Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

We've been over abortion a numerable, but still numerous amount of times on this site, but I myself have not said / done much to explain why I think the way I think, and neither have I discussed with you guys (seriously) why do you think abortion / pro-life is better in its own ways.

So...yeah.  On to what I was going to say.

Abortion, to me, becomes more and more of an arbitrary decision of greed and selfishness.  With sex as one of the major capitals in the USA and other highly-populated, wealthy countries, I'm getting a bigger impression that people, especially young adults, want in on this because media portrays reckless sex as a societal norm.  Because of this arbitrary laziness and greed + the misconception that sex is an impersonal, casual product, they screw like rabbits without much fear of any repercussion.  It's because of this sex-addled idiocy and the allowance of abortion that raises people to become irresponsible and unconscious of their actions.  That being said, there are given moments and scenarios where abortion is needed for survival, but I highly doubt those instances can even amount to half of the amount of abortions done out of wanton sex (if someone is willing to do research on the rape cases and amount of bastard children that were not aborted, thank you, but I highly doubt my guess is wrong).  We're essentially dumping money into an industry that ends lives because a young woman apparently has the right to call the separate entity known as the fetus her "body" (which, to me, is a pretty lame excuse to say "I just killed someone I was gonna give birth to, but 'technically' it's me.  hurr...").  To me, abortion isn't really something that should be "normal" under any circumstance.  The lack of sex ed and the disregard built by a social sphere prizing sex as a reward (and not its products) is an abominable horror I cannot comprehend.

^Okay

Horrid wall of text. 

I'm willing to bet you've never been pregnant. Lol. 

You didn't read my wall of text, did you?

Anyhow, I doubt I'll be able to convince anyone here, but I'd like to know why my reasoning doesn't stand well with everyone who thinks otherwise.

I actually did. But why should women have to endure nine months of pain, followed by one of the most excruciating experience one can have, based off of a few people's views? 

*Less than the majority.

Anyhow, the perversion from sex's natural role leads to scandal (if the individuals involved live in a reasonably conservative / traditional setting).  Making sex something of an entertainment industry has lead to some really...weird stuff with humanity's current exploration of it, since the Internetz and other free-speech places have exposed a plethora of FUN ideas to people of all demographics...

...yeah, I'm still kinda irked when I hear 2nd graders shout 69 for fun.

Okay, Swiftstryker I now officially love you. I always found that the commercialism of sex was terrible. It now is viewed in modern day society (thanks to social media and a number of other variables) as more of a sport or something to do when your bored. In the past couple years there has been a noticeable increase in "pleasure" commercials (I saw one on the news channel yesterday! Don't they have young adults watching news?). Personally, I don't even know why parents are so surprised that their teenager is sleeping with the neighbor boy Jimmy. 

WHILE I AM TYPING THIS THERE HAS BEEN THREE SEXUAL JOKES FOR FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS ON THE DISCOVERY  CHANNEL.

"Don't they have young adults watching news?" - I don't think it really matters to be honest xD

Cause that's how the human species has been multiplying for some millenia now

Well, yes. But it would be unconstitutional in the US or Canada to make laws based off religion. 

For instance: outlawing homosexuality. 

And that's your point...or do you have more to say?

Ultra-conservative Catholics believe that sex is for procreation only; any other use is a sin. 

If a government started passing laws to that effect, would it not reflect on them as a religious decision? Eh, that's my two cents anyways. 

How old are you again?

Social experiment or w/e

Mmm? And this is relevant how? 

Exactly

I get it. That's a clever point.

Who said anything about religion? 

Abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape or when either the mother's or the child's health is in danger.

I support abortion because I'm a selfish prick.

I feel that if they want to abort a child, they can do it. It lowers the birth rate which has been severely unbalanced for far too long. I, quite frankly, would never want to be born to a world that wanted me not to be in it that desperately, and I'd rather suffer quickly before I have the ability to think properly than suffer long and abrasively while I'm developing and struggling to exist meaningfully. Pregnancy is a process that not everyone wants to go through, and it causes incredible changes that I could hardly believe anyone would want. Perhaps the baby isn't her body, but the baby doesn't think, the baby isn't alive yet, and the woman does think and is alive and wants to continue living the way they want. Whatever primitive, primal thoughts and wants the baby is developing should obviously be overruled by a sentient's more developed thoughts and wants, no matter how bullshittily stupid that sentient happens to be. That social sphere you're picturing, I want that to form. I want that to happen, because when I have to compete in the world, I'll be fighting against sex-driven, washed-up cretins and not people who were forced out of fear to do something that would help them in life. If people want to be irresponsible, they should be allowed. We'll survive and thrive without them as they slowly kill each other off or bump each other off career ladders that intelligent people can climb in their stead.

>It lowers the birth rate which has been severely unbalanced for far too long

Countries like Greece face extremely low birth rates and an alarming population drop

> I, quite frankly, would never want to be born to a world that wanted me not to be in it that desperately, and I'd rather suffer quickly before I have the ability to think properly than suffer long and abrasively while I'm developing and struggling to exist meaningfully.

The gift of life is a gift, no matter how crappy the package is.

>it causes incredible changes that I could hardly believe anyone wouldwant.

Yet trillions of women have already done it with their consent

>Perhaps the baby isn't her body, but the baby doesn't think, the baby isn't alive yet, and the woman does think and is alive and wants to continue living the way they want. Whatever primitive, primal thoughts and wants the baby is developing should obviously be overruled by a sentient's more developed thoughts and wants, no matter how bullshittily stupid that sentient happens to be.

Time to holocaust the retards

Not even gonna comment on the sentences after that one. I'm not sure who you're trying to diss...

 

 

 

 

"Countries like Greece face extremely low birth rates and an alarming population drop."

Good for you! You have less people to compete with and are consuming less and less resources that humanity needs to survive. You should be glad. Not like you're planning to go to war or anything, right?

"Yet trillions of women have already done it with their consent."

Because they actually want the damn baby, if you don't want it, it's needless pain that's going to make you go through an excruciating adoption process anyway. And I'm not entirely sure what alternate universe you're referencing, but there's only 7 billion people on the planet I live on.

"Time to holocaust the retards."

Weren't you pro-holocaust anyway? I'll provide more logical arguments when you do.

We actually need more people considering Turkey's population boom during the Cold War. And our land can actually feed way more than our current pop but w/e, Greece isn't the topic.

Yah, 7 billion alive and who knows how many dead.

I was never pro holocaust, but your argument that "it's not sentient/it's thought are primal so it doesn't matter" is like saying that we are superior to people with mental dysfunctions and might as well kill them. After all, do you know all the lifestyle changes and sacrifices you have to do in order to raise such a child?

If your land can feed more than you have, then you have an export. You also have a surplus. Be grateful for that, because surplus is what started civilization, and it's a good thing to have it one is intent to continue it.

Again, if it's with their consent, it's because they wanted to baby. No one asks to get kicked in the dick and then either spend millions over the course of their lives paying to keep the other guy's foot alive even though it's detached from his body or sending his foot off to an orphanage. The same could be said for people who don't want their babies.

We aren't superior to people with mental dysfunctions. They have more significant thoughts than fetuses as well. Someone who's mentally challenged can have a philosophy, can enjoy their experience in life, and can move about, generally living life to their function. A fetus does all the thinking that a cell does, "I need food. Whup, there it is. I need to move. Whup, there I go." and it'd be best to cut them off at that point, just like it'd be best to euthanize someone who's been a braindead vegetable for a week and isn't going to get better.

I feel like your trying to pull the discussion away from Abortion itself. >.>

I personally believe that if the couple decided to have sex unprotected then they should reap the aftermath of their decision. To me, abortion represents a way for them to get out of raising the kid. So perhaps people should learn to restrain their hormones and not 'fuck like rabbits' as mentioned.

How so?

Then they'll likely have the kid go to an adoption agency if they still don't want it, which can just as easily become a fate worse than death. Or they'll go the REALLY whorish route and clean their uterus with a coathanger, as women have done for a long, long time.

Then that's their choice, I'm just saying that consequences should happen sometimes.

Like I said, unless the human race is struggling to survive through underpopulation, which it CLEARLY isn't, I don't think you should be punished by anything other than social darwinism for sleeping around and sucking out fetuses that are too young to give a shit.

Let me rephrase what I said. 

If somebody is pregnant then they should have to raise the kid, it was their choice have sex and they should deal with the pain that comes with the pleasure (pardon the pun). If they and the kid die from starvation due to lack of resources then perhaps they shouldn't have spent so much time fucking and more time farming.

So you're saying not only should the parents be subjected to a life of hardship for their perceived misdeeds, but the child should also suffer because it had the misfortune of being born to terrible parents?

That sucks up the resources of an economy that we need to survive. Fuck. That. If they want to be useless, then they shouldn't be multiplying, I don't want to suffer, no matter how indirectly, because two teenagers didn't know what they were doing and couldn't get rid of the impending parasite fast enough. More people = More Problems, whether it's from within an adoption home or from within a teen mom's household. They should be allowed to get rid of it for the sake of the rest of us, and they should probably suffer slut-shaming afterward. But again, I don't want them to be slut-shamed, because I don't want them to change. I'd rather compete with an unrepentant slut/manwhore than a guy who used to sleep around but cleaned himself up and started heading down a path to success.

This is hilarious. 

I know it is, I'm a hilarious person, but that's how the world works. This is a capitalist planet, where you have to compete with everyone to survive properly. If the world were a better place, then maybe I'd change my viewpoint, but it isn't. And while it's not an Anne Raynd Horror Story, it still sucks for everyone who doesn't compete. I want abortion legalized because it makes competing, and therefore survival, easier. Fuck me, right?

*shrugs*

Whatever floats your boat, you'll realize how stupid all that sounds on your own.

I still see nothing wrong with it, why don't you enlighten me, since you're so right and I'm so wrong?

>2 people had sex and got preggies, obviously they are less than me and useless

>calling fetuses parasites

>actually thinking that the world is as you described it.

>putting profit against morality.

What are you even competing for? lmfao

1. If they were stupid enough to constantly be fucking, and/or do it without protection and hope no baby comes out, then they are stupid, and in the eyes of a potential boss, pretty much useless. Having an illegitimate kid/being a teen mom never looks good n your resume. And I never said that people who fuck and get pregnant as a whole are useless, I'm saying that if they're whore degenerates then I'm not going to hope they come to their senses and improve.

2. Because if you don't want the baby, that's just what they are. They devour more of your food than a tape worm, make you sick for months, impede your physical activities and can end up killing you, giving you diabetes, or otherwise fucking up your life when they come out fully formed. The only reward is being a parent, which, if you don't fucking want the kid, isn't a reward at all.

3. And how is it not? The economy is fucking itself up worse every day, richfags get richer, poorfags get poorer, whiny college liberals get whinier, batshit crazy conservatives get crazier, etc. etc.

4. What morality? Morality is an illusion created by ancient tribes or whatever to build social safety barriers and keep early humans from driving themselves to extinction, there hasn't been good or evil since the dawn of civilization, and I somehow doubt there was any real morality before that. Morality is for policemen and feel-good shows on TV. There is no morality, and the world will screw you over whenever it gets the chance. 

5. Decent fucking jobs, of course. In case you haven't noticed, there's a severe lack of them in America today, most of them with 5 or so people waiting until someone gets fired so there'll be room for them in that one particular spot.

1. Or it was a one time thing. Or they are have a serious relationship and the condom broke. I know you are asexual and alol but do you have to hate sexual relationships?

2. I know instances of women who really wanted to abort their kid but didn't and it ended up with both of them being a happy family.

3. Bombs are flying people are dying
Children are crying politicians are lying too
Cancer is killing, Texaco's spilling
The whole world's gone to hell, but how are you?

4. No it fucking won't, some will, and you have to look out for yourself but what you're implying is that the only reason we aren't there eating, killing and raping each other (in that order) is fear of punishment or some "devine/natural" wambo you can't even describe. Do I have to point out how stupid your point is?

5. So... if it was legal, would you kill someone for a job? Holy shit were you always like that or did something bite you in August?

Drako, I can defend myself thank you. :p

1. He doesn't hate sexual relationships, he's just supporting abortion while I'm supporting consequences of their choices. Accidents happen, that doesn't mean you can just toss the accident aside and act like it never did. That just means you don't grow as a person.

2. This is besides the point.

3. @2. Abortion doesn't cause chaos world-wide.

4. He means we will die and drain the world faster if there are more people due to lack of abortion or there will be constant warfare to deal with the high populations. Morality isn't exactly a concern when your trying to feed everybody in a room with only enough to feed yourself.

Besides, many people prefer logical analysis over philosophical debates about right and wrong. Hence the reason debates rarely have morality come into play unless the persons trying to win the crowd.

5. There are legal assassins Drako, we know a group of them called the CIA? Also your avoiding his actual statement here.

1. I don't hate sexual relationships, they're just fine by me, unless the relationship is wholly sexual, in which case that's bullshit that can ruin your body and your life, which is also fine by me, because I'll have a slightly better chance than them at getting by. If it was a one time thing, or if it was a serious relationship and the condom broke, then they'd legitimately need abortion and I won't judge them either.

2. Well fuck them. Not everyone works that way. If they're going to make a choice, let them make the damn choice, whether they learn from it or not.

3. +0.5 respect for that reference. Not that it makes that shit any less relevant.

4. I'm not implying jackshit. Morality is not black and white, laws are just to keep psychos from killing us all, and the whole point of "Morality" on the internet is just for hypocrites to brag about how their shade of gray is lighter than others.

5. If it was legal, I would kill someone to keep them from killing me, just like every anarchy-apocalypse survivor in the media today. Of course I wouldn't kill someone over a fucking job, how slippery are your sloping fallacies!? If it was legal, society would crumble because there would always be that one guy who kills in order to rise in authority, and another guy who kills in order to maintain his position, it might not be everyone, but you can be damn sure at least one guy is thinking it. Who knows what any of us would be if it came to that, but you have to realize there's a huge fucking difference between killing someone and letting them kill themselves.

That's just a ridiculous point of view. You've mentionned it before and i've heard other people say it, and I just can't understand it at all.

What you're proposing is that if you have a solution to a problem that allows you to further enjoy life (to fuck like rabbits - and I have absolutely not a single idea why you treat this like it is a morally reprehensible thing. Also restraining your horomones is not fun or necessary), you shouldn't allow people to take it because fuck those people?

The point of view only has merit if you decide to assign importance to the life of a fetus (which I should hope you don't, because it's a goddamn fetus. Hell, I personally don't assign life to the value of a living baby until it has displayed even the mildest modicrum of a sentient mind, otherwise there is nothing to give its life value), because then your point of view actually assigns consequence to the act of aborting, rather than anything else.

You're making it an issue of responsibility when the entire point of such things (abortions, or the protection for sex which you are proposing everyone engage in all the time) is to avoid responsibility. Because when you can avoid unecessary responsibility, why the fuck shouldn't you?

Besides, how the hell do you think that would work out? You have unwilling parents giving birth to a child that they're not in any way prepared for, you think that's going to end well for the parents or the child? Fuck no, that's shitty for everyone involved, it's a totally arbitrary punishment that ruins everything for everyone for no actual, rational reason.

Your comments are borderline satirical, and I would consider them to be exactly that if it wasn't out of keeping with your usual approach to such discussions.

>I personally don't assign life to the value of a living baby until it has displayed even the mildest modicrum of a sentient mind, otherwise there is nothing to give its life value

And this is why people don't care enough to argue with you

Ignoring Drako's amusingly failed attempts to assist me. >.>

I'm just saying that people should learn to deal with problems instead of running away from them. That's how our world got into this mess and it will continue to go downhill until people start caring about the future.

It's not about the fetus and/or baby being alive, sentient and useful. It's about what your lack of responseability has rewarded you with. So since the 'reward' is a screaming, poop-making machine that devours your food and keeps you awake all night perhaps those people will learn to control themselves before they make more bad decisions?

Sure, they can toss the baby into a dumpster and continue on with their lives. That's great and dandy if they want to keep that dark little secret in their hearts. I'd rather deal with more dumpster babies than let people get out of their problems.

But you're not running away from the problem - dumping the baby in a dumpster is running away from the problem, because you're refusing to take care of the worthless little creature you just spawned. Having an abortion is ending the problem before it can become problematic.

You're treating this like the people are doing something wrong by banging in the first place - why?

How is Turkey's population related to Greece's population?

Probably a concern that Greeks will be outnumbered by Turks to such a degree that they could possibly become a minority in their own country and Turkish culture will take priority over Greek.

Does sound like something Drako would worry about...

Niah, that problem has to do with all the illegal immigrants that are flooding our country. The problem with Turkey is that they aren't exactly pacifists and considering our geopolitical situation a war is extremely likely, if not now, then in 50 years. 

Ooh, yay, I haven't seen a big one yet.

I think you're simplifying the beliefs of the side opposite to you. In fact, I understand and respect your disgust towards abortion, but I believe you are thinking and attacking just one mindset involved with this subject.

While I agree that we need better sex ed (some parts of the US more than others) and our social values could always use work, I do not think you are giving people, especially young people enough credit. The attitude towards abortion have always been split and fluctuates with time. Each state even imposes their own regulations on it. The rate of teen pregnancy, birthrate, and abortions are going down. They are clearly thinking about these things and know more about it than the previous generations. The way you put it, you are making it sound as if abortion suddenly made it okay for everyone to have rampant sex, when I haven't seen any correlation (as far as the US is concerned). Even then, you would also have to prove that any correlation was a direct result of legalized abortion. There are far more factors that affect sexuality, values, and birthrate than abortion and its attitude towards it. So, while your beliefs are fine in itself, the way you are looking at it seems to be a very narrow view.

Let's see: almost 8 billion people in the world, =<30% of that 8billion are women who want an abortion, I'm not pregnant, I don't know anyone who is pregnant, I don't pay attention to any social media or news anywhere in the world, I'm not the one that's pregnant, and if I didn't want a baby the easiest way to get rid of it is to kill it before it has it's own life experiences or gets to know anyone or care about anything. So I'd say do whatever the zark you want to do as long as it doesn't directly concern me or my life :D good luck, have fun!

It's funny it's illegal to kill an adult or kid but when it comes to babies who deserve it much less than most people, it's fine and dandy to go ahead and kill them.

And most women who want an abortion have not had one. Most women who have had an abortion feel terrible and guilty and say they regret their choice of having done it. They almost never do it again. 

Why is this still legal? We let babies get killed because teen mothers don't own up to their responsibilities and end up regretting it anyway. 

Because a developing fetus is still not considered human.

It hasn't lived long enough to develop a consciousness, emotions, experience, and is not capable of contributing to anything in its current state of being let alone anything worthwhile in the human species - therefore it is not human nor (by some standards) animal. It's like bacteria or an insect, does it matter if you kill an ant on the sidewalk if you are the one who sees it? Probably not. It's your choice whether to kill the ant or let it live, except this is a human - if you don't kill it before it is born, you'll have a responsibility to care for it. Honestly, it's an obstacle that many people cannot and will not deal with - and so it is more humane to kill the fetus before it has a chance to experience life.

There are plenty of people who want a child but cannot have one in the US. Adoption is a solution because there aren't that many orphans/unwanted children in US because of abortion. A lot of adoptions these days deal with kids outside of this country.

Is this all Arbitrary or do you have sources?

Only 9,000 people were adopted aboard for the US in 2012.

Adoptions from three states alone go 3,000 above that number and a lot more are still waiting (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/children_waiting2012.pdf).

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/children_adopted.pdf

http://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/about-us/statistics.html

There are a lot of kids who could be adopted in the USA. It's quite sad.

Is there an actual scientific consensus for that?

Actually, in a legal situation, a murder of a pregnant woman technically counts as two murderers, depending on the state. Many states do recognize crimes and homicides of unborn children. They consider abortion a different matter.

As for what you said, just checking, you do mean women that want abortion and not women who want an abortion,  right? I have not yet met a woman who seeks out abortion for the sake of having it. Also, I heard that the ones who have had at least one other abortion was closer to half. I also think it's very dangerous to get into that subject, HugsGoodbye. I'd need to see evidence that says women who had abortions are more likely to be anti-abortion than not.

Why is it legal? Because we're overall split on the issue, and the current status quo is that it's legal nationally but limits are set by state. There's no consensus on how abortion should be handled. All you need to do is look at the different conditions of abortions by state. Also, don't just blame teen moms. Last I heard, the highest percentage of women who had abortions were women in their 20s, probably early.

Yeah, sorry. It is mostly twenties. I've searched up some statistics.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

And some words from some who have been through abortion. If anyone feels they want to know what some of the women think afterwards.

http://www.prolife.com/ABRTWM2.html

Thanks for the link to the testimonials. It's always good to hear the thoughts of others, especially those effected by it. When I was in high school, we even covered physiological aftereffects of abortion. I've done my own share of research on the subject too, so the women's in their 20s thing was one of the statistics I remembered. You'll also have to forgive me, though. I do not take these women's testimonials lightly, but I will be wary of taking this, especially on a clearly prolife site, as evidence of the political preference for the population of women who've had any abortions. That is something I would prefer from a more unbiased source.

We're either going to have legal abortions, or illegal prom night dumpster babies... which sounds worse to you?

Adoption. 

As long as the fetus remains unable to survive outside the womb on it's own, it is just an extension of the female's body. Thus, if she wishes to have said extension removed, she should feel free to do so, as the extension had no right to life to begin with.

So if stabbed a woman who was a some weeks pregnant and the baby was killed, I only injured a part of her? And if she wanted to have the baby? She can charge me for stabbing her but not homicide.

This man should be in prison. He killed a person! A baby, my baby!

No lady, you got it wrong. I took off an extension. That's not homicide. But if you want I can pay you back the amount of say an abortion. Cause it was technically an unwanted abortion right? 

... Yeah, exactly. The fetus was not a baby, nor was it alive. You can't murder something that was never alive to begin with, so a homocide charge goes out the window, and the stabber is charged with an unlawful abortion.

I'm pretty sure fetuses are in fact, alive.

Not until it takes a breathe outside of the womb.

They have not lived an experienced life and therefore cannot be classified as human life if they are yet to be born with emotions, consciousness, or experience living.

Having (Or the absence thereof) experiances does not define life as far as I know.

A thing is alive when its heart beats whether it can breath by itself or not. You're saying anyone who can't sustain their own lives deserve to die technically. What about people with asthma? Those with rare conditions or have been in accidents? Who need machines to keep them alive? They deserve to die?

"You're saying anyone who can't sustain their own lives deserve to die technically."

No, no he is not. He is saying this:

"They have not lived an experienced life and therefore cannot be classified as human life if they are yet to be born with emotions, consciousness, or experience living."

I was actually mostly replying to the first one. 

And that makes no sense. That's like saying to be alive, you have to get a life. 

And isn't pain a part of living? An unborn baby can feel pain. 

You have a tendency to misrepresent other people's views.

By "getting a life" as you put it, I was referring to a state of sentience and acknowledgement of one's surroundings, which a fetus in the womb does not possess, while a live baby does.

And isn't sentience a part of living? An unborn fetus does not experience sentience.

So being partly alive in your sense does not make it even partly wrong to kill them?

What exactly does partly alive mean? How can something be alive and not alive at the same time? It's one or the other. Fire meets certain criteria listed as requirements for being alive, so is fire partly alive? If so, is it wrong to kill fire? No, because fire does not experience consciousness, and if the fire serves no purpose, it needs to be put out because of it's destructive capabilities.

Giving birth to a child is a physical, mental, and financial drain on a mother and a father. If they don't want to allow the fetus to destroy their own livelihoods, they should destroy the danger it poses to their own well being. Why should a woman be forced to undergo nine months of nuptials, morning sickness, nutrition checking, and sobriety just to spend thousands of dollars to give birth to a baby it is only going to give away?

Because that baby has the right to life just as much as you. If you had been killed from abortion, we would not be talking right now would we?

I feel like I'm talking to a block of wood right now.

It's not a baby. It's a fetus. There's a difference. Okay? Understand? You comprehend? Good.

I fail to see how whether or not I was aborted is relevant. If I was, I wouldn't feel one way or the other, because I'd have been a fetus, and would not be aware my life ended before it began, because I never experienced life in the first place. If I was aborted, I would not have developed the sentience I have that makes me capable of having a view on the matter. 

Confirmed: HugsGoodbye is a block of wood.

An accepted theory which has been proven in this thread. Since the block of wood isn't living, we should have an abortion to get rid of it.

Yes, Im a block of wood. One that's too tired to continue pointing out where your words make no sense against a bunch of things. 

You can't compare something which could have existed's worth to the worth of what exists now, because the thing that could have existed doesn't and there's no reversing that fact - so there's no telling if it would be worthwhile to have had something which does not exist - exist.

A fetus has not yet had a life, and so saying that "what if it did and that life was valuable" is a fallacy - because it hasn't. It was not allowed to have a chance to live and therefore no chance to determine it's worth. Abortion is logical, humane, and is completely up to the woman who will eventually (if no abortion is to be had) be going through hell during childbirth and then going through an even longer hell through raising the child.

Plus, her vag'll bleed more than all her periods combined.

But I wasn't. Therefore, I don't care.

Strawman's Fallacy ftw

I never stated they "deserve to die." You said that, not me.

You can't take life away from a fetus, because it does not know what life is, and does not have any right to life as a result. Just because something doesn't have a right to life doesn't mean it should be destroyed, but it would not be a gross violation of a fellow human's rights to do so, so it should remain legal.

Technically a Fetus is alive since it is growing, just like seed that will grow into a plant. But I don't know if that's a correct analogy.

A fire is also able to grow, but is it alive?

A fire cannot feel pain. Nor does it have a beating heart. 

Nor does a plant have a beating heart.

Yes a plant is alive. 

To be alive according to science you must have the seven qualities 

Growth

Reproduction

Energy consumption

Response to stimuli

Death

Cells

Complexity

 

This makes plants and fetuses alive. 

 

Being alive doesn't automatically confer human rights though. I think the debate here is - do fetuses have the same rights as human beings?

And does the dependency on the mother for life give the mother the right to abort the fetus?

Oh yes, fetuses are alive, that is true. Your mistake is in assuming that means anything. Just because something is alive does not mean its life has any value. Just as a plant or an animal will be killed without a hint of remorse, an unsentient fetus can be killed as it has no mind, nothing that gives its life any sort of importance (save perhaps that which the parents assign it - and of course, if the parents do not assign any importance to its life, then it does not have any).

Fetuses do not have human complexity whilst still within the womb. Please give me a detailed paragraph or so as to how you would explain that a fetus (which has not been born and does not have experience breathing, living, experiencing, or feeling anything that a living human would have) is just as alive as a baby (which is already born, has experiences, feelings, emotions, and can breath).

Interesting fact - newly born babies might not be technically 'sentient' either. To have sentience that is capable of experiencing emotions, memory and continuity of experience are required. A newborn's memory centers don't develop until several months of age - which is the earliest they can begin to recognize faces and babble in patterns. There's not that much difference between a newborn and a goldfish, mentally - or at least, the science so far seems to indicate that, even if there's no way to know for sure.

It raises some interesting questions about whether or not human rights should be decided by mental capabilities. I mean, what about people with mental disorders or brain damage?

Emotions play a large part in this and development of survival instinct like food or water. A fetus doesn't know that it needs food or water and a fetus doesn't cry when it's uncomfortable. However a newborn does - because it's out of the womb, it will cry and display physical emotion when in need of sustenance; unlike a yet-to-be-born fetus.

Human rights are not only decided by mental capabilities but physical capabilities as well. Such as breathing and blinking.

Huh, but plenty of animals breathe and blink too. Or is it a combination of all of the above?

Actually, come to think of it, is there an official way to determine who qualifies and who doesn't qualify for human rights under the law? What's the status quo right now, does anyone know?

I believe it's a combination of all aspects that combine to create a human complexity, and therefore the human is given rights as a human to be classified and treated as a human.

Erm, yeah it kinda does. know when it needs foods. In the same way a baby knows, at least. It just can't cry for food since it's in someone's stomach and doesn't have a properly developed body yet. 

And, there are some people who can't breath on their own. Who are still humans, I think. 

"...doesn't have a properly developed body yet." - it's not JUST breathing, blinking, having a beating heart, etc. It's a human complex that combines all into one - which a fetus is usually not capable of all aspects that would give a human a right to be treated as a human.

...Like a baby, as quiller just pointed out. 

But you said earlier that a fetus is "partly alive?" Why is a fire not "partly alive?" 

Why is a penis not "party alive?". Oops.

I think my penis is more than just partly-alive - damned thing seems to have a mind of its own.

*Ba dum tss

Have an abortion to get rid of your penis, that is, if you have one.

It's alive in that it changes and grows. That could mean it is sentient and thus has a few rights to it's existence even if it is not useful to us.

Humanity likes to think of itself as a God doesn't it?

Edit: A Fire is a reaction to the environment and is not comparable to a Fetus.

Double post, delete.

That isn't really a good answer. If abortion is illegal, people are no doubt going to seek other means to have one.

Not to mention the fact that the government is going to have to spend a lot of money feeding, bathing, and sheltering the potential thousands of unwanted children that aren't lucky enough to get adopted.

Eventually, the country'll be called "New China".

And then we go to war with canada and cause nuclear war between China?

Careful, playa, that slope is pretty slippery. Unless the Supreme Court changes its mind, the real question would be by state and how much regulations and conditions they impose. This isn't a case of extremes but in-betweens. Btw, playa, fyi, feticide is an actual charge and killing a fetus in the womb outside of abortion and can be considered homicide depending on the state.

You seem to have a rather puritannical perspective, Swyft.

Of course, since you apparently don't wish to discuss it, i'll just bring something else up:

Situation: Man and woman get together and decide they want to have a baby. They get preggers and then the woman decides that she doesn't want to go through with it and wants to get an abortion. Guy is not okay with this, he wants to have his child.

What should happen? (Currently, legally, it's the woman's exclusive choice, which doesn't personally seem like a totally cool choice - it makes sense, I guess, since it's the woman's body but the guy is definitely getting screwed over).

It's not that difficult for a guy (or gal) to have sex with someone else if all they want is a child. In fact, it's not hard to have sex AGAIN AT A LATER DATE with the same person if you specifically want a child with that person.

It's the woman's choice, but there can be compromise and planning for the future that both parties can agree to.

Yeah, but it's also a problem if you wasted X months of your life with a woman who obviously doesn't share your wishes/dreams. And life is pretty finite. 

It's her body. She can do what she wants with it, and it's no one's business if she wants to have an abortion. 

...Yes it is. If you agreed with someone to do something, and then back out, it's a douche move. Not legally applicable unless they signed an agreement, but, as Drak said, "the guy is definitely getting screwed over." 

If you agreed. She might not have agreed. 

Besides,

"I agreed that if you win this bet, I will cut my left arm off." *After losing the bet: "I changed my mind. I don't want to cut my left arm off. But since it's a douche move if I back out of my agreement, I guess I'll have to cut it off. Dammit." 

.... If she didn't agree, then there wasn't an agreement. I think that's fairly obvious. 

And that's what we call a false equivalence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)

You said that yes it is someone's business if she want to have an abortion if she agreed to it before-handed, but I never claimed that she did - you just assumed that I did. 

And it's not that far-fetch enough to be a false equivalence. 

No, we are literally talking about Drak's situation:

"Situation: Man and woman get together and decide they want to have a baby. They get preggers and then the woman decides that she doesn't want to go through with it and wants to get an abortion. Guy is not okay with this, he wants to have his child.

What should happen? (Currently, legally, it's the woman's exclusive choice, which doesn't personally seem like a totally cool choice - it makes sense, I guess, since it's the woman's body but the guy is definitely getting screwed over)."

If you want to swap the situation, I don't care. I'm talking about this one. 

And, yes, yes it is. 

 

In the current circumstances as of the laws here now, I'd guess they break up over it, girl gets her abortion or changes her mind to save her relationship, if she goes with it, then guy gets an adopted kid from elsewhere and never speaks to girl again (or often).  That is, if they haven't reached an agreement after a month or two of debate, should the guy or girl agree.

^That's the predictable outcome for what I guess what the "average" individual should do, but do you want me to add my own bias in this?

Everyone loves bias.

Was editing that, but mkay.

"That is, if they haven't reached an agreement after a month or two of debate, should the guy or girl conform to one side, or they reach a compromise. <---(took me five minutes to finally get the word, holy shit)."

Okay, so...well, you also mentioned the father, and supposedly, if one gamete belongs to the father, and the other the mother to make a zygote, that would give the father (or...it should, but that's debatable) partial ownership of the zygote->fetus->whatever the child might be.

But if law has already established the fact that a fetus is exclusive to the mother, then...well, by law, she gets to decide by herself.  [A case of abortion could be contested for feticide if the father prosecutes / sues, though the chances for him to do so successfully are low.  This will probably end up on a headlines if it gets high enough in the court system, which might spark another debate] <---A little far-fetched, but that what I could predict if the father is that desperate.

On the other hand, if the father does somehow force his partner to give birth and she does, and she manages to set up a lawsuit for duress and sue for damages to her virginity (or now, what's left of it and the value of the child in question, I might think that the case will probably go for more in the mother's favor with the pro-choice laws in place.  [Again, it might be debatable and make headlines and controversy, but that's a stretch.]

On a side note, am I still an idiot?

Edited Post due to Drakillian mentioning something I accidently skipped over.

Why would anybody support her for 'damages to her virginity'? Unless it's rape then that case wouldn't even make sense. 

Woah woah woah woah woah, sue for damages to her virginity? 

What the fuck? 

What the fuck?

Idiocy confirmed, but hey, people have been sued for much worse.  (Can I save my reputation as slightly incompetent?)

Wait, you can sue for rape, right?

The father shouldn't be forced to pay any of his money to abort the child. If the mother wants to kill the fetus THAT much then she should have to come up with the funds for it. (And tax-payers certainly shouldn't have to bother with that. Except for rape. Maybe.)

Regardless the outcome, they should have a long conversation about whet here they want to continue being married.

*If they are married.

Whoops. Nvm.

This is why we live in Australia. Everything is as it should be in Australia. *shrugs* and if it isn't we get a boxing kangaroo to kick its ass.

I'd like it to be like in Australia, but then again, USA has a larger demographic of pro-choice women.

Fuck that, men and women should have equal say. We're all human, after all. 

And the US has established that women has the right to her fetus's possibly miserable or not life.

I'm honestly not following what direction you're trying to point me in (or get me to see) but all I can say is I don't live there so I can't really give much of an opinion.

Well, in Australia, abortion is mostly restricted to certain cases, and the father can contest for the kid's life, right?  In the USA, if it is written law the woman has the exclusive right, there's no contest.

Maybe we should be like you Aussies ._.

" Everything is as it should be in Australia" - They have been passing (And trying to do more) some really stupid laws recently.

Oh, we don't include the government in that aspect. At all. They're all from Poland.

xD

Hey, at least they realized that Australia was no longer a Penal Colony and allowed M-17 games into their country. (What is it called there, R18?) It's one of the finer achievements in Australia's contemporary history. Up there with civil rights.

Yeah, it's about bloody time we got that law through... I can understand what the government is trying to do with the economy, but it's not fuckin' working. 

Anyways, a little off-topic, but that doesn't matter.

I just felt it was a violation of basic human freedom to be forced to play that... Blasphemous imitation... of Left 4 Dead as opposed to the real thing.

I played Left 4 Dead years ago... Was that an R rated game? If so, it got changed to MA15+ here.

18+ Over here in England.

My spouse and I are inclined to agree with you on a lot of points, Swift.

That would be all I'd say on the subject, but ... I find myself increasingly perturbed by the amount of comments suggesting a fetus is not alive, does not have emotions, does not feel, and does not possess any life experience. Actually, no ... what I find irritating is that no one seems to be arguing that point. Arguing around it, yes, but I can only guess that the fact that it's not really being refuted means that at least a majority of you guys actually believe it's true.

Now, I will say that I do not specialize in pediatrics or OB/GYN, but I am still very interested in both fields so I've studied them quite a bit. I also have a best friend who is something of a prodigy in the field of psychology and he takes a special interest in the area of "fetal psychology" which he has studied in-depth. We've had multiple very enlightening discussions on it that--while not exactly pro-life based-- would probably prove very interesting to people who believe life begins at conception and likewise to people who alternatively believe it begins at birth.

I am not going to bother to share everything I've learned and talked about because, to be perfectly honest, it would take too damn long. I will, however, link you guys to an article that addresses some of the things science has learned in recent years (this article was published in 1998, so I'm not talking cutting edge, recent revelations here, which was more the subject of my personal discussion with my friend, but it's interesting,) about fetal development: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html

I've seen a lot of the points in the article proven accurate in real life and I've spoken to multiple expecting parents, parents of small children, people who developed various ... interesting behaviors and problems that are believed to be due entirely to their experiences in the womb ... and more. I'm not going try to convince you that abortion is wrong or something like that, it's more of a moral decision than a scientific one. I'm just attempting to clear up some misconceptions about pre-birth existence. That unborn child is still very much alive.

I was told that during the abortion the fetus shows signs of fear and tries to "hide". Is that true?

Plants sure signs of fear as well. There was an article about it in the past but I don't remember where I found it.

It was where reactions by plants were monitored or something and they noticed that plants have a sense of self-preservation when others of their 'kind' are attacked nearby.

So, basically, my only problem with abortion is that the government funds it with tax payer money. Which is bullshit. So, for anyone who thinks that's a good thing, I have a question.

Lets say someone became super fat. Should the government fund his wish to get a gastric bypass? Because, to be, it seems to be pretty much the same case. Fat/sexually active person ate/had sex, got a bigger belly, and wants it removed. 

That's a whole other ball game Aman. xD

Depends on the situation. Rape-babies would make sense (unless you find the rapist, at which point you should just sue them for the costs, among other things), but yeah, an accident that you want to get rid off shouldn't be payed for by the government.