The Abortion Thread (now with nifty rules!)

[Tipsy]

Genetics. Based on our parents DNA, we are built...physically. Not mentally or socially. Just physically, which you condsider irrelevant to being human.

I consider having an ear or leg irrelevant to being a human because discrimination based on physical characteristics is illegal.

Now I personally believe that a fetus is not a human...up to a time. I, like undead_cheese (i think thats his name), do not believe in abortion in the third and second half of second trimester. (I'll explain soon.) To me, the fetus is basically, a parasite : An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. That's what a fetus *basically* does. It uses the womans blood, food, and waste system (a lack of better words there) Being pregnant does not help the woman in any way except pass on her and the father's genes. But that's assuming the child doesn't die,get vascetomy/*woman's version*, get ovarian/testicular cancer, or isn't homosexual.

"...But a newborn depends on the woman as much as a fetus does" - those weren't the exact words, but along the same line; someone said.

That is not true. A newborn infant doesn't require use to go to the bathroom for it. It does that it self, using its own system and own muscles. A fetus uses the mother. Plain and simple.

I believe it was Kamikaze’s argument that stated that. My argument is that a dependant human is still a human and deserves human rights because of that.

Now...on why I belive it's wrong to have an abortion between 2nd 1/2 - 3rd trimester. First of all, from what I understand, is that having an abortion (that late in pregnancy) is like giving birth. If you are willing to go through the pain of an abortion, then you might as well wait an extra2-3 months and just give birth. Also, this is just speculation, but the survival rate of an unborn fetus rises rapidly starting a little before the third tri-mester. (I might be wrong on this... I can't remember where I saw this information. I think it was in TIME. All I know is that is saw it this year 2005) Another note: I don't think women should have abortions, but if it's what the want/feel they need to do, then it's their choice, not politicians.

Unfortunately for your view the government has a legal responsibility to bestow human rights upon all humans under its’ jurisdiction as pointed out by my quotes of the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights.

Well, that'll be all for now. And just on a side note, and off topic(we can discuss some other time)... it's kinda funny how "conservatives" use science to support one idea (Mendel) and completely disregard others (Darwin).

I am assuming you are referring to religion here. Undead Cheese, as pointed out by his custom title is a conservative atheist and to my knowledge has no problem with evolution (which is what I’m assuming you are talking about). Then there’s me on the other hand who is a Roman Catholic, which is the church that doesn’t teach the whole ‘creationism in seven days’ or ‘intelligent design’, but is completely compatible with evolution. Here’s a side note, its’ fun to generalize all the people who follow a particular political ideology.

#3
If a fetus was to be removed from its mother and placed into a "synthetic" womb for the remainder of the 9 months, and the baby was proven by scientific data research that it would come out just as normal/healthy/smart/correct as a normal baby from an actual mother did, would it still be okay?

I’ll just be answering question three because I don’t have anything in my opinion differing from Lights’ answers.

The use of a synthetic womb would be an ideal solution to some of the problems facing abortion. Because if we look at how it should be, we have to respect the rights of the woman and the life of the fetus. In cases of consensual sex, both of these are being done. However, in cases such as rape and the fetus causing serious medical harm to the mother a new solution has to be decided upon to both respect the woman and the fetus. You probably see where I am going with this. If in these two cases the fetus is removed from the mother it would ideally be solving both of these problems in cases where sex is not consensual or where medical harm may occur.

That being said, it would not be at all appropriate, in my opinion, to have this option outside of extreme cases such as the listed above. Surgically removing the fetus from the mother because ‘she doesn’t want stretch lines’ and so forth don’t seem at all to be legitimate medical reasons for me. If that reason or similar reasons are used it isn’t something that should be covered by medical insurance (or by the government in cases of countries with free health care) simply because it isn’t necessary.

Edit: In case my tone has implied otherwise, though I think it would not be appropriate and that it should be up to the mother to pay completely for the unnecessary medical operation, people should have the right to it if this technology is certified as safe for use by the general public.

Which means exactly what I said. They are dependant on that cord for survival. Not meaning a time frame of 1 minute or 2 days, but rather more than the remaining 9 months to which would be disconnected from the cord anyway.

I stand by the statement that a human that is dependant is still a human and deserves human rights.

First of all, I never said it was a "lifeless ball of cells". I know that it is alive, and growing. A woman has a right to use her bodies resources as she wants. Her choice is what to do with her body and with what ever is living in it. If she doesn't want to give birth, then fine, it's her call. But she can't just stop nurturing it, so she has to abort it.

Of course she has a right use her body as she wishes. She exercised that right when she chose to have sex. When you exercise your right to use your body as you wish you have to accept the consequences that come with it.

And you are most likely going to point out cases of ‘rape’ when she didn’t chose to have sex. That is covered in my response to OneEliteMof0’s question #3.

 

[Lights]

First of all, I never said it was a "lifeless ball of cells". I know that it is alive, and growing.

Yea, I know you didn't. I believe it was lizardbreath who shared that divine relevation for us. But that seems to be the general feeling of a fetus in it's earlier stages, before it hits the 'magic point of reaching humanhood.'

A woman has a right to use her bodies resources as she wants.

This is where I strongly disagree. The situation is unique, no doubt. The growing fetus depends on the mother for survival, yes. That it is inside her, obviously. But, that it is a seperate, individual human being is without question. Is it connected via umbilical cord and living inside her womb? Yes. I cannot say you are wrong here. But this isn't the case of a woman deciding to get her ears pierced or a tattoo. We are talking about a seperate life, one that has its own rights.

It is my strong opinion that the fact that the fetus is a human being, a seperate individual from the parents that gave it life, is that it has a right to life. I do not deny that a man cannot know what it is like, however I really do not see that as what is most important. What is important, is that the fetus is a human being, that its place in the womb is perfectly natural and understood by a woman who is sexually active.

Her choice is what to do with her body and with what ever is living in it. If she doesn't want to give birth, then fine, it's her call. But she can't just stop nurturing it, so she has to abort it.

So that brings us to this. Does a woman have a right to choose if the fetus lives or dies? Is it her call that she can end the existance of the child inside her? I would say no, though that does not mean I advocate "forcing a woman into pregnancy."

I believe she has a choice, just as her male partner has a choice: To have sex. That is the all important "choice." "Are we going to ****? Are we going to have sex, even with protection that might fail?" That's her call. Once that call has been made, the rest is set into motion. Will her egg be fertilized? If it is, a human being, with all the rights it is entitled to, has been created. It has an undeniable right to life.

 

[OneEliteMof0]

I first off want to give a big thanks especially towards "Tipsy" and "Lights" and also anyone in the future who gives "serious" answers to my "If statments."

I found your answers almost to be exactly like mine. Suprisingly first comming into this debait I was believing two opposite sides were going to end up staying opposite with out much gained. However I went into the discussion sharing my views, opinions, and examples. In the end finding out how much our views are the same actually ended up suprising me durastically. Not on every aspect (So for some of you, remember me saying "Not every aspect") but on a lot, the opinion was made based on an if statment.

I think most people will agree (With a little though and understanding) and fall under this same aspect.

In a realistic view neither side is actually (Again, not everyone, but many) are actually not specifically arguing the abortion side. But rather the human right side.

The people for abortion are basically arguing the women should not be required to have somthing inside of her.

The people agianst abortion are basically arguing no one should have the right to pick what lives or dies.

Although agian I must stress this is NOT 100% of all issues. So I am stating it again so I specifically do not get yet another reply from Kamikaze saying "That is not all the issues."

I came in here with a one sided view with my opinion, which I suppose many others may have also, and also a false perception of the opposed opinion. However both have had durastic changes. I think that with research, communication, and expressing each persons opinions/feelings/beliefs (Although beliefs should never carry any weight) it would help make ideas meet, and come together in terms, instead of seperation of ideas.

A big thanks goes out towards Tipsy/Light due to their correct discussion with bringing up valid points, arguments, and good examples explaining why. Explanation of why is the key difference, and a simple "Because you are wrong" never changes anything.



I herby as of now state our government needs to change what under law constitutes as a human. When this change is made, if a fetus falls under that, it needs to be given human rights. However if it doesn't, than it only leads to further deleman. Because than too many further questions arise. (Example: if a fetus doesnt fall under human, than when does it. Now from the time it did, what changed 10 seconds before that. And many other problems.

I can only see two different things that would have the correct change to define it as a human (Given our technology of today)

#1-When the 23 chromosomes of each parent first combine giving a new human dna structure.

#2-When a child is born.

Between those two aspects, (With todays technology) there is no correct, fair, or definate time anyone could ever state (10 seconds before it didnt, 10 seconds after it did)

However you could state that with #1. 10 seconds before there were 2 seperate entitys each with 23 chromosomes, and 10 seconds after it was now one containing 46.

And also the same with birth.

I am in no way stating which is correct, or incorrect. But stating only that one of the two would backup the (What changed 10 seconds before, from 10 seconds after that is valid in claiming it is now human?).



Anyway more than likly I will be done discussing unless:

#1 someone trys to tell me I said somthing that I didn't
#2 Someone trys to rephrase what I said incorrectly
#3 new information is posted
#4 new opinion is formed
#5 Kamikaze replys to what I wrote again.

Anyways I did not spend a hole lot of time on this post compared to the others. I will recheck back later to see if mabie it was typed differently than I ment.


Also a big thanks again for Tipsy/Light.

Thanks for all who viewed each part of my abortion posts and gave true points for/agianst them.

For the rest of you *Cough* *Save changes for post, and close*

 

[Lights]

The people agianst abortion are basically arguing no one should have the right to pick what lives or dies.

Not exactly. I believe, as Jefferson did, that "all men are created equal;" that, from fertilization, we are "endowed with certain unalienable Rights." I believe you cannot take those Rights away without due process of law - if a man does something that should result in his Rights being stripped away. Abortion goes against that UTTERLY.

It isn't about deciding who lives or dies, not completely. Judges make that decision every day. But there must be a reason, proven in court, as to why that Life should be taken away. And again, annihilating the existence of a fetus, which is human, is against that.

#1-When the 23 chromosomes of each parent first combine giving a new human dna structure.

#2-When a child is born.

This is my outlook on it. Prepare for a TERRIBLE analogy:

Say a sperm is sugar, an egg is flour, and we are trying to make a cake (human being). Now, before either meet you have nothing; I don't care about potential cakes. Even when you first put the two together (right after intercourse), you have no cake, just the potential for one, as everything could still fall apart. Only when you put the ingredients into the oven (fertilization) is the cake come into existence - though you definantly cannot eat it yet. It must still grow. /end terrible analogy

That terrible example is how I view human "life." We "begin" at fertilization, not when the sperm meets the egg and not somewhere in the second trimester; when the fertilized egg attaches to the womb. This is still slightly grey, and my opinion may still change on this. The biggest problem with it is that, for the couple weeks after fertilization, the zygote isn't exactly "alive." It is human, yes, but there is no brain activity or anything else that makes it "alive." My current stance is one that, even though it has not yet achieved brain activity, it is still a developing human being, and to be consistent I must consider it one.

I understand what you mean by having to have a definate point to decide when it all begins. That's one of the reasons I have had problems with the abortionist argument. They have always put it, for no real reason, as somewhere in the second trimester. At the same time, you have people croaking over the "potential," which is nothing to me, either. When the sperm is still inside the man's testes and the egg, untouched, in the woman.. there isn't.. anything. I think when fertilization takes place, once there is that attachment, the new individual begins to grow.

Also a big thanks again for Tipsy/Light.

Aye, no problem. It's refreshing to have this newer discussion, versus the same old stuff we've been saying for months.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Thanks for that GREAT contribution! Of course, if you could comprehend the point Cheese was trying to make, you would realize that what he says made perfect sense.

Now hopefully Tipsy will void out BOTH of these posts and we can go back to intelligent conversation.

Okay cool, So I can make far fetched examples and that's contributing to a thread. Lemme start.

I am pro-Life. I want to force people into slavery and I believe that abortion is wrong but war/capital punishment is right. So I can now enslave people and be a hypocrite at the same time.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Okay cool, So I can make far fetched examples and that's contributing to a thread. Lemme start.

I am pro-Life. I want to force people into slavery and I believe that abortion is wrong but war/capital punishment is right. So I can now enslave people and be a hypocrite at the same time.

There's a difference. In my scenario, the only thing I changed was the act, meaning the argument was still valid because everything else was the same (i.e., I changed the "choice" that was made). Your scenario doesn't do that. Slavery has nothing to do with being pro-life (like you said). War and capital punishment are both justified, but those are for a different thread.

 

[Kamikaze]

However Kamikaze, you don't fall under any of those because I "Sense" your a complete dumbass.

I originally said this:
Quote:
"sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics."


Originally Posted by Kamikaze
first of all its "since" not "sense", i have a hard time taking anything you say seriously everytime you write that.


Let me take you to sko0L for a quick lesson.


Example: "I'v come to understand you are a moron ever since reading a post by you."



Example: "I sense intelligence is not a strong point for you."

I originally said this:
Quote:
"sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics."

Yeah, well, I have a hard time believing your reading the same thing im typing.

If it was a fact that it was a human, than it would be a fact that it had the same rights all humans have. Sense it is false a Fetus has the same rights a "Human" would have, than it could not possibly be a "Human

So why havn't they? I am sure it wasn't just discovered last tuesday was it? Especially sense they "All" know this.

Alot of the next few myths and facts cover how long untill implantation takes. Or untill there is a pre-embryo. But sense our member asked not to find when "Life starts" But rather "Is it a human, I will skip these.

Sense when did human beings that are people with issues as follow Depend on their umbilical cord, and mothers womb to survive after they were born?

Sense both are considered to be living human beings with rights, I will ignore that complete idiotic sentence.

The fetus was never taken to court sense it does not contain the same rights. Secondly sense it never went to court, it could of never been found guilty. Lastly, the fetus was not terminated the same way the serial killer was. No one is going to give the fetus a lethal injection, or strap it down to the electric chair.

I don't want to discuss any part of that sense it falls under personal opinion. So that can stay

I have a personal opinion of when in the 9 months the law on abortion should change. However there is no way to argue that sense before birth there is no such change of the rights the embryo/fetus would have.

Although they may need somthing to live, it doesn't matter sense they already contain "human rights" as I shown why above. A fetus does not.

Your opinion could be for either. Doesn't matter sense it does not effect my argument.

Correct, but I was not comparing the actual life, but rather the DNA structure. Sense both would have the same DNA structure, I was arguing that that alone does not make it a human being.

I have one honest question for (Tipsy/Lights) Sense are only reasonable responses who oppose me

As far as the rest of you who have/and still will argue my point, I do not mind, sense you actually bring up valid reasons.

school is now out genius.

you can compare a state supply of insulin vs a womb beacuse it is 1 fetus in one uterus vs 7% of the population using insulin supplies.

hey smart guy, whats the difference between an umbilical cord and being tube fed? give up?..... NOTHING! except that it is much more demanding on a parent.

Right there as soon as you first stated "Except" is where you became wrong.

no, it is the same thing and it is right. the one difference which i explained is NOT one dealing with maintaining a life, but rather with mental and financial stress put on the parents.

absract thought much?

 

[OneEliteMof0]

So I did use the word incorrectly. I admit that by viewing each example you showed I did it in. At the time I was highly pissed off due to the fact that in the past my post was getting torn up piece by piece and replied to in hypothetical instances. Some of which I had already previously went over. After the last time, I had very little patience left, if any.

Besides there are claims of natural ways to treat diabetic besides only insilin. Not stating All cases, but some. Anway, I should of proof read all my posts sense I should of known someone would point out my gramer/spelling errors. That was my mistake. But the fact of you not taking someone seriously based on them is absurd. Not that I want to do the same thing you did to me. But I am sure everyone of your posts are perfectly typed out either by spelling or usage of the correct word in the meaning, nor punctuation. However I would not take someone seriously based on them. View maddox's site and see his stance on writing format correctness, and his views. Even where he replies he is aware that his writing will have misstyped somthing or used perhaps the wrong word or spelling.

I made writing error's, I admit it, now lets move on.
(Not going to go correct them either)
Back on main point, which is were this needs to stay.

If you seen some of my recent replies, I share that I have learned a lot in this few week process. Some for the better, some for the worse, depending on point of view. I'd say learning = better.

Most of my ideas/concepts/reasons were mostly based on why people would, or would not consider somthing to be a fact. Now how it started out, and how it is today are not the same thing. Because somewhere back I remember saying (Should not be changed) which I should not have wrote. But sense (Since *Caught myself right as I did it* Probably will do it more here, I have stated it, I will not change it.

The past was the past, we normally can not change that (This example I could-but will not) So I will go on from there.

=======================================================

=======================================================
Now I feel anything that is a living human being should be entitled to our human rights. If a fetus falls under that, than yes I think it should also, if not, than no.

I am not wanting to make any guesses of what makes a human human. Or what I think makes one. Nor what should make one.

All I think is that creating a law purly from science would be a task uneasy to complete. Not impossible, just not as easy as tieing your shoe.

I had a great example to go here, but decided to not use it. It would serve no purpose except to be replied to in a negitive way(for those who dissagree) and used as arguing (for those who agree). So it doesn't matter.

Many of our laws are created to satasfy social needs. Not saying a law can only be made for social interest, but many of them are there for it.

A law can be made purly on science. Creating any law is difficult. Changing one is even harder. Not impossible, just not easy.

Kamikaze wrote:
absract thought much?

scroll down to find my view. If this doesn't classify as (Outside the box) or (abstract thinking) I don't know what does.

http://battleforums.com/showthread.php?t=89914&page=2&highlight=gravity
Pure abstract ideas.
http://battleforums.com/showthread.php?t=19422&page=5&highlight=gravity+black+hole

 

[Kamikaze]

interesting that you brought up law again.
since this is a multicultural forum, can arguments be based around any one countries laws?

 

[Lizardbreath]

"War and capital punishment are both justified"-Undead Cheese

As stated before in the previous abortion thread you state that it is justified to kill people legally. Right? So if abortion is legal than you agree with it. Congrats man. Your argument just owned itself.

 

[Lights]

"War and capital punishment are both justified"-Undead Cheese

As stated before in the previous abortion thread you state that it is justified to kill people legally. Right? So if abortion is legal than you agree with it. Congrats man. Your argument just owned itself.

Q: As stated before in the previous abortion thread you state that it is justified to kill people legally. Right?
A: If they do something that merits their Right to Life to be revoked in a court of law (or a war).

Summary: "Killing people" is justified when the people do something that is deemed bad enough for their Right to Life to be revoked, or if the government makes a declaration of war. Sorry, no fetuses here. Looks like no arguments owned here, either, except yours.

But you almost caught us!

 

[Lizardbreath]

Q: As stated before in the previous abortion thread you state that it is justified to kill people legally. Right?
A: If they do something that merits their Right to Life to be revoked in a court of law (or a war).

Summary: "Killing people" is justified when the people do something that is deemed bad enough for their Right to Life to be revoked, or if the government makes a declaration of war. Sorry, no fetuses here. Looks like no arguments owned here, either, except yours.

But you almost caught us!

To state killing is wrong in one case but right in another is hypocricy(sp)....It's cool that you're a hypocrite man. Just accept it and go back to your sheltered lifestyle.

Moderator Note:
That picture wasn't really necessary.

-Tipsy

 

[Lights]

To state killing is wrong in one case but right in another is hypocricy(sp)....It's cool that you're a hypocrite man. Just accept it and go back to your sheltered lifestyle.

Moderator Note:
That picture wasn't really necessary.

-Tipsy

Let me ask you this: Are you fine with people locking their neighbors in their basement for 20 years, never letting them out, and only interacting with them enough to give them meals?















No? Well, you are a "hypocrite" according to your logic.

But please, let's get back to the topic. I'de rather not have this thread closed as well. And I have no problems whatsoever with Tipsy deleting my posts to avoid that.

 

[Tipsy]

To state killing is wrong in one case but right in another is hypocricy(sp)....It's cool that you're a hypocrite man. Just accept it and go back to your sheltered lifestyle.

The logic I see from Lights and Undead Cheese does not seem to be hypocritical. The government of the United States has the power to take away life with due process. This covers capital punishment. I personally don't think they should have that power, but they do. As for war, the government of the United States also has the power to declare war. However, a fetus cannot be classified as an enemy combatant and there is no legal case against a fetus that can take away its' life with due process. This, of course, is taking into account that a fetus has human rights.

Though, for me personally, I feel the word 'justified' is a bit too strong to be applied to these general concepts, and I would see it fit to replace it with the word 'legal'.

interesting that you brought up law again.
since this is a multicultural forum, can arguments be based around any one countries laws?

I wasn't quite sure what exactly in his post you were referring to, so if this does not apply then just ignore it. But both our countries and many more adhere to the United Nations' Universal Declararion of Human Rights that demands all countries within it bestow basic human rights among all people within its' juridstiction:

"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

The United States is a member state of the United Nations and has to apply all the rights here to all the humans in its’ jurisdiction.

Article 3 states:

"Everyone has the right to life..."

(http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

All humans in all member states of the United Nations are required to give the right to life. So if a fetus is a human it should be protected.

Though if I have misinterpreted your post disregard this.

 

[scarredpinky]

Ok, lets take a second and actually talk about it like we know. I had an abortion. I've been there.. I didnt have enough money at the time to have more than the numbing of that area and was fully awake the whole time it was happening. I do have to admit that I didn't really read all your back and forth on whether or not it should be legal, cuz most men just don't get it. Since this is my first post to this site, it might also be my last..
It is painful, I went by myself and lied to the doctors that I had a ride home. I was young, I was scared, but it was necessary. My nurse didn't speak english and she was holding my hand just telling me it was going to be ok over and over again... like it was the only english she knew. It was my choice. The whole thing ripped my soul apart like nothing I have ever felt before, but I still had to go through it. I couldn't take care of that child, I could barely take care of myself. I was several hundred miles away from my family and friends, and most people I never even told. I was 10 weeks and the babys name is Sammy. Mainly cuz I don't know if it was a boy or a girl.
The legality should not be argued. Do you really want to tell someone that even though they aren't ready to be a mom that they have to? Oh, there are a couple of other circumstances, now that you have an opinion formed of me... I was adopted, my birth parents left me on a porch when I was a few months old and it has been a burden that I don't even know my real birthday.. so adoption was out of the question, I couldn't put a child through that. Ahh, and one last thing
I was raped. While playing Mario Karts by a guy I knew, not a boyfriend, but at the time he was my boss. Does that justify it any less than everything else I said before? I don't think so.

Didi

 

[micro.micro]

there is no right or wrong in abortion, it is all opinion. it's just a person's belief of whether or not the fetus is a human being or just a part of the body.

i'm pro-choice but i would never get an abortion (sounds silly huh?)

if the lady wants it done then let her get it done. it is about privacy.

and addressing the first post on the guy that says babies are 0 years old when they are born, the lunar calendar makes everyone 1 year old when they are born and i believe that system has been in effect longer than the one we use.

i do believe the abortion should have more regulations because i see people using it irresonsibilly, but allthesame, i don't want to restrict someone from getting one and if the child is autistic i think they should have the option of abortion as well.

there's always adoption true, but there is a possibility of the child growing up to be messed up and becoming a serial killer because his adopted parents are worse than the original. you hear a lot about foster parents abusing the system and getting a lot of kids in order to make more money and neglecting the children.

as i said before there really is no right and wrong just like you can argue there is no god or there is. basically how a person was raised and what they believe in.

the end.

 

[Tipsy]

Ok, lets take a second and actually talk about it like we know. I had an abortion. I've been there.. I didnt have enough money at the time to have more than the numbing of that area and was fully awake the whole time it was happening. I do have to admit that I didn't really read all your back and forth on whether or not it should be legal, cuz most men just don't get it. Since this is my first post to this site, it might also be my last..
It is painful, I went by myself and lied to the doctors that I had a ride home. I was young, I was scared, but it was necessary. My nurse didn't speak english and she was holding my hand just telling me it was going to be ok over and over again... like it was the only english she knew. It was my choice. The whole thing ripped my soul apart like nothing I have ever felt before, but I still had to go through it. I couldn't take care of that child, I could barely take care of myself. I was several hundred miles away from my family and friends, and most people I never even told. I was 10 weeks and the babys name is Sammy. Mainly cuz I don't know if it was a boy or a girl.

So in what way does your social situation trump human rights that should be guareneed to the human that was inside of you?

The legality should not be argued. Do you really want to tell someone that even though they aren't ready to be a mom that they have to?

I don't want to tell them because they should already know to accept the consequences that come with their action. I don't see why the legality should not be argued. Should we simply ignore guarenteed human rights because we feel sorry for your situation?

Oh, there are a couple of other circumstances, now that you have an opinion formed of me... I was adopted, my birth parents left me on a porch when I was a few months old and it has been a burden that I don't even know my real birthday.. so adoption was out of the question, I couldn't put a child through that.

And your opinion of how good or bad a life is in what way trumps guarenteed human rights as well how?

Ahh, and one last thing I was raped. While playing Mario Karts by a guy I knew, not a boyfriend, but at the time he was my boss. Does that justify it any less than everything else I said before? I don't think so.

This still does not change the fact that the fetus should have guarenteed human rights. The one thing that changes here is that you did not choose to have the sex. Since you did not choose to have the sex both your rights and the fetus' rights have to be respected. This is where something such as an artifical womb would come in handy. As posted earlier:

"The use of a synthetic womb would be an ideal solution to some of the problems facing abortion. Because if we look at how it should be, we have to respect the rights of the woman and the life of the fetus. In cases of consensual sex, both of these are being done. However, in cases such as rape and the fetus causing serious medical harm to the mother a new solution has to be decided upon to both respect the woman and the fetus. You probably see where I am going with this. If in these two cases the fetus is removed from the mother it would ideally be solving both of these problems in cases where sex is not consensual or where medical harm may occur."

there is no right or wrong in abortion, it is all opinion. it's just a person's belief of whether or not the fetus is a human being or just a part of the body.

if the lady wants it done then let her get it done. it is about privacy

How exactly is it opinion? Philosophical beliefs of what makes a fetus a human is relative. Religious beliefs of what makes a fetus a human are relative. That is why we haven't in this thread and shouldn't in society use these as to define a human.

What we have used here is medical science. Instead of defining a fetus as human or not by its' thoughts (philosophy - relative - invalid) you use what defines a human by biology. A fetus, as shown by unrefuted previous posts, is a human by biological standards and for that reasons is guarenteed human rights. Abortion is only opinion when you ignore science.

there's always adoption true, but there is a possibility of the child growing up to be messed up and becoming a serial killer because his adopted parents are worse than the original. you hear a lot about foster parents abusing the system and getting a lot of kids in order to make more money and neglecting the children.

Doesn't that make an argument for fixing the system rather than denying guarenteed human rights?

as i said before there really is no right and wrong just like you can argue there is no god or there is. basically how a person was raised and what they believe in.

I must disagree. There are no hard facts showing that God exists while there are hard facts that a fetus is a human. Since a fetus is a human it is guarenteed human rights. How you are raised, what god you believe in, what your philosophy on life is, etc, does not change the scientific fact that a fetus is a human.

 

[micro.micro]

it may have DNA and the potential to become a human, but at that stage it is still in development. i agree that once it reaches a certain age before it's birth it should be considered a human being, but during the first few monthes i don't really think of it as a human being.

what i'm confused about is if there is scientific fact that fetuses are humans, then why is abortion legal here hmm.............. i do know people who have gone through abortions and they're pretty much traumatized by the whole dam thing but i believe that it was their choice and they had the right to make it.

 

[Tipsy]

it may have DNA and the potential to become a human, but at that stage it is still in development. i agree that once it reaches a certain age before it's birth it should be considered a human being, but during the first few monthes i don't really think of it as a human being.

Why exactly do ‘you not think’ it is considered a human? Does it not look like one? Discriminating on physical characteristics is illegal. Is it still part of its’ mom? It has its’ own distinct DNA and is a distinctly separate individual. Is it not fully developed? Why not aborting infants and adolescents as well, its’ all part of the human life cycle. What is your reasoning?

what i'm confused about is if there is scientific fact that fetuses are humans, then why is abortion legal here hmm..............

You make it sound like the world has never legalized an injustice before.

i do know people who have gone through abortions and they're pretty much traumatized by the whole dam thing but i believe that it was their choice and they had the right to make it.

How exactly does a human have the power to deny another human guaranteed human rights?

 

[micro.micro]

we'll here is the reasoning that is going on in my mind.
abortions are legal because the fetuses aren't human

why arent they human

because they dont look human

but you cant discriminate on looks

yea but those right are only for humans which the fetus is not

but how do you know the fetus isn't human?

i dont.

this is where my belief on abortion comes in. i dont think it is right or wrong because i don't know for sure. i would never have one done but i can't stop other people because they have the right to their privacy.