Do You Support Abortion?

[MadMachine]

So, we've established that you're heartless. O.K.

Don't make such false accusations. I'm not insensitive, I am simply repulsed by babies. Which is why I'm never having one of my own. You should be glad.

*snip

Hope That Helps.

Any "importance" seen in life is entirely subjective. Life certainly isn't inherently valuable. Many babies grow up to inflict great misery on others, and/or to be miserable themselves.

*snip*

[Belle.]

So, we've established that you're heartless. O.K.

*snip*

Hope That Helps.

Now you are going off the deep end.

[norwood1026]

I wonder how much someones faith or lack of faith plays into what they believe about topics such as this.

[BlindMessiah]

I wonder how much someones faith or lack of faith plays into what they believe about topics such as this.

It shouldn't. This is an entirely scientific question. When does life begin, sometime during the second trimester, so we outlaw abortions once the pregnancy reaches the second trimester. It has nothing to do with women's rights or choice. It's simply an issue of when, scientifically, is the fetus a life and no longer a collection of cells inside someone else's body.

[norwood1026]

It shouldn't. This is an entirely scientific question. When does life begin, sometime during the second trimester, so we outlaw abortions once the pregnancy reaches the second trimester. It has nothing to do with women's rights or choice. It's simply an issue of when, scientifically, is the fetus a life and no longer a collection of cells inside someone else's body.

This being a religous fourm it's not entirely a scientific question totally, I can see smome here anwsering this based on what thier faith says.

Edited September 21, 2008 by norwood1026

[IamsSon]

I'm pro-choice and I figure I'd support a death penalty. However, the death penalty only for those who commit grevious crimes - serial killers and the like.

Pro-choice, because imo who has the right to judge what a woman does with her womb? A woman has the right to decide what's in her own womb, but not that of her neighbors or sibling.

So, a pregnant woman, in your opinion, has the right to kill an innocent life?

I don't think it's as black and white as that, Iams.

Contraception fails. A lot. The majority of people that I know personally who have had abortions have done so after a failure in contraception.

I can see how having sex with no contraception would be deemed irresponsible, but I have much more sympathy for those whose contraception fails.

I think it IS that black and white, Tiggs. Yes, contraception fails, and an intelligent person takes that into consideration when they engage in sex, and should be prepared--nay, required--to take responsibility for the results of their choice, just as someone who chooses to get drunk or drugged and then gets in a car must be held responsible for the outcome of their actions.

[BlindMessiah]

This being a religous fourm it's not entirely a scientific question totally, I can see smome here anwsering this based on what thier faith says.

People also use faith to justify suicide bombing. It isn't exactly the best source of morality.

[Startraveler]

It's simply an issue of when, scientifically, is the fetus a life and no longer a collection of cells inside someone else's body.

You know cells are alive, right?

[BlindMessiah]

You know cells are alive, right?

Yes. We're talking about when the fetus becomes a human life. That would be when brain activity begins... sometime during the second trimester.

[norwood1026]

People also use faith to justify suicide bombing. It isn't exactly the best source of morality.

Your right it works both ways.

[Startraveler]

Yes. We're talking about when the fetus becomes a human life. That would be when brain activity begins... sometime during the second trimester.

See, that's not a "scientific" determination, that's an arbitrary judgement as to what constitutes "human life." Others would argue that the moment an embryo with a set of human chromosomes is created you have human life.

[BlindMessiah]

See, that's not a "scientific" determination, that's an arbitrary judgement as to what constitutes "human life." Others would argue that the moment an embryo with a set of human chromosomes is created you have human life.

The mind is everything about humans. Our feelings and emotions, and everything, is controlled by the mind. Just like when the brain ceases to work, you can pull the plug because they're dead, when the brain activity begins, it is alive.

[Startraveler]

And that's a fine rationale. But ultimately scientific analysis can only tell you when your particularly conception of the beginning of life (brain activity) occurs. It doesn't actually settle the broader question. But as I indicated in my post above, I don't think "when does life begin" is the most interesting or relevant question here anyway.

[BlindMessiah]

And that's a fine rationale. But ultimately scientific analysis can only tell you when your particularly conception of the beginning of life (brain activity) occurs. It doesn't actually settle the broader question. But as I indicated in my post above, I don't think "when does life begin" is the most interesting or relevant question here anyway.

When life begins is the most important question in dealing with abortion. Now maybe my definition of life beginning with brain activity is wrong, but this is still the ultimate question in dealing with abortion.

[IrishAidan07]

Don't make such false accusations. I'm not insensitive, I am simply repulsed by babies. Which is why I'm never having one of my own. You should be glad.

I am glad your genes won't be carried on, but I do think you're heartless. How any sane person could be repulsed by babies is beyond me.

Any "importance" seen in life is entirely subjective. Life certainly isn't inherently valuable. Many babies grow up to inflict great misery on others, and/or to be miserable themselves.

And what do you suggest I do with the gun, anyway? Don't be so immature.

Immature? You get on here talking about how miserable life is and how people should be allowed to kill themselves, yet I'm immature? Grow up and leave the teenage angst behind, you child.

Edited September 21, 2008 by IrishAidan

[IrishAidan07]

When life begins is the most important question in dealing with abortion. Now maybe my definition of life beginning with brain activity is wrong, but this is still the ultimate question in dealing with abortion.

Of course it is.

[Startraveler]

When life begins is the most important question in dealing with abortion.

I disagree. As I outlined somewhere above, unless you believe the state exists to enforce some sort of Divine law then the important question is one of social personhood. In a sense, this is what're you already arguing (e.g. your statement that a living human who is brain dead is "dead" is a social rather than a biological statement).

Framing it in terms of life alone is tricky because you might be left fumbling between definitions of "life" vs "human life" (as you were). Or you might accept the undeniable fact that a blastocyst meets the criteria of "alive," in which case you have to decide whether a small clump of cells deserves human rights. I think it makes far more sense to ask when a being enters the social sphere and falls under the protections of the state. This unties the question from that of life (although you're free, of course, to insert it if you feel the need) because, frankly, you'd be hard-pressed to find a point in the biological continuum of reproduction where there isn't life. Cells meet other cells to start a process of dividing to makes still more cells. When does a soul get breathed in? I don't believe it's a meaningful question.

[IrishAidan07]

I think using scientific names, such as blastocyst, when talking of abortion is just an attempt to rip emotion out of the issue. The bottom line, the inescapable fact is simple when speaking of human embryogenesis: a zygote, blastocyst, and gastrula are the same thing - a human being in the making. The moment the egg and sperm meet, a new individual is forming. Scientific names are for scientists describing the process. When people discussing abortion start using them, I've found that 90% of the time the purpose is simply to sidestep emotion. Which you can't do.

Edited September 21, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Startraveler]

The bottom line, the inescapable fact is simple when speaking of human embryogenesis: a zygote, blastocyst, and gastrula are the same thing - a human being in the making.

Yes, but we clearly attach different significance to that statement. A "human being in the making" is not the same as a human being. In fact, the specific phrasing you chose implies that it could be aborted, i.e. it is a process that has begun but isn't finished. And all decisions related to the advancement of that process--including the cessation of it--belong to the mother.

[IrishAidan07]

Yes, but we clearly attach different significance to that statement. A "human being in the making" is not the same as a human being. In fact, the specific phrasing you chose implies that it could be aborted, i.e. it is a process that has begun but isn't finished. And all decisions related to the advancement of that process--including the cessation of it--belong to the mother.

I refuse to use the word "human" because I prefer not to argue with people who use semantics as a reason to support the murder of a human being (and it is in my opinion). In this thread, and you know this, we are not talking about abortion via nature - but via the choice of the mother, which it should not be. Whether or not the mother should be allowed to play God, and cease this process as you call it, is the real issue here.

Edited September 21, 2008 by IrishAidan

[IrishAidan07]

Humans are developing constantly. From zygote to death, our bodies develop and change. Why are we, I wonder, at the earliest stages of this development considered non-human? It makes no sense to me whatsoever. I mean, I use the term "develop" liberally, but why not. For example, the human heart develops constantly. Older adults have a better chance of surviving heart attacks because coronary arteries will begin to branch-off and find another route if a blockage occurs. This doesn't happen in younger people, hence the usage of the term "development."

Edited September 21, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Golden Hawk]

"... its not MY CHOICE, and never should be, and worse still, I should never have that authority to DEMAND that from someone else."

Bravo!!

I was raised by my grandparents who were relitively relegious, but not too strict. We were raised to have faith in G-D and to believe in ourselves.

It ranckors me when anyone, who is no way shape or form, connected with a woman who wants an abortion, tells her she will go to hell and burn, etc, etc, etc, for makinga very difficult decesion to end the life of her unborn child.

We "...should never have the authority to DEMAND that from 'anyone' else."

[msmischief]

So, we've established that you're heartless. O.K.

Anyway, if you think life isn't important and just another misery, then I have a suggestion for you to alleviate the "pain."

Cure: 38 Smith & Wesson.

Hope That Helps.

Vicious. Even if this is an emotional issue for you, that was uncalled for.

[IrishAidan07]

Vicious. Even if this is an emotional issue for you, that was uncalled for.

And saying babies are repulsive is...what? Statement of endearment?

Calling my two kids repulsive is uncalled for.

Edited September 21, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Ziggy Stardust]

A note on the death penalty: It is an unconstructive easy-out, in my opinion. Why must two human beings be lost over one murder? The crime the murderer has comitted is heinous, but his crippled moral values, 90% of the time, are not his fault. Why can't we salvage the murderer's mind and use his crime as a turning point in his life, so that he may compensate for it in the future?