting ####ing ridiculous. An unfertilized egg is also "alive", so I obviously meant human life. Good god >_<

You are Naïve again. The reason so many kids are stuck in child care homes IS NOT because there are not enough willing families. The adoption centers often takes years to verify adoptions. For some reason unknown to me there are so many complications to adopting that makes it near impossible for some families. I personally know couples who have tried for years to adopt, who have no reasons whatsover they would be unfit to raise a child, yet the legal and governmental and who knows what issues cause them to fail to adopt. Does this justify abortion? Absolutely not. There are more then enough willing families, we just need a change in the adoption process.

So because we need to change adoption laws, we can just keep pushing out children that will be unhappy? I don't care if there's a universal cure for all our problems: if we find it in 100 years, then the children put up for adoption NOW won't prosper from it. Of course many things in our society need to be changed and modernized, but that doesn't justify causing MORE problems, now does it. Once the adoption process is cleaned up, then we can talk about adoption being a better alternative to abortion, but until that is the case, the children not aborted and forced to grow up without parents will not gain anything from our hypothetical solution

Once again, you have dodged my main question, and many other smaller questions, only responding to what you felt confident about. Once again I ask, when were you concieved?

Are you asking me when I was born? o.O What does this have to do with anything? I was "conceived" 9 months before my birth. So if you want a date, then your best bet would be August 8th, 1985. But please don't ask for the time. I'd guess sometime in the evening.

I didn't "dodge" any of your questions. I spent an entire post explaining why the humanity of the unborn child is absolutely irrelevant to me, as it's "humanity" doesn't make it any better, in my eyes. I ignored the question of my conception, as I have absolutely no idea why it would be relevant. I wasn't an accident and my parents wanted to have me (obviously, seeing how I'm still around and happy with my childhood), so I don't see what you want with that information. So please, tell.

[Mr. Anderson]

Since I'm just jumping into the thread and not really contributing to the current argument, I think I'll just post my views:

I'm pro choice. I think it's entirely the mother and father's choice; whatever they want is fine with me. I'm not going to oppose what they're doing or set up a picket line in front of the clinic; no, I'm not going to do it. I might not agree with their decision, I might not agree with their views, but I'm not going to keep them from doing what they want.

[denacioust]

I don't understand what you are saying. What does masturbation have to do with abortion?


If you're saying that abortion is wrong, then what about birth control? What about the morning after pill? Which is in itself a form of abortion. And masturbation. Its not giving chance for life to happen.


And I'm not even going to respond to your response on the Maddox reference. Clearly, it wasn't intended as a serious argument.

[Scornic]

I have to leave for school I don't have time to right my full response, I promise I will respond to every paragraph of yours as soon as I get home.

So to answer your question: I believe the embryo starts out as a non-human and ends as a human. I don't know where the border lies and refuse to find one as it would simply create another opinionated "exception" and that's exactly what the entire subject doesn't need.

...

I was "conceived" 9 months before my birth.


Ahh, so you were existant nine month before you were born. I think we have established when an embryo becomes a person.

[DarkReality]

... Did you just whip out a trick question on me? o.O In any case, it still makes no difference to me when an embryo becomes a human being.

But if trick questions are what you're resorting to, then this strictly scientific debate (which it never really was...) is pretty much over.

[Liokae]

I don't really have a strong opinion on abortion... I'd put myself as weakly pro-choice. There is one portion of the debate that I would like to comment on strongly, though...

Either ALL life is sacred, or none is. That is all.

Also, everyone so far has been pretty respectful. Just as a friendly reminder, don't lash out at differences in opinion... we still enforce flaming rules. (Nobody's been a problem yet, but abortion is a touchy issue. Just thought I'd give preemptive warning.)

[Scornic]

... Did you just whip out a trick question on me? o.O In any case, it still makes no difference to me when an embryo becomes a human being.

But if trick questions are what you're resorting to, then this strictly scientific debate (which it never really was...) is pretty much over.



It's not a trick question. And actually, it does make a difference when an embryo becomes a human being, because once it's human, the only difference between it and an infant is level of development, size, and location. If you want to kill because of level of development, then everyne under 40 should be allowed to be killed, because we aren't fully developed until then. If you want to argue by size, then hey that midget is less human then me, so I can kill it right? And how does a location change of less then a foot make it any less human? Now when I get home from school, using the established fact that it is a person "9 months before it was born" I will respond to each of your arguments. I have to go now, I'm already late.

[Wolfman]

In my opinion, abortion is a good thing because it helps to control the population. If the population grows too quickly, we will face more hunger, pollution, poverty, unemployment, overcrowding, and crime problems. It would be nice if everyone was sexually responsible, then we wouldn't even need abortion. However, human beings are careless and quick to make decisions without thinking through them by nature, so abortion will continue to be a necessity.

[denacioust]

In my opinion, abortion is a good thing because it helps to control the population. If the population grows too quickly, we will face more hunger, pollution, poverty, unemployment, overcrowding, and crime problems. It would be nice if everyone was sexually responsible, then we wouldn't even need abortion. However, human beings are careless and quick to make decisions without thinking through them by nature, so abortion will continue to be a necessity.


Replace abortion with murder.

[Anonymous]

Replace abortion with murder.
Replace murder with beastiality.

[Jared]

In my opinion, abortion is a good thing because it helps to control the population. If the population grows too quickly, we will face more hunger, pollution, poverty, unemployment, overcrowding, and crime problems. It would be nice if everyone was sexually responsible, then we wouldn't even need abortion. However, human beings are careless and quick to make decisions without thinking through them by nature, so abortion will continue to be a necessity.
If anything we need more abortion.

[Scornic]

In my opinion, abortion is a good thing because it helps to control the population. If the population grows too quickly, we will face more hunger, pollution, poverty, unemployment, overcrowding, and crime problems. It would be nice if everyone was sexually responsible, then we wouldn't even need abortion. However, human beings are careless and quick to make decisions without thinking through them by nature, so abortion will continue to be a necessity.


Obviously you did not read my posts, because I already explained the flawed logic in this. Instead of killing unborn fetuses who have the potential to be great people, we should kill old people, disabled people, mentally disabled people, weak people, and violent people to control the population, while purifying our society. See where your argument leads?

[Jared]

Obviously you did not read my posts, because I already explained the flawed logic in this. Instead of killing unborn fetuses who have the potential to be great people, we should kill old people, disabled people, mentally disabled people, weak people, and violent people to control the population, while purifying our society. See where your argument leads?
A more pure society?

[Scornic]

A more pure society?


Yes. Read up on what Hitler tried to achieve with selective breeding, and extermination of the Jews, and all the such. Killing off anyone with inferior minds, traits, and attributes will lead eventually to a "purer" society. Arguing against that is arguing against genetics. People do this with crops all the time, breed those plants who yeild larger fruits, and in a few generations you have a very noticable difference in size. If you are trying to justify the killing of human life as a form of population control, I'm saying why kill babies with potential instead of people we can already see lack potential.

Didn't you also claim that abortion is OK if it was a rape victim? In any case, that seems to be the common opinion: aborting a baby conceived during a rape is ok. Sort of an ugly twist on the entire "original sin" idea, if you ask me. Not like the baby can do anything for it's mother being raped. No I did not claim that. I said I admit I don’t have a good response to that, but rape only makes up a small fraction of all abortions, and you can’t justify all abortions because of a few rapes.
And you can't read, apparently. I am for keeping the status quo. It plays absolutely no role whether it's human or not as I don't consider life to be an untouchable sanctity. It could be human, it might not be. It's certainly a genetic human. But is something that has no thought of its own a human? Is a parasite inside its mother's body a "human"? I don't touch on the subject, because a baby that is about to be born is obviously human, as it's just as developed as it will be immediately outside of the womb. So where is the transition? When is it human and when is it still a genetic clump that will be a human? I have no idea whatsoever.

I know a transition HAS to exist somewhere, because a fertilized egg is a cell and NOT a human. it has human genetic material, but it is by no means a human. But irrelevant of whether an embryo is human or not, I think it's ok to kill it if it's parents aren't willing to try to give it a life any self-respecting human being deserves.

So to answer your question: I believe the embryo starts out as a non-human and ends as a human. I don't know where the border lies and refuse to find one as it would simply create another opinionated "exception" and that's exactly what the entire subject doesn't need. I’ve already showed by your own logic that you believe the fetus has an identity nine months before it’s born, but going along with your argument that life is not an untouchable sanctity, I again raise the question, why stop at unborn children? Why not kill all weak, violent, homosexual, disabled, low IQ-ed people in our society, if human life isn’t that sacred. It would be better for the society as a whole.
I fail to follow. I merely stated that forcing someone to abort is just like forcing them to carry out a baby. It puts a boundary on us and prevents our personal self-preservation. If someone is willing to carry it out and dies, then it's sad, but it has nothing to do with abortion. My examples were purely hypothetical. Of course it's impossible to see if a baby will cause labor-induced death until it's already too late to abort it without cutting open the mother, in which case a c-section is far more... productive.

... did I even make that labor argument? I liked the post-natal depression argument much better.
>_>
<_<

I still don't follow, though. I’m sorry, I admit I got the two confused, but my argument still stands, if there is a risk of the mother going into depression and killing herself and the baby, it would be logical to abort all babies right? That way there IS no risk.

You won't be paying for the next 18 years. Quit taking my arguments out of context, it's incredibly annoying. besides, your example doesn't work. Accidentally becoming pregnant causes no immediate damage, at least not in the form of a baseball destroying a windshield. Aborting the baby brings us back to square one, just as replacing the windshield would. There's no correlation between the two.

And it's punishment enough for a woman to abort a baby she could carry out and call her own. Maternal instincts are stronger than we imagine, but that's another direction of the argument that we really shouldn't pursue, as we're both not women (I think) :-) So you are saying the mother would feel bad after aborting a useless blob of cells? Why is that?
No. By becoming pregnant, the couple put themselves in a position of disadvantage (at least if they feel they cannot raise a baby, whatever the reasons may be). Aborting it puts them back to square one, they repair the damage. Profit would mean that they gained something through the process, but that is not the case. For example: killing a born baby in order to sell it's kidneys is murder for profit because:

a) by not aborting, the couple accepted their child and accepted a change in their status quo. They were already given the choice to return to square one, didn't, and so put themself in a new position. Killing it is no longer considered "repairing damage".
b) They obviously earn money from this child's kidney “Profit n. ‘An advantageous gain or return; benefit.’” You say it benefits the parents to abort the baby. They pay the small abortion fee, and profit by saving all the money they would spend raising the child. You can’t argue that killing babies who are weak or disabled to make a better race is profit and killing an unborn child so you don’t have to take care of it isn’t. Stop with the double-standards.
HUMAN LIFE. For the love of god, read the context. This is getting ####ing ridiculous. An unfertilized egg is also "alive", so I obviously meant human life. Good god >_<
And we are back to the question, what is the unborn? You have already shown me that it has identity nine months before it’s birth, so are you saying we are ourselves when we are conceived, but we aren’t human? You need to make a decision about what the unborn child is before you continue your argument, because now you are beginning to throw around contradictions and assertions. Tell me, why should a life, which already has a human identity, be killed to make the mother who made the mistake of getting pregnant happy? Where is your reasoning behind stating the unborn isn’t human? If it’s just your assertion, I think my neighbor, whom has a human identity, isn’t really human. I have just as much evidence to back that up as you have provided, so I should be able to kill him, right? Back up your claims.
So because we need to change adoption laws, we can just keep pushing out children that will be unhappy? I don't care if there's a universal cure for all our problems: if we find it in 100 years, then the children put up for adoption NOW won't prosper from it. Of course many things in our society need to be changed and modernized, but that doesn't justify causing MORE problems, now does it. Once the adoption process is cleaned up, then we can talk about adoption being a better alternative to abortion, but until that is the case, the children not aborted and forced to grow up without parents will not gain anything from our hypothetical solution
And I will give that one to you, that adoption isn’t as good of an alternative as many pro-lifers push for. But I still don’t see how that justifies taking human lives.

Are you asking me when I was born? o.O What does this have to do with anything? I was "conceived" 9 months before my birth. So if you want a date, then your best bet would be August 8th, 1985. But please don't ask for the time. I'd guess sometime in the evening.

I didn't "dodge" any of your questions. I spent an entire post explaining why the humanity of the unborn child is absolutely irrelevant to me, as it's "humanity" doesn't make it any better, in my eyes. I ignored the question of my conception, as I have absolutely no idea why it would be relevant. I wasn't an accident and my parents wanted to have me (obviously, seeing how I'm still around and happy with my childhood), so I don't see what you want with that information. So please, tell. You have seen why I wanted that information. How can you have idenity, without humanity?

If you're saying that abortion is wrong, then what about birth control? What about the morning after pill? Which is in itself a form of abortion. And masturbation. Its not giving chance for life to happen.


And I'm not even going to respond to your response on the Maddox reference. Clearly, it wasn't intended as a serious argument. Abortion kills a human life, birth control prevents it. As far as I know, (I do not have much experience with a morning after pill), that’s not really birth control, rather a form of abortion. But, since I do not know enough about it to make an argument, I will not say whether it is right or wrong. I will say, however, that my argument against abortions, (Whether morning after pill falls in the category or not) stands.

[Vagrant]

In my opinion, abortion is a good thing because it helps to control the population. If the population grows too quickly, we will face more hunger, pollution, poverty, unemployment, overcrowding, and crime problems. It would be nice if everyone was sexually responsible, then we wouldn't even need abortion. However, human beings are careless and quick to make decisions without thinking through them by nature, so abortion will continue to be a necessity.

Abortion accounts for very little population control. Contraception and infanticide account for a lot more. China's birth laws account for even more.

But abortion is really minute in terms of population control. Nor would I expect it to be fairly large. Because if abortion is available, so are contraceptives. And since contraceptives are 99% effective, generally, a lot more potential population is prevented. Many people would refuse an abortion, even if they got pregnant while on contraceptives.

[DarkReality]

I’ve already showed by your own logic that you believe the fetus has an identity nine months before it’s born, but going along with your argument that life is not an untouchable sanctity, I again raise the question, why stop at unborn children? Why not kill all weak, violent, homosexual, disabled, low IQ-ed people in our society, if human life isn’t that sacred. It would be better for the society as a whole.

Because I do not justify killing people for profit or improvement, merely to prevent further disadvantages. Do you not know the meaning of status quo or did you overread the half dozen times i used it?

So you are saying the mother would feel bad after aborting a useless blob of cells? Why is that?

Maternal instincts neither you nor I fully understand.

I’m sorry, I admit I got the two confused, but my argument still stands, if there is a risk of the mother going into depression and killing herself and the baby, it would be logical to abort all babies right? That way there IS no risk.

No, it's not logical. It's exactly what I didn't say. It is purely the mother's decision if the danger is too high or if she can't raise the child properly. It is not the government's place to decide that for someone else by making a general rule that allows for no exceptions. Contrary, banning abortions WITH exceptions is an incomplete logic which does not benefit anyone as these exceptions turn into something completely arbitrary.

You fail to grasp my argument, I believe. All of your other questions can be answered by restating what I said before. You hold on to the definition of what a human being is and I've already stated that it doesn't matter in the slightest bit to me. The statement I made "so a fertilized cell is [human] life" was more in jest than anything else. I honestly don't care at what point someone is a human. If a baby will worsen the living conditions of its parents and these refuse to accept their condition being worsened, then its abortion is justified in my eyes.

So should we kill mentally and physically handicapped people? Should we kill the old? No. Not as long as there are people who will accept taking care of them and therefor accept their own condition being worsened (whether they're paid doesn't play a role as anyone could say "no, I don't want to do this, I will find another job").

And with that, I'm done until someone comes along who can actually understand me. [/cuts wrists]

>_>

[Scornic]

So should we kill mentally and physically handicapped people? Should we kill the old? No. Not as long as there are people who will accept taking care of them and therefor accept their own condition being worsened (whether they're paid doesn't play a role as anyone could say "no, I don't want to do this, I will find another job").

Ok, I now understand your stance. You're basically saying, if people were unwilling to take care of those humans, (Who are already born) who cannot take care of themselves, it would be ok to kill them too. The difference between them and fetuses, is people are not willing to take care of the soon to be born babies, as they are the disabled. I don't feel like trying to argue against a worldview like that, but it was fun up until now.

Just a tip, next time someone asks when you were concieved, try saying "The embryo which one day became the human being I am today was concieved nine months before my birth." Other people may be a lot less straightforward, and try to trap you in tricks and make you contradict yourself.

[Wolfman]

People get abortions either because they don't want a baby, or they can't support one. If we don't allow abortions, there will be a lot more children getting abused by parents who don't love them, growing up in poverty, getting into drugs, crime, and prostitution at a young age, and being bounced around from foster home to foster home.

[Malignus]

Imagine this, if you will:

Your 14-year-old sister, under pressure from society to be sexually active with boys, ends up getting pregnant. She was not raped. She doesn't discover the pregnancy until two months in.

Would you tell your 14-year-old sister that she has to carry a baby to term simply because she wasn't raped? Would you be willing to throw her life away because of the "rights" of an undeveloped embryo without emotions, a memory, a personality, or even a consciousness to speak of? That's like cutting a man in two to save the life of a fly who flew down his throat. Not only is it stupid, it's flat-out barbaric.

[denacioust]

No. That fly is and always will be a fly. That's where your logic is severely flawed. It also bases decisions on emotions and not logic.

[Malignus]

Whereas an embryo bases its decisions on logic? In fact, a fly probably has a more developed consciousness than an embryo does, in that at least is makes decisions to begin with. An embryo just sort of floats there and leeches nutrients off the mother. :p

Anyway, you can't give an embryo rights solely because it could become a person. If you did, you'd have to prosecute men who masturbate and women who menstruate for discarding living cells with human DNA that could potentially develop into a person.

[big-VR-machine]

to put it in the simplest terms, if ur pro life, that's your choice. just because you want everyone else to be just like you doesnt mean you tell people that they must have a child, even if it makes them useless to sociaty, and end up being poor because of it. your and individual person, and the person potentially giving birth should be able to choose. its their choice, not urs, so stop #####in

[.Valhalla.]

Giving the child away is better then abortion in my opinion.

*awaits harsh criticism*

[Scornic]

Whereas an embryo bases its decisions on logic? In fact, a fly probably has a more developed consciousness than an embryo does, in that at least is makes decisions to begin with. An embryo just sort of floats there and leeches nutrients off the mother. :p

Anyway, you can't give an embryo rights solely because it could become a person. If you did, you'd have to prosecute men who masturbate and women who menstruate for discarding living cells with human DNA that could potentially develop into a person.

Malignus, if you had followed the entire debate you would realize that your staement has already been disproven. We both established that the unborn is indeed human with an identity, nine months before it is born. I stepped down because his worldview justifies abortion, without any contradictions. I don't agree with his worldview, but I can't make abortions a bad thing while sticking to his worldview. I highly doubt very many people see the world as he does though, so don't assume I am saying I have lost this debate. Neither has he.

And yes, if at fourteen my sister had gotten knocked up, I would do everything I could to make sure she didn't even consider an abortion.

to put it in the simplest terms, if ur pro life, that's your choice. just because you want everyone else to be just like you doesnt mean you tell people that they must have a child, even if it makes them useless to sociaty, and end up being poor because of it. your and individual person, and the person potentially giving birth should be able to choose. its their choice, not urs, so stop #####in

Are you saying I should not impose my worldview on anyone else?

[whatever dude]

Abortion: Right or Wrong?



Abortion is one of the most controversial subjects in the America. However, murder is readily accepted as being morally wrong. Abortion, though difficult for most to admit, actually is murder. The definition of murder is: “The willful (non-negligent) killing of one human being by another” (Annual Report and Crime Statistics 2005). Life matters above all else and begins at conception. Pro-abortion arguments become pointless in light of this fact.
Most people think that there is a vague point when the fetus magically becomes a human being. However, these same people refuse to actually define when this happens. There are many varying opinions about when “life” occurs. Some say it is when there is a beating heart. Others say it is when there are detectable brain waves. Many believe it is at about three month's gestation. A few even think it is not "life" until the baby is out of the mother. Being certain of when this point occurs is crucial to the determination of whether abortion is right or wrong.
Medical facts prove that life begins at conception. There is a genetic code in place from the time of conception, the same genetic code this baby, if allowed to live, will have when he is eighty years old. There are unique biological traits determined by this DNA that makes him or her truly individual. The fetus has the beginnings of organ systems. All

1
2


other stages after this are simply a continuation of the process begun at conception.
Another factor that frequently is used in abortion discussions is the issue of religious beliefs. While meaningful, it is not simply a religious belief that abortion is wrong. A non-Christian liberal concluded the following: "The biological fact is that once there is fertilization the resultant cell has all the genetic information that makes each human being unique. Therefore, whether this developing human being is aborted in the fourth week or fourteenth, it is still one of us…” .This man was convinced by the strong biological facts, not because of any religious convictions.
The fetus is already a human being, not just "potentially" one. Remember that we all had our beginnings exactly the same way.
There are episodes in history that apply to the abortion debate. Shocking similarities exist between abortion, slavery, and even the Holocaust. One of the main arguments is that no one should tell another what they can and cannot do with their own body. In the slavery era, the word “body” was simply replaced with the word "property". This wording should actually serve to protect the fetus. After all, doesn’t he or she have rights too? The fact that the fetus is in the mother's womb should not take away his (or her) rights anymore than then a slave’s rights should be nullified just be cause he is “owned” by someone else. Just because abortion is legal does not make it right, any more then did the legality of slavery make it morally correct. It must also be noted that the Nazis killed six million Jews because of the Nazi belief that the Jewish race was inferior. Yet we have killed forty-four million babies because they are considered inconvenient. Slavery,

3

abortion, and the Holocaust all have as their basis, the belief that some life is more important than other life and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Of the questions heard in abortion discussions, there are a few that are commonly repeated: "Is it fair to bring a baby into the world in such a bad situation as mine?", "Aren’t abortions necessary in order to control population?", and “What if I am not ready to be a mother?"
The fact is the fetus is life beginning at conception. Therefore, all abortions are the taking of human life, which has more value then any of our questions. Governor Sanford of South Carolina sums up this debate well with his recent statement: “I believe life is sacred, and in the debate over when life begins I believe as a society we should always err on the side of life

(yes, I wrote that)

[Anonymous]

I'm taking nobody read the article I posted.

:(

[Vagrant]

C&P anyone? (at whatever dude)

[Scornic]

C&P anyone? (at whatever dude)

Indeed, but it's a good argument. He should have at least noted it wasn't his own work.

[rpgfan]

The world is overpopulated anyways who really cares if a few die honestly?
I personally don't.

Okay, ill start with you *daul uzi'd*

we need to create a machine that make new planets so we can go and destroy them. Were done with earth.

[whatever dude]

C&P anyone? (at whatever dude)


Copy and pasted from a document (That was a research paper, as proof I can post the outline and such)

[Malignus]

Ahh, so you were existant nine month before you were born. I think we have established when an embryo becomes a person.


Scornic, is this what you're talking about? Nothing personal, but I don't think his admission that he existed as a microscopic, unicellular organism 9 months prior to his birth is in any way proof that he was a person with the rights of a full-fledged human being at that time.

[Chimpy]

Read Freakonomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics) and find out why abortion is a great crime fighting method. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)

That is, without having to go all nazi and kill everyone that isn't a certain type of person.

[e p]

Philosophically speaking, aborting a fetus just because of a genetic disorder is like saying, "Oh, well, you won't live up to our standards, so we won't allow you to live." I'm not saying it's practical to keep a fetus with such a life-destroying genetic disorder as the harlequin syndrome, but the idea still remains.

My point is I don't think someone would want to raise a child that has really low standards. (there are some exceptions)

[Arca]

By what right can we condemn BOTH lives into agony only to save the life of one? And don't give me the "sanctity of life" bull####.

Damn Straight. This is the mother's choice. Her life. The fetus is just a fetus. Aslong as you don't name it, it's just a cancerous lump that keeps growing, harsh but true. Stop over populating the earth. Kill a baby today.

[.sickling.]

Damn Straight. This is the mother's choice. Her life. The fetus is just a fetus. Aslong as you don't name it, it's just a cancerous lump that keeps growing, harsh but true. Stop over populating the earth. Kill a baby today.

Yes, that's right. Cleanse the gene pool to the point of the extinction of mankind. Save the rest of Earth. One species is worth far less than the billion others existent.