 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Thought on abortion? |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Deleted User Banned                  Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| I am extremely curious to what some of you guys think about abortion.
Please discuss here... I'll give my thoughts on it later.  |
|||
|
Thexare Metal battleaxe Off to better places      Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Well, I'm not going to ever get one.
Seriously, though, I don't think I'd get one even if I was a woman who inadvertently got pregnant. But, my general opinion on matters like this is that if no one's getting hurt, leave the choice open, and I'm also of the opinion that until the last part of the pregnancy, the fetus is not alive in any meaningful sense. So, basically, give them the choice, even if it's one I'd never do. |
|||
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite!  Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Cheveyo Chowilawu Yeah. I don't really care, it should be up to the mother. There's a moral obligation to stop killing of babies, if you consider that killing (I don't), but there's also a moral obligation to leave this a reasonable country. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Indeed, it should be the woman's choice regardless if other people find it immoral. A person isn't a person until they don't depend absolutely on someone for absolutely everything. | |||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Dracoon: so we become people when? 18?
I depened on my parents for nearly everything until about then... although, I guess I could take care of myself around 5 or so... get dressed... eat unatended and the like... |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| You didn't start breathing on your own until you were 18? | |||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| If we are going to argue against abortion we might as well argue against condoms since they kill what would end up as fetus, if it were to reach an egg. The debate over when you have created a "person" rather than a "thing" seems to be fruitless to me, b/c it's all about how you feel. There's nothing objective about it, and even if there were objective points brought up, no one would agree on which points were valid. (e.g. Functioning limbs, certain levels of brain activity, development of breathing and circulations systems, etc.)
I personally feel that abortion is indeed a gruesome act. But I'm willing to put aside how uneasy it makes me feel to allow the woman who needs an abortion (rape victim, or in danger of death by childbirth) the right to do so. Casual abortion is a pretty dumb option imo. People need to be more responsible than that. Treating life like you can make it and destroy it so casually is pretty callous. |
|||
Skydude Armos Knight  Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6568 days Last view: 6568 days |
| ||
| I'm going to try not to get too involved in this discussion due to the drama that might be caused as a result, but I feel I can address one of MON's first points from an objective stance, and that I should.
Purely scientifically, a sperm and an egg are merely cells with half of the genetic makeup of the father and mother, respectively. As such, DNA tests would find the genetic material identical to the source, or at least part of the source. When an egg is fertilized, the resulting zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, etc. have distinct DNA from the mother and the father, not merely an additive property of the different genetic material. As such, what is created is a distinct life from the mother and the father, from a purely scientific standpoint. The result of the fertilization of an egg is a distinct human life, as far as science determines each of these criteria. Whether you accept this definition as what should be used in the determination of policy or not is a far more complicated issue, and I seek merely to provide some rather basic information on which to build that discussion, and to draw the one really objective dividing line there is. |
|||
|
Alastor Fearless Moderator Hero  Since: 11-17-05 From: An apartment by DigiPen, Redmond, Washington Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| It has no real sentience, though. | |||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6568 days Last view: 6568 days |
| ||
| The debate on when sentience occurs is another rather important factor to bring in, but if that's the defining characteristic, the scientific community has suggested that this comes about at approximately the age of 2, so using that as a guideline would mean kids under 2 could be killed. | |||
|
Alastor Fearless Moderator Hero Since: 11-17-05 From: An apartment by DigiPen, Redmond, Washington Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I disagree. That takes the emotional factor out of the equation, which isn't a good thing. The mother, by nature, becomes attached to her child in a much greater extent after birth than before.
Regardless, my information seems to indicate that previous data is flawed and they develop such things in a matter of months. |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6568 days Last view: 6568 days |
| ||
| Well, the emotional factor is an important thing to consider, and comes into this discussion at all points, no matter which side you're coming from. However, I do have to somewhat dispute your points.
You are correct in that a mother will generally be more emotionally attached to her child after birth than before. However, that is to ignore what happens prior to birth, in a sense, particularly as both are largely the result of hormonal changes. Look at the effects of post-abortion-syndrome, which largely mirror what happens in an accidental miscarriage, which itself is very similar to what happens with the loss of a child in infancy. These will happen to varying degrees depending on different factors, but they're remarkably similar, so to bring emotions into play as you have is hard to prove anything. As for sentience, perhaps it becomes a discussion of terminology. While children show certain cognitive capacities at a very young age, most recent evidence I'm aware of, and I've read a decent amount of it, would still put sentience, self-awareness in general, at approximately the age of 2. The best example of this is the "rouge test". |
|||
Silvershield  580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsAn overwhelming majority of abortions are not in response to a rape or to save the life of the mother. An overwhelming majority. And, even so, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro-lifer who would deny a woman an abortion if the chilldbirth would kill her. Despite how uncommon (and effectively nonexistent) circumstance that is. The rape case is a bit more of an issue although, if I were in the position, I would like to think that I'd have the presence of mind and strength of spirit to bring the child to full term and then possibly surrender it for adoption. Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsThen you're saying an aborted fetus was alive? |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
| I personally have conflicting views on abortion. As a supporter of human rights, it's hard to support abortion. Early abortion is better, but were I to get pregnant I doubt I'd even consider abortion. On the other hand, it's wrong for say South Dakota to ban abortions outright, because a mother should have some say in the abortion. I understand that in some situations raising a child is very, very difficult. Also many children put up for adoption are stuck in a bad adoption system. My best suggestion is to use some sort of contraception in the first place. | |||
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within  Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| In my point of view, rights are based on self-interest. Conscious thought is a function of the cerebral cortex, which does not even begin to operate until 24-26 weeks' gestation (the third trimester). Considering that a fetus does not have even the most rudimentary potential for self-interest until the third trimester, until that point, I don't assign it any moral rights at all. After the third trimester, if the fetus is healthy and carrying it to term will not endanger the woman's life or health, I don't like the idea of killing it, as it does have potential for conscious thought and is probably viable.
The idea that children could be killed up until age two based on a definition of sentience is a non-issue in this discussion. An unwanted fetus is biologically dependent on the bodily resources of an unwilling host. A born child is not. The child's caretaker could give it up for adoption or surrender it to the state. An unwanted fetus cannot be removed and allowed to grow in another host (or frozen for later gestation). Originally posted by SkydudeWhat if it's a hydatidiform mole, which can never develop into a human fetus (let alone a born, sentient human being? A blighted ovum? Many fertilized eggs never implant or are miscarried early on. Why, then, should an arbitrary fertilized egg be considered to be a distinct human life? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by RydainYou'll probably get mad if I say this, but I sincerely think that if you ever have a child you will drift, at least slightly, in the direction of pro-life. That's the nature of the discussion - it's based significantly on emotional arguments. Like the whole God argument, if either side could support its point sufficiently to label it "correct," the argument wouldn't happen anymore. That doesn't change the fact that I am rabidly pro-life  . |
|||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Dracoon: you depend on your parents for nearly everything you have until at least age 5
sure, you can breathe on your own.... but so can a premature child.... |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Depends how premature. and that's why we have two options. Adoption and abortion. Both have their pros and cons. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| It seems people on both sides of this issue want to use completely arbitrary points as when life begins.
On the one side its when the baby is actually born, as if it wasn't alive 5 minutes before. I really can't understand why something that is almost universally considered wrong (cutting an infant's head open and sucking out its brains), can be ok, just because it's still in a woman's body. On the other hand it makes just a little sense to say a few hundred human cells are just as alive as you and me. Ending the pregnancy then is just as much murder as using a condom, or just practicing abstinence. By the third trimester, a fetus is a viable, conscious human being. Killing it then is no different than killing it outside of the mother. So it's the woman's body, and therefore her choice. Well, here's where I make people mad. She already made her choice. She made the choice, to have sex, and then she made the choice to carry the baby for 27 weeks. Now she has to take responsibilty for those choices. That may make me sound like a terrible person, but think about. How many times have you seen a man complain about paying child support and someone comes back with something like "Well, you should have kept it in your pants". If I went out and got some woman pregnant, that would be the only choice I would be allowed to make concerning the matter (actually my choice would just be to have sex with her, not getting her pregnant). Then I would spend the next 18 years working MY BODY twice as hard to make the same money. Why? Because I made a choice and now I have to take responsibility for it. I don't think its so much to ask that after making the choice to have sex, and carry a baby through 2 trimesters, to then take resposibility for that choice and bring the baby full term. |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins 1100 In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude You hide behind words like "science" and "criteria" yet this is still an opinion. If fertilization were to be "aborted" some infinitesimal time beforehand, you're saying this is justified? I know that's a wild hypothetical, but in my point of view it is human life in general that matters, not just singular units called people. What you're saying is that the human all of a sudden matters only b/c it is distinct from its parents. Sperm, eggs, and any other cell in the body is still apart of us and I do think they deserve the same respect. It would indeed be a tragedy if our whole species became infertile. But this illustrates exactly what I was trying to explain in that people are going to use whatever criterion makes sense to them to describe what a human life is. And it has so far unfolded predictably in that fashion. Is it something with a face? Is it something that if left alone will eventually have a face? Is it something sentient? (And why should any of these things particularly matter?) @Silvershield: I'm not really even sure what you're getting at, given I seem to mostly have the same position as you. In case you're having reading comprehension issues, let me spell it out: I'm not in favor of just anyone getting an abortion. I believe people should be responsible enough to either abstain or use contraceptives. In the event you still get pregnant, then deal with it. I also don't get what you said about putting the child of a rape victim up for adoption. Is that the only option in your eyes? According to this http://www.surrogacy.com/religion/catholic.html, the Catholic Church would rather a child be raised by his/her real parents than by a stranger. And that seems to be both childbirth and raising of the child, based on what I gathered from the article. Hence if you're going to stay true to Catholicism, adoption shouldn't even be a consideration. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Thought on abortion? |
| Thread closed |
