Abortion

[Ferris Bueller]

On imposing parents will.
No, I don't. Unborn children don't have a say in anything nor do they have any rights. They are not counted as civilians or people in any sense, especially regarding the law, and even in culture until the child is born it is not counted as a child.
---------

On the topic of people vs the argument.
Again, you are moral-crusading in this argument, you aren't using logic or facts but trying to tempt emotions and feelings. What happens with you and other people doing this is that you don't actually care about the family, the kid, anyone who's getting an abortion or the child getting aborted. What you do care is that they follow how you want them to live.

Pro abortions support the right of people to do whatever they want with their body, they support the right that if people want to pay to do something to it, they can. Anti-abortions want those people to go through the entire process of pregnancy, raising or losing a child, all for the sake of their moral compass.

It's the same argument you have for why gay marriage isn't legal, same argument for why weed is illegal, it's the whole "it's immoral according to me"
-----------------
On contraceptives:

It's the same end product without much difference. Before or after conception isn't the point and many abortions are due to "accidents" that happen during sex.
-Again, people shouldn't be forced to do something because of your moral compass.
-----------------------
On "killing the child".


Please, explain to me how you think of an unborn fetus as a child and where you draw the line. Because that's all you are doing, drawing lines and then saying "my morals are on this side".


If you have a reason it should be illegal outside of some petty emotional triggers for an unborn fetus or embryo, then list them.

Your invalid arguments thus far:
-Trying to compare it to murder.
-Using religious backers
-Quoting the "founder" of abortion clinics in America.
-Emotional triggers.
-Claiming scientific research is wrong
-Claiming making money as a doctor is wrong.

Alright you guys are right. I guess it's not my place to prevent someone from making that decision because I think that it's wrong. Also I guess it just sounds wrong but ultimately, it's not that morally wrong as the baby isn't born yet... I still am uncomfortable with it though.

[Euphemistic]

How about some science, eh?

"Life is determined by electroencephalogran (EEG). If you no longer have EEG, this means you are 'Brain Dead' which is considered the legal, medical, and scientific definition of death, despite your beating heart. Brain Death is the final cessation of activity in the central nervous system especially as indicated by a flat EEG for a predetermined length of time. Those who are Brain Dead show no clinical signs of brain activity including no response to pain and no cranial nerve reflexes."

This means an organism such as the 'fetus' is by definition not alive due to the lack of EEG. Which by also means, that a 'FETUS' cannot be murdered, only disposed of. By legal scientific stuff, and some medical terms, abortion is not murder.

[Aborted]

So you approve contraceptives?

Because that's all abortion really is.


You can argue it's killing a child, but honestly it's no different than any other form of contraceptive.

Incorrect.
Contraceptives prevent exactly what the term dictates, conception.
An abortion is the termination of an already conceived and developing fetus.

[Aborted]

This means an organism such as the 'fetus' is by definition not alive due to the lack of EEG.

Absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
EEG is in under not a single circumstance the sole determination for life, as there are vast quantities of organisms that have neither neural activity, nor even a functioning brain. Being viable outside the outside the womb is NOT the definition for life, and fetuses have heartbeats as early as 6 weeks. The average pregnancy lasts for 40 to 41 weeks before birth, and babies have a 90% survival rate as early as 26. Even at the incredibly early 23 weeks, babies has a good 35% viability rate. You're going to tell me that an organism that is completely viable outside of its mother isn't alive? Simply ludicrous.


To clarify my viewpoint:
If a baby is viable outside its mother and is aborted, that is murder.

[Ferris Bueller]

Absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
EEG is in under not a single circumstance the sole determination for life, as there are vast quantities of organisms that have neither neural activity, nor even a functioning brain. Being viable outside the outside the womb is NOT the definition for life, and fetuses have heartbeats as early as 6 weeks. The average pregnancy lasts for 40 to 41 weeks before birth, and babies have a 90% survival rate as early as 26. Even at the incredibly early 23 weeks, babies has a good 35% viability rate. You're going to tell me that an organism that is completely viable outside of its mother isn't alive? Simply ludicrous.


To clarify my viewpoint:
If a baby is viable outside its mother and is aborted, that is murder.

I mean basically that was exactly what i was saying in the beginning but then they came at me hella hard and made me feel bad about how "OH PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT OF STOPPING SOMEONE ABORTION" and i was convinced that abortion shouldn't be illegal. Aqworldthunder made some good points about what if she was raped or will die while giving birth. But now that you came and reinforced my previous point, i'm iffy again.

I guess I'm gonna research a bit more.

[Aborted]

I mean basically that was exactly what i was saying in the beginning but then they came at me hella hard and made me feel bad about how "OH PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT OF STOPPING SOMEONE ABORTION" and i was convinced that abortion shouldn't be illegal. Aqworldthunder made some good points about what if she was raped or will die while giving birth. But now that you came and reinforced my previous point, i'm iffy again.

I guess I'm gonna research a bit more.

If she was raped, she would have ample opportunity to cancel the pregnancy before the baby became viable outside the womb, which happens to be past about 5-6 months. If you carry a child for half of a year, and THEN decide to abort it rather than go through and put it up for adoption, you're a terrible fucking person.

[Empire]

I mean basically that was exactly what i was saying in the beginning but then they came at me hella hard and made me feel bad about how "OH PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT OF STOPPING SOMEONE ABORTION" and i was convinced that abortion shouldn't be illegal. Aqworldthunder made some good points about what if she was raped or will die while giving birth. But now that you came and reinforced my previous point, i'm iffy again.

I guess I'm gonna research a bit more.

Well 90% of the abortions in the US are 12-13 weeks and outside of a few states most places in the world do the 12-14 weeks only abortions. However certain states have up to 24 weeks, going to cost you for doing it that late money wise though.
----------------

He didn't say anything against abortion though, kinda worried you don't realize his stance was "abortion within reason" which is what it should be.

Incorrect.
Contraceptives prevent exactly what the term dictates, conception.
An abortion is the termination of an already conceived and developing fetus.

Yes but it's the same goal overrall, the prevention of birth. Two different methods though. It's the illusion of "potential life" that makes it difference. People also have a bad tendency to overthink the "what if i got aborted" scenario due to this. Which there could be a dozen things that also influenced your birth, like a condom or even just the offchance you didn't get fertalized or w/e.

[Aborted]

Yes but it's the same goal overrall, the prevention of birth. Two different methods though. It's the illusion of "potential life" that makes it difference. People also have a bad tendency to overthink the "what if i got aborted" scenario due to this. Which there could be a dozen things that also influenced your birth, like a condom or even just the offchance you didn't get fertalized or w/e.

Eh, I still disagree with that. By that reasoning, not having sex at all and abortion are within the same realm of action, which they aren't. To draw a somewhat far fetched analogy, let's say you have a painter. Contraceptives would be like throwing a plasic bag over the canvas, preventing a painting from ever even occurring. Abortion would be like setting fire to a painting that was already somewhat coming to fruition. My issue isn't with 'potential life', as 99.9% of sperm even in a direct insemination die without purpose, but the cancellation of a life that was already in existence. While some of the extremist anti-abortion campaigners may make the argument that any terminated conception is murder, it really isn't. My equation, which I've stated before, is that if it's viable outside of the womb, it's no longer 'potential life', but an actual life in itself that is snuffed out.

[[MPGH]Doc]

Absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
EEG is in under not a single circumstance the sole determination for life, as there are vast quantities of organisms that have neither neural activity, nor even a functioning brain. Being viable outside the outside the womb is NOT the definition for life, and fetuses have heartbeats as early as 6 weeks. The average pregnancy lasts for 40 to 41 weeks before birth, and babies have a 90% survival rate as early as 26. Even at the incredibly early 23 weeks, babies has a good 35% viability rate. You're going to tell me that an organism that is completely viable outside of its mother isn't alive? Simply ludicrous.


To clarify my viewpoint:
If a baby is viable outside its mother and is aborted, that is murder.

My thoughts exactly. Abortion should always be carried out before 5 months of gestation before it has any chance of viability. From 20-24 weeks it's a bit iffy as there is a higher chance of permanent deformation or disability should a premature delivery occur and most neonatal ICU's would reject a baby that young anyway so the actual chance of viability during that time is hard to determine.

[Empire]

Eh, I still disagree with that. By that reasoning, not having sex at all and abortion are within the same realm of action, which they aren't. To draw a somewhat far fetched analogy, let's say you have a painter. Contraceptives would be like throwing a plasic bag over the canvas, preventing a painting from ever even occurring. Abortion would be like setting fire to a painting that was already somewhat coming to fruition. My issue isn't with 'potential life', as 99.9% of sperm even in a direct insemination die without purpose, but the cancellation of a life that was already in existence. While some of the extremist anti-abortion campaigners may make the argument that any terminated conception is murder, it really isn't. My equation, which I've stated before, is that if it's viable outside of the womb, it's no longer 'potential life', but an actual life in itself that is snuffed out.

Oh I agree with the potential life if it's viable to live outside. That makes sense and should be put into law.

However I guess my point is that contraceptives and abortion are kind of the same point to the user. In your example, if the goal was to not have a painting, either one would do.


Again, perfectly fine with the "viable to live outside", I don't blindly support abortion because "it's my gawd dayum rights!", but I see being against it on the early stages and as a whole, illogical. Of course with any medical process, regulations are needed though.

From 20-24 weeks it's a bit iffy as there is a higher chance of permanent deformation or disability should a premature delivery occur and most neonatal ICU's would reject a baby that young anyway so the actual chance of viability during that time is hard to determine.

Well even with normal pregnancy it's a bit iffy. The 30% mark might as well be 0%, but the 70%+ I think represents a reason to try. Though again with medicine the specifics and details can change even the highest of outcomes average to pretty low.
-----

Though I'm more inclined to think people who abort later tend to have medical reasons more than personal.

[LuaHax]

Abortions are straight up wrong. You don't have to dig deep into different resources to figure this out. The definition of abortion (The killing of unborn babies) just instantly comes to me as morally wrong. In America if you destroy a Bald eagle's egg they fine you $250,000 but if you kill an unborn baby the Government will fund you. Does this strike anyone else as odd?

[[MPGH]Doc]

Abortions are straight up wrong. You don't have to dig deep into different resources to figure this out. The definition of abortion (The killing of unborn babies) just instantly comes to me as morally wrong. In America if you destroy a Bald eagle's egg they fine you $250,000 but if you kill an unborn baby the Government will fund you. Does this strike anyone else as odd?

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability. You are forming your opinion based off a very ignorant and skewed understanding of the concept. You are making yourself look stupid.

[Deflorate.]

A shitty life with the chance of turning it into a good life.

It's not a human being's call to say who lives and who dies.

Claiming that he will suffer otherwise isn't a fuckin justification to kill a human being .

Just because he will have a bad life doesn't mean it's the parents' say to kill them.

It's why foster care and orphanages exist.

Firstly, I'd like to state that I'm all for abortions. One big reason, would be rape. If a woman is raped, and ends up pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion if wanted. Secondly, it's the parent's choice, and that choice is different in many scenarios. If the parents making the choice want to abort, go ahead. I have no problem with that, and neither should you. Because you've never been in that position.

Also, I'd like to add that you comparing a fetus to a walking, talking human being is like comparing sperm to a baby. They're not the same thing, don't act like they are. And if you're really worried about killing a, "human being," there's a restriction against that. You can only get an abortion during a certain time period in the pregnancy. Once the fetus is developed enough, it is no longer an option, and you're forced to have the baby.

(The rest of this post is simply talking, nothing to do with the argument really.)

Now onto some other points in your post, "It's not a human being's call to say who lives or dies," Well then, I guess you're against the death penalty too. Because that's the exact thing you just described. Plus the fact that you're killing someone with possibly a family, people who care about him/her and memories. A fetus has none of that. (This is irrelevant, just wanted to point this out.)

And finally, onto your point about orphanages and foster homes. I'm going to assume you have no idea about how terrible living in one is. I'm going to think hopefully, you have no idea what you're talking about when saying orphanages and foster homes exist to better a kid's life. I've been through several foster homes, and orphanages. Trust me, they're not amazing things. They are terrible, terrible places to live, and in my experience kids would have rather lived on the street or not lived at all then be put into a foster home/orphanage. I'd know first hand what it's like, so if you'd like to continue preaching about how amazing these things are, I'd love to hear why you think they're so fantastic.

[Ferris Bueller]

Firstly, I'd like to state that I'm all for abortions. One big reason, would be rape. If a woman is raped, and ends up pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion if wanted. Secondly, it's the parent's choice, and that choice is different in many scenarios. If the parents making the choice want to abort, go ahead. I have no problem with that, and neither should you. Because you've never been in that position.

Also, I'd like to add that you comparing a fetus to a walking, talking human being is like comparing sperm to a baby. They're not the same thing, don't act like they are. And if you're really worried about killing a, "human being," there's a restriction against that. You can only get an abortion during a certain time period in the pregnancy. Once the fetus is developed enough, it is no longer an option, and you're forced to have the baby.

Now onto some other points in your post, "It's not a human being's call to say who lives or dies," Well then, I guess you're against the death penalty too. Because that's the exact thing you just described. Plus the fact that you're killing someone with possibly a family, people who care about him/her and memories. A fetus has none of that. (This is irrelevant, just wanted to point this out.)

And finally, onto your point about orphanages and foster homes. I'm going to assume you have no idea about how terrible living in one is. I'm going to think hopefully, you have no idea what you're talking about when saying orphanages and foster homes exist to better a kid's life. I've been through several foster homes, and orphanages. Trust me, they're not amazing things. They are terrible, terrible places to live, and in my experience kids would have rather lived on the street or not lived at all then be put into a foster home/orphanage. I'd know first hand what it's like, so if you'd like to continue preaching about how amazing these things are, I'd love to hear why you think they're so fantastic.

Just to clarify, I am fine with abortion before the baby is developed i.e can survive outside the womb.

If a woman is raped, or there are medical difficulties with the woman or baby, they would have plenty of time to get an abortion before the fetus is developed.

Also, a fetus that is viable outside the womb to a human being is perfectly fine. A developed fetus is as alive as human beings scientifically and morally.

Now the latter parts of your posts are rather "curious" as you think that I think that killing a murderer is the same as killing an innocent baby. Killing a baby is different from killing a perpetrator. One is killing a threat to the life of humans around him and punishing for a crime, the other is killing possibly the most innocent version of a human being.

I find the last part of your post rather disturbing. No one said foster homes and orphanages are great places. I am well aware from experience(not personal experience) that they are horrid places/systems. But what you are saying is, "Kill that baby because he's going to have such a shitty time at that orphanage." You say you have been through several foster homes, how would you have felt if someone went up to you and shot you because he thinks you're going to have a hard time at your next foster home? That logic is flawed and is one of a mentally ill human being. In my book, dead and suffering are 2 different things and I would take the latter any day. I cannot stress enough how the "kill him because he's going to have a bad life" argument disturbs me. This is a human life we're talking about here, leave the choice to the baby. And no it's not up to the parents otherwise there wouldn't be laws against parent abuse. Gosh. Sorry, got a little too into it there.

[Deflorate.]

Now the latter parts of your posts are rather "curious" as you think that I think that killing a murderer is the same as killing an innocent baby. Killing a baby is different from killing a perpetrator. One is killing a threat to the life of humans around him and punishing for a crime, the other is killing possibly the most innocent version of a human being.

I find the last part of your post rather disturbing. No one said foster homes and orphanages are great places. I am well aware from experience(not personal experience) that they are horrid places/systems. But what you are saying is, "Kill that baby because he's going to have such a shitty time at that orphanage." You say you have been through several foster homes, how would you have felt if someone went up to you and shot you because he thinks you're going to have a hard time at your next foster home? That logic is flawed and is one of a mentally ill human being. In my book, dead and suffering are 2 different things and I would take the latter any day. I cannot stress enough how the "kill him because he's going to have a bad life" argument disturbs me. This is a human life we're talking about here, leave the choice to the baby. And no it's not up to the parents otherwise there wouldn't be laws against parent abuse. Gosh. Sorry, got a little too into it there.

I wasn't saying that they were the same thing. I simply commented on your statement of, "It's not a human's place to decide whether or not to kill another human," I was putting aside the whole abortion argument for a second with that little paragraph.

And as for the rest of your paragraph, we're now bringing personal experience into an argument instead of facts. But I'll respond anyways. Yes, I would have gladly allowed someone to come up to me, and end my life at any given time. And all of the other kids there with me? They all felt the same way. 90% of us, including me didn't care about living anymore. I cut myself on a daily basis, and simply didn't care about anything. Now am I saying everyone's like this? No, of course not. And I'm not saying that murdering kids just because they're GOING to have a shitty life is a valid thing to do. I'm saying that I think a kid who already HAS a shitty life, where everyday is a living hell, and it's a struggle to get up in the morning, putting him/her out their misery is the right thing to do. (This is no longer abortion though, this is murder or suicide so really this is completely off topic.)

To this day, I'm still very suicidal due to my childhood. The only reason I'm sitting here today is because of my girl, and smoke. And I'm very lucky that things got semi-decent for me. Although I still have many mental illnesses, and my medication costs 2k every other week. So I'm not going to lie, if I had the choice to go back and end it all, I most likely would.