The Abortion Thread (now with nifty rules!)

[OneEliteMof0]

Fact is a fetus is either a human, or isn't a human. We can't play the if, and, mabie, possibly so. Because if you did you would need to say 217 hours, 51 minutes, 37 seconds or less its not human, 1 second later it is (I relize this is insane, which is what was intended.) Either it is, or it isn't. 1 month, 5 months, 9 months, 37 years. DNA structure is going to be the same. Physical stat obviously wouldn't. But your physical stat changes every day even at age 85.

Although we may see why many call it "potential" or "pre life" these can not hold up. If they did, we would have to define the exact time of potential life, than to is life. This is impossible, immoral, and unreasonable. Law on abortion needs to be changed. This is the best answer that most should see as bieng fully reasonable.

If you gave consent to having sex you should live with having the child unless that would lead to health reasons that possibly could end the mothers life.

If giving birth has potential to end the mothers life, than an abortion should be legal.

If the mother was raped, than an abortion should be an available option.

If she was under influence of anything and had sex, she should not be allowed to have an abortion unless she was drugged by another person. (IE Date rape drug/Similar case.

Basicly "Person acted in sex; nature should take its course"

========================================================
Even if you don't care about the fetus's rights or not, think of it this way: Should there be results based on actions?

(Example) You got drunk and lost $500 at casino and went back the next day wanting your money back because you were drunk. They would probably give it back no questions asked right? Wrong!

People should not be allowed to just undo their actions because it is going to cause a negative effect on their life.

If you don't like the result, stop the action.

For those of you still in huggies pull up's who are about to flame on this here is your key code

@@@@@@@@@@
@ KEY CODE @
@@@@@@@@@@
Result = Child
Action= Sex
1 + 2 = 3

If you don't want to have a "3" Stop 1, or stop 2.

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

 

[Lizardbreath]

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

-The meer fact that I have social security card and am recognized by the constitution as a citizen trumps the situation.


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?

-These human rights you speak of are given to those who are born and lived in the united states, as stated in the constitution.



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."

- Your argument is hypocritical. Here is the stance you are taking....So it is alright to have an abortion if you are raped and are a victim of incest; but what makes this particular human being any less of a being under these circumstances? The hypocracy in that argument is very relevant. If you are going to argue that a human is guaranteed certain rights before birth, then you must argue for it in all situations, consensual or not.



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.

- No Abortion is when you take into light whether a fetus has the right to make decisions. By law a parent has legal right over a child. This certain individual you are arguing can make no decisions whatsoever as to it's wellbeing. I am not stating that we can go around killing human beings because they are minors. But this particular situation you are taking into consideration revolves around a group of cells and human tissue. Until it is fully developed it is not a complete human being. Care to argue further?


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.

Under what? The United States Constitution? Or your supposed Supreme Court cases? Some of which have no revelance to the situation. Last time I checked ROE VS WADE made abortion legal. The right to privacy is something that needs to be protected, though not set forth in the constitution, it was an implied meaning behind the creation of the constitution.

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.

-A fetus is a human in development. Not a full and complete human being.

blah blah blah

 

[Tipsy]

-The meer fact that I have social security card and am recognized by the constitution as a citizen trumps the situation.

Human rights are guaranteed to all human under the jurisdiction of the United States. If they are illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, or citizens, they are guaranteed the right to life unless due process takes it away, and there is no due process in abortion.

-These human rights you speak of are given to those who are born and lived in the united states, as stated in the constitution.

All human beings in the United States are guaranteed the right to life unless it is taken away by due process (the death penalty for example). Granted citizens have other rights that legal immigrants don't have, and legal immigrants have rights that illegal immigrants don't have, but all share the right to life when under the jurisdiction of the United States.

- Your argument is hypocritical. Here is the stance you are taking....So it is alright to have an abortion if you are raped and are a victim of incest; but what makes this particular human being any less of a being under these circumstances? The hypocracy in that argument is very relevant. If you are going to argue that a human is guaranteed certain rights before birth, then you must argue for it in all situations, consensual or not.

My argument is to protect the life of both the mother and the fetus. The fetus has the right to life, however if the life can be kept with the removal of the fetus from the woman (ie putting it in the synthetic womb), the life of both the woman and fetus would be preserved. There is no hypocrisy.

No Abortion is when you take into light whether a fetus has the right to make decisions. By law a parent has legal right over a child. This certain individual you are arguing can make no decisions whatsoever as to it's wellbeing. I am not stating that we can go around killing human beings because they are minors. But this particular situation you are taking into consideration revolves around a group of cells and human tissue. Until it is fully developed it is not a complete human being. Care to argue further?

Remember the phrase that whether or not something is a human or not is DNA, not physical characteristics? Well it applies here.

Also, who cares who decides what? It is irrelevant here. The mother does not have the right to have her child killed and the fetus cannot consent to committing suicide.

Under what? The United States Constitution? Or your supposed Supreme Court cases? Some of which have no revelance to the situation. Last time I checked ROE VS WADE made abortion legal. The right to privacy is something that needs to be protected, though not set forth in the constitution, it was an implied meaning behind the creation of the constitution.

As I have stated multiple times throughout our argument, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the argument I am using.

To once again quote Supreme Court Justice Blackmun (the writer of the majority opinion) wrote, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

It is time to take when life begins into account after the massive strides in the understanding of human biology. That is what the argument rests on. The Supreme Court has overturned many of its' rulings before, now the argument exists for another one to be overturned.

-A fetus is a human in development. Not a full and complete human being.

If you discriminate by physical characteristics and define what a human being is by how it looks, which is illegal and ignores science, then you are correct. However, if you got by the actual scientific standards of what makes someone human, the DNA makes that fetus a human.

Also, what do you mean a fetus is a human in development? Both of us are humans in development, the human brain isn't fully developed until around 25. Does that make it okay for us to just be disregarded as not human?

 

[Lizardbreath]

Human rights are guaranteed to all human under the jurisdiction of the United States. If they are illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, or citizens, they are guaranteed the right to life unless due process takes it away, and there is no due process in abortion.


All human beings in the United States are guaranteed the right to life unless it is taken away by due process (the death penalty for example). Granted citizens have other rights that legal immigrants don't have, and legal immigrants have rights that illegal immigrants don't have, but all share the right to life when under the jurisdiction of the United States.

*******************************
Allow me to quote the constitution .....

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Am I the only one who sees the word born? Please. Tipsy enlighten me how this clause doesn't clearly state that people who aren't even citizens are somehow subject to the rules and regulations of our government? It is clearly stated. Unless you care to ignore it....which you have a habit of doing.

***************************************

Also, who cares who decides what? It is irrelevant here. The mother does not have the right to have her child killed and the fetus cannot consent to committing suicide.
**************************
- Roe v Wade disagrees with you. Your own personal morals have no say in a court of law. I disagree with you.
***************************


It is time to take when life begins into account after the massive strides in the understanding of human biology. That is what the argument rests on. The Supreme Court has overturned many of its' rulings before, now the argument exists for another one to be overturned.
******************************
-Under what case? The Right to Privacy is something that I believe even today will still stand even with today's supreme court justices. There is no merit to an argument stating that we as individuals have a responsibility to go through significan physical trauma for something that is not yet fully developed and has no rights. It is not an illegal alien. It is not a human being in essence until the third trimester when it can fully function outside the womb with little medical assistance. Your argument would be solid if you could remove a fetus in the first trimester and it at least live and breath on it's own. Which, according to science, it cannot. [/B]

********************************
If you discriminate by physical characteristics and define what a human being is by how it looks, which is illegal and ignores science, then you are correct. However, if you got by the actual scientific standards of what makes someone human, the DNA makes that fetus a human.

Also, what do you mean a fetus is a human in development? Both of us are humans in development, the human brain isn't fully developed until around 25. Does that make it okay for us to just be disregarded as not human?
*********************************
-There is a huge difference between a full grown adult and a core of cells with human tissue. I am not ignoring science. It has the chemical makeup of what is going to be a human being; but to state that it is a full human being which can function in the outside world (example: breath.....)

blah blah blah

 

[Tipsy]

Allow me to quote the constitution .....

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Am I the only one who sees the word born? Please. Tipsy enlighten me how this clause doesn't clearly state that people who aren't even citizens are somehow subject to the rules and regulations of our government? It is clearly stated. Unless you care to ignore it....which you have a habit of doing.

Anyone in any territory belonging to the United States is under their jurisdiction and is required to follow the laws of the United States.

- Roe v Wade disagrees with you. Your own personal morals have no say in a court of law. I disagree with you.

Actually Roe v. Wade disagrees with you on this point. It never made a statement on what you are claiming it to say in regards you are claiming it to have. Your claim is your opinion, my claim is your claim is your opinion because it has no backing in the court case that made no such statement.

-Under what case? The Right to Privacy is something that I believe even today will still stand even with today's supreme court justices. There is no merit to an argument stating that we as individuals have a responsibility to go through significan physical trauma for something that is not yet fully developed and has no rights. It is not an illegal alien. It is not a human being in essence until the third trimester when it can fully function outside the womb with little medical assistance. Your argument would be solid if you could remove a fetus in the first trimester and it at least live and breath on it's own. Which, according to science, it cannot. [/b]

Is this even responding to what it is under? I say that the Supreme Court has overturned many of its' rulings due to new evidence or a new interpretation of the old evidence, and you talk about privacy rights? I was simply stating that Supreme Court cases are not viewed as infallible and the argument it should be this way because they said so is illogical.

-There is a huge difference between a full grown adult and a core of cells with human tissue. I am not ignoring science. It has the chemical makeup of what is going to be a human being; but to state that it is a full human being which can function in the outside world (example: breath.....)

There is a huge difference between a fetus and a full grown fetus. There is a huge difference between a child and an elderly person. There is a huge difference between multiple stages in human development. Though no matter what stages you pick in human development, they all share the single thing that makes them human, DNA. A fetus has the same DNA as it will when it develops into a baby, when it goes through adolescents, when it becomes an adult, and when it becomes and elderly person. Humans are defined by their biology, you are just throwing in your opinion of thinking that humans that can't function in the outside world are no longer humans. That's your opinion, not science.

 

[Lizardbreath]

No my opinion is that I don't give a rat's ass about something that is not fully human yet.

 

[Undead Cheese]

No my opinion is that I don't give a rat's ass about something that is not fully human yet.

What does that have to do with a fetus, though?

 

[Lizardbreath]

What does that have to do with a fetus, though?

The fact is that if you don't like abortion...Don't have one. The rest of Americans who actually want to have a say in how their lives should be run should always have the option to get one....especially Roach.

 

[mdawgmike]

Well, theres not doubt (in my mind atleast) that the embryo/fetus is in fact a human. Genetically, it is since the first cell divide. The question is, what is the right thing to do. Ending a "life" (especially one that wound't know what one is anyway), might not be such a bad thing in todays world. Contrary to what is depicted in the pamphlets that are shoved in your face, almost all abortions occur within the early stages of pregnency. I found these facts when I did a research paper on abortion a few years back.

(In 1996)
88% occur within the first trimester

Much less than 1% actually occur within the third trimester

source: http://www.peopleforlife.org/statistics/statistics_gestation.html
A pro-life site!

Here's a picture of what the typical embryo looks like before most abortions occur.
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/6-weeks.jpg

There's obviously a reason for abortion. It may be because of lack of support of the child. Potential harm to the mother. It may be because of a birth defect. Or maybe even population control.

Ever guess whats causes thousands of people in 3rd world countries to die each year? Starvation. When demand (ammount of people) outweighs supply, we have a problem. Forcing anyone to have a kid they don't want is simply ridiculous in today's world. The bible, which tells us to "be fruitful and multiply" was written in a much different time keep in mind.

So basically thats how I feel. We sentence criminals to death. We've killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens over the past few years. All of these people can feel pain. Yet, for some reason, there's a huge controversy over killing something the size of a grape (in most cases), something that's been proven to not feel pain (not until well into the third trimester), something that doesn't even know its being killed.

Abortion should always be an option. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. Nobodys forcing you. Times change, we need to move on.

 

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

ok hows this, a human embryo, a bundle of maybe 100 cells, has no feeling, the stem cells havent differentiated into nerve or brain cells. so they feel no pain nor emotion. and one the topic of stems cells, not wanting reserch is comparing the life of small unfeeling ball of cells the size of a pin head to the life of a fully matured adult that could live a full life with this research, theres no contest. now on the other hand, late term abortion, thats ****ed up cuz at that point, it has feeling, emotion, its already moving, hearing your voice, theres no doubt that can be called human, an embryo is human only by a technicallity, it cant even think. sooooooo bottom line, forget all of that bullshit, if u dont like abortions, dont get 1, if u want 1, get 1. u have no right to police the ****nig world and tell people wut they can or cannot do with their bodies. if u remember one thing from this post, it better be this, YOUR OPINION DOESNT MATTER. U BEING AGAINST ABORTION ISNT GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE NOT GET ONE. STOP ARGUING, ITS A WASTE OF TIME YOUR OPINION IS NOT GOING TO INFLUENCE ANYONES LIFE IN ANY WAY WUT-SO-EVER.

 

[x42bn6]

How would you know it won't suffer?*

 

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

How would you know it won't suffer?*

like ive already said, how can it suffer if it cannot feel or even consiouly think. an ambryo suffers about as much as an amoeba. but if ur talking about a fetus, then yes, crushing the skull of something that can actually respond to u (in its on way its not like its talking) its wrong.

 

[x42bn6]

But how do you know that a few hundred cells are incapable of thought? Or suffering?*

 

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

because u need a brain to think, they do not have a brain, u need nerves to feel, they have no so therefor they cannot. thats like saying a single cell of your skin can feel and has its own emotions. by that logic you should not wash your hands because thats killing cells, actually, everytime u type something thats probably brushing off cells, stop killing innocent cells.

No my opinion is that I don't give a rat's ass about something that is not fully human yet.

not fully human, it has human DNA, it is human. now idc if that hurts my case but i have to correct things that make no sense. so u dont care about a fetus, do u go around punching pregnant ladies in the stomach? i bet u do.

and just so everyone is clear, im contradicting myself because i think late term abortions are stupid and cruel, im prochoice if its like a month in, which would only be a ball of stem cells.

 

[x42bn6]

When you burn a plant, it suffers but it tries to resist - some leaves bend away from the smoke, and some emit self-defense mechanisms. Cells, although they lack consciousness, could well constitute a nerve or some sort of organ that is able to defend itself - and by making aborting, who is to say that consciousness isn't there by the cells?*

 

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

When you burn a plant, it suffers but it tries to resist - some leaves bend away from the smoke, and some emit self-defense mechanisms. Cells, although they lack consciousness, could well constitute a nerve or some sort of organ that is able to defend itself - and by making aborting, who is to say that consciousness isn't there by the cells?*

science says they dont have a concious, they do only wut is nessesary to survive, they act and survive unconcoiusly, which means even though they are doing things, cells dividing, plants going through photosynthesis, they are not concious of anything, they cant control wut they do, the reason leaves bend away from smoke is many things, their shrivling because of the heat, or certain hormones have a reaction to something in the smoke (but no, its jsut the smoke), just as plants seem to bend toward the light, growth increasing hormones travel away from the light (photophobic i think is the term) and that makes the darker side grow more, making it bent towards to sun, and self-defense against smoke? no, thats called water going through the phloem of the plant that is released once the fire starts to burn through the plant. same with sap. cells do not have a concious, they do not conciously choose to divide, hormones and proteins cause them to divide, THEY CANT FEEL! stop arguing that point, science has proved that, it has also proved that they cant feel, none of the organelles in a cell have the capability to feel, the nucleus doesnt have the capability for thought, it controls the cell on an UNCONCIOUS level, it does only wut the dna has programmed it to do. do not challenge me in science, i will win. if u argue with that then u need to begin to think and stop arguing with provin science and stop agreeing with an unproven diety that relies just on faith, and your beleif that it exists.

 

[Bizzy Bone]

Im fine with it.
It's not YOUR decision to say wether or not the person should get an abortion or not.
You can take care of the kid then, if your gonna whine about it.

 

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

i agree 100%, i may be against late tterm abortions but its not my place to tell people wut they can or cannot do, if ur going to put ur input on this subject, stick to facts.

 

[Undead Cheese]

But how do you know that a few hundred cells are incapable of thought? Or suffering?*

Basic biology?

 

[T3h Sorrow]

I'm okay with abortion, as long as the reason is right, this guy at work, his girlfriend had 3! yes 3 of them with him, i never thought to ask him why, partially because it isn't my business.

and is x42 like a 14year old boy genius o.o