Where do you stand on the issue of Abortion?
- Thread starter Melanin
- Start date
Mmm how human is a fetus, or how concious?
Being against abortion while eating a burger full of cows is hypocritical. They have more conciousness than a fetus.
Also according to researches sperms have odorant receptors, in less fancy words attiributes to have sense of smell:
Seem pretty alive... Senses even more than a fetus can do. Do we regard jerking off as a genocide now? Are all dead sperms who could not reach the egg are collateral damage? How about women reproductive cells, they flush them mercilessly at every month. Is stopping a rape attempt not so heroic now, due to stopping a possible procreation?
Calling fetus is a human being is like just thinking about painting makes someone a painter. It is not even a sketch of a human, birds have more minds, feelings and attiributes than them.
You must be registered for see links
Small video of brajn development in womb:
You must be registered for see links
Being against abortion while eating a burger full of cows is hypocritical. They have more conciousness than a fetus.
Also according to researches sperms have odorant receptors, in less fancy words attiributes to have sense of smell:
You must be registered for see links
Seem pretty alive... Senses even more than a fetus can do. Do we regard jerking off as a genocide now? Are all dead sperms who could not reach the egg are collateral damage? How about women reproductive cells, they flush them mercilessly at every month. Is stopping a rape attempt not so heroic now, due to stopping a possible procreation?
Calling fetus is a human being is like just thinking about painting makes someone a painter. It is not even a sketch of a human, birds have more minds, feelings and attiributes than them.
Adam Driver
Active member
Awards
Pro life.
As you stated life begins at conception, there is no arguing against that.
Sperm and egg each hold 23 chromosomes that holds a child's genetic information. After fertilization, the cells gradually double up to 38 weeks, after 38 weeks the fertilized egg has grown into an infant with about 2 trillion cells that can be delivered.
Abortion is murder that takes place at a cellular level.
As you stated life begins at conception, there is no arguing against that.
Sperm and egg each hold 23 chromosomes that holds a child's genetic information. After fertilization, the cells gradually double up to 38 weeks, after 38 weeks the fertilized egg has grown into an infant with about 2 trillion cells that can be delivered.
Abortion is murder that takes place at a cellular level.
Funky Tiger
Active member
Awards
'Life'. Depends on what you see as life. What you're talking about is not 'human life'. It's basic life.
How am I inhumane and ridiculous? You didn't even counter my argument?
Sennin of Logic
Active member
Pro-life, with some conditions that act as exceptions.
1. The mother was raped.(it'd be monstrous to have a woman forced to bear the child of her tormentor)
2. The pregnancy can cause a significant medical issue for the mother.(It'd also be monstrous to say "you must give your life for this baby)
A situation other than this is just reckless abandon on the parts of the parents, and the child should not be penalized for it.(unless there's some condition that I don't know about) It's, as I call it "recreational abortion," and I'm totally against a couple killing their child just because it's not that convenient for them. *** was their choice, and unprotected *** was also their choice. I also find abortion as a horrible inconsistency in human rights. When you think about it, an unborn child isn't very different from a coma patient, but coma patients have more rights than the unborn child.
I've actually made an essay about this. I'll put it in spoilers. Some interesting statistics I've looked up. Birth control is 99.8% effective. Condoms are 98% effective. 30% of women up to their 40s have had an abortion.
1. The mother was raped.(it'd be monstrous to have a woman forced to bear the child of her tormentor)
2. The pregnancy can cause a significant medical issue for the mother.(It'd also be monstrous to say "you must give your life for this baby)
A situation other than this is just reckless abandon on the parts of the parents, and the child should not be penalized for it.(unless there's some condition that I don't know about) It's, as I call it "recreational abortion," and I'm totally against a couple killing their child just because it's not that convenient for them. *** was their choice, and unprotected *** was also their choice. I also find abortion as a horrible inconsistency in human rights. When you think about it, an unborn child isn't very different from a coma patient, but coma patients have more rights than the unborn child.
I've actually made an essay about this. I'll put it in spoilers. Some interesting statistics I've looked up. Birth control is 99.8% effective. Condoms are 98% effective. 30% of women up to their 40s have had an abortion.
The Dark Side of Recreational Abortion
Abortion is terminating the life of an unwanted human fetus before they’re born. Terminating any human life is controversial as, by its very nature, borders murder. Countless individuals have varying views on the issue of abortion. Some feel that it’s morally wrong, others feel it’s completely acceptable, while some feel that it’s alright in moderation. I believe that it should never be used recreationally for mere convenience and feel that people simply avoid pregnancy rather than destroying a fetus or embryo.
One argument that pro-abortion advocates use to support the use of abortion is that “it’s the woman’s body.” This is meant to say that a woman can do whatever they feel like with their body, and that terminating a fetus falls under this right. However, this is not the full story. Abortion isn’t merely about the rights of women, but children as well. It’s not only the woman’s body, but the body of fetuses as well. Abortion is making the choice for two bodies, not simply one. Abortion doesn’t simply involve the rights of a women but those of fetuses as well. This justification of abortion is putting the rights of the mother in front of the rights of the child. Although women’s rights are a valuable part of the debate, the woman’s right when not dealing with rape or health issues, is mere convenience. The child’s right is related to its life.
A woman doesn’t inherently need to have an abortion to avoid an unwanted baby. There are other methods of having *** without conceiving a baby such as the use of condoms, the morning after pill, and preventative medication. Condoms are one of these methods. The morning after pill is another one. All of these methods can be used to prevent fertilization in the first place rather than ending a life. These methods are far more humane than abortion, and ultimately have the same effect.
A couple should take responsibility for their actions. When a couple engage in *** in such a way that pregnancy is possible, they are actively risking pregnancy for pleasure. If they’re not ready for a baby, or do not desire one, they should not engage in that type of sexual behavior until they’re ready or willing to have a child. The biological purpose for *** is pregnancy. A species must reproduce in order to survive. This is why we have such a strong urge for ***. Actively having unprotected *** while not wanting to get pregnant is the same as using a gun to shoot randomly around and hoping that you don’t seriously wound someone. Legal *** is a choice. Therefore, people should know what they are risking when they engage in ***. If they are not ready for pregnancy, it’s no one’s fault but their own. A fetus should not be penalized for the mistake of their parents, just because the fetus is an inconvenience to them. Instead of focusing on what’s convenient for the parents regardless of choices, we should be focusing on responsibility. The couple should be held accountable for the result of their ***. The mother should not kill the fetus just because it’s not convenient for her. Likewise, dear old dad should not leave the woman he had *** with to fend for herself and their child. He should support the family with a variation of alimony.
We also don’t know if a fetus isn’t fully human. We have no way of knowing. People with religious beliefs believe that the soul is what makes human humans. However, there’s no way to tell if a soul exists, let alone if a fetus has one. For Atheists, everything about what makes a human is even more complex, as there can be multiple definitions. Is it merely human DNA? If that’s the case, then any part of a body is human. If it’s the nervous system, multiple avnimals have them. Is consciousness and the brain what makes a human? It’s absurdly difficult to define what makes someone human.
Is classifying a human being as a human body with consciousness an accurate way to separate a human and a human being? There are complications to using this as a form of classification. If consciousness determines whether a human counts as a human being, then we’d have to consider comatose patients as sub-humans. A coma is defined as a prolonged state of unconsciousness, and cannot be awakened by any kind of stimulus including pain. (Mayo Clinic) (WebMD) However, some can be aware of their surrounding while not being able to communicate or respond.(Gholipour) In order to save the life of someone that is comatose, they need to be on life support quickly. Although comas usually don’t last longer than several weeks, there are those who last longer, and can enter a vegetable state. (Mayo Clinic) A vegetable state is a version of a comatose in which all conscious awareness is lost even though the ability to breathe or open eyes is retained. (Gholipour) Someone is classified as being in a persistent vegetative state when that person is in a chronic state of unconscious for a minimum for 4 weeks.(Healthcare.findlaw) People in comas, much like fetuses and embryos, is not independent and must be attached to something that enables them to survive. Ironically, both of them are connected to the source of their life by tubes. A comatose patient is dependent on a machine to survive, while fetuses to embryos are dependent on the mother’s body. Additionally, a vegetative person and a fetus or embryo do not have consciousness. So, what the legal view of the treatment of both of these types of humans compared to one another? A human in a vegetative state can only be taken off of life support and left to die by a clinic if that person is confirmed to be someone who will be in that state permanently and two doctors agree with the decision to end his/her life.(Evans) Even then, if a family member, doctors, or hospitals, all being interested parties, feel otherwise, the decision can be challenged in court.(Evans) An embryo, like a vegetative human, lacks consciousness and independence but has the potential to become a fully conscious human being. However, despite the similarities of the situations, and embryo is treated in an entirely different matter from a vegetative person. The Embryo does not have a law preventing its death when it has the chance to become an intendant and conscious human being. The embryo doesn’t get a second opinion. It’s stuck entirely on whether the mother value’s its existence or not. So, why is there opposite legal rights for such similar situations? It’s most likely because, with a vegetative human, one can see what will be ended. People in general are probably more likely to have pity on a developed human being that’s ruined as opposed to one that’s developing and out of sight. This is an inconsistency in human rights. If consciousness is used as the standard for a human being, then one of two things must happen. Either an embryo must be elevated to having the same right to live as a non-permanent vegetable human, or interested parties of non-permanent vegetable humans have to have the right to terminate his or her life at a whim. If we’re not to be a hypocritical society basing our arguments on mere convenience, one of these two changes must happen. For the latter, I say good luck passing that.
If a nervous system and the ability to feel pain or forming a brain is considered a reason to not kill a fetus/embryo, then we must consider the development cycle of its development. During the fifth week of pregnancy, the fetus’s brain starts to grow.(Medicine Plus) During this time period, nerve cells and spinal cord also begin to develop.(Medicine Plus) Needless to say, this is when people looking to evaluate a human being should pay attention in the stage of a fetus. A fetus develops neural tubes that ultimately close at weeks six through seven. (Whattoexpect) The closed neural tubes begin to curve and bulge, forming the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain. (Whattoexpect) Shortly after this, they form the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem. (Whatttoexpect) What’s important to note is that the cerebrum is the biggest part of the brain that is responsible for thinking, remembering, and feeling. (Whattoexpect) By week eight, the unborn child begins wriggling his or her limbs and obtains the sense of touch. (whattoexpect) However, a total of thirteen states including Arkansas and North Dakoda have an abortion limit of twenty weeks under the basis of some research showing that a baby can feel pain as early as twenty weeks. (Johnson) I doubt the validity behind the research for the twenty week limit. It sounds incredibly farfetched that if an unborn child has spread the cells that form nerves beginning in week five, followed by the major brain structures being formed at weeks six through seven, and the sense of touch and motion abilities are gained at week seven (which includes pain), would not feel pain until week twenty despite all the body parts that could be attributed to pain are there. Additionally, one must consider if there’s that much of a difference between a human and an unborn child’s brain if the main brain structures are already formed. It’s even less likely when you consider that the rate of growth is immense from weeks five through eight, and would have to slow down development in order to fit into the criteria for not feeling pain. The sources that said that the development begins at week five were not political in nature, and had the intent of educating parents on how to protect the child’s health. The sources used for the law could have had a political slant, whereas the other two sources are instructional by nature. Needless to say, if we consider the brain and nervous system as a means of determining a human as a human being, the limit to aborting an unborn child should not, in fact, be at twenty weeks, but around eight weeks, when one can say that the child’s brain is a less developed version of the same brain, and development itself isn’t an inherently strong argument as a baby out of the womb still has brain development, but qualifies as a human being.(Babycenter)
If a fetus or embryo is considered human, then abortion is murder. If a fetus is not considered human, then it’s more acceptable, as, at best, a fetus would then be considered an animal. Although, ultimately, we don’t know if they can count as humans or not, why risk it? Yes, it could be that the fetus is not a human, and there’s really nothing wrong with abortion. However, conversely, the fetus could be considered a human, and you would be killing a human being. I feel that we should be cautious rather than risky. We don’t want to kill human beings even if it’s accidental.
Fetuses and embryos should not be aborted for recreational reasons. Pregnancy is avoidable by means other than abortion, and is an active choice. We need to consider the lives of fetuses more, and focus more one responsibility than constant convenience.
Abortion is terminating the life of an unwanted human fetus before they’re born. Terminating any human life is controversial as, by its very nature, borders murder. Countless individuals have varying views on the issue of abortion. Some feel that it’s morally wrong, others feel it’s completely acceptable, while some feel that it’s alright in moderation. I believe that it should never be used recreationally for mere convenience and feel that people simply avoid pregnancy rather than destroying a fetus or embryo.
One argument that pro-abortion advocates use to support the use of abortion is that “it’s the woman’s body.” This is meant to say that a woman can do whatever they feel like with their body, and that terminating a fetus falls under this right. However, this is not the full story. Abortion isn’t merely about the rights of women, but children as well. It’s not only the woman’s body, but the body of fetuses as well. Abortion is making the choice for two bodies, not simply one. Abortion doesn’t simply involve the rights of a women but those of fetuses as well. This justification of abortion is putting the rights of the mother in front of the rights of the child. Although women’s rights are a valuable part of the debate, the woman’s right when not dealing with rape or health issues, is mere convenience. The child’s right is related to its life.
A woman doesn’t inherently need to have an abortion to avoid an unwanted baby. There are other methods of having *** without conceiving a baby such as the use of condoms, the morning after pill, and preventative medication. Condoms are one of these methods. The morning after pill is another one. All of these methods can be used to prevent fertilization in the first place rather than ending a life. These methods are far more humane than abortion, and ultimately have the same effect.
A couple should take responsibility for their actions. When a couple engage in *** in such a way that pregnancy is possible, they are actively risking pregnancy for pleasure. If they’re not ready for a baby, or do not desire one, they should not engage in that type of sexual behavior until they’re ready or willing to have a child. The biological purpose for *** is pregnancy. A species must reproduce in order to survive. This is why we have such a strong urge for ***. Actively having unprotected *** while not wanting to get pregnant is the same as using a gun to shoot randomly around and hoping that you don’t seriously wound someone. Legal *** is a choice. Therefore, people should know what they are risking when they engage in ***. If they are not ready for pregnancy, it’s no one’s fault but their own. A fetus should not be penalized for the mistake of their parents, just because the fetus is an inconvenience to them. Instead of focusing on what’s convenient for the parents regardless of choices, we should be focusing on responsibility. The couple should be held accountable for the result of their ***. The mother should not kill the fetus just because it’s not convenient for her. Likewise, dear old dad should not leave the woman he had *** with to fend for herself and their child. He should support the family with a variation of alimony.
We also don’t know if a fetus isn’t fully human. We have no way of knowing. People with religious beliefs believe that the soul is what makes human humans. However, there’s no way to tell if a soul exists, let alone if a fetus has one. For Atheists, everything about what makes a human is even more complex, as there can be multiple definitions. Is it merely human DNA? If that’s the case, then any part of a body is human. If it’s the nervous system, multiple avnimals have them. Is consciousness and the brain what makes a human? It’s absurdly difficult to define what makes someone human.
Is classifying a human being as a human body with consciousness an accurate way to separate a human and a human being? There are complications to using this as a form of classification. If consciousness determines whether a human counts as a human being, then we’d have to consider comatose patients as sub-humans. A coma is defined as a prolonged state of unconsciousness, and cannot be awakened by any kind of stimulus including pain. (Mayo Clinic) (WebMD) However, some can be aware of their surrounding while not being able to communicate or respond.(Gholipour) In order to save the life of someone that is comatose, they need to be on life support quickly. Although comas usually don’t last longer than several weeks, there are those who last longer, and can enter a vegetable state. (Mayo Clinic) A vegetable state is a version of a comatose in which all conscious awareness is lost even though the ability to breathe or open eyes is retained. (Gholipour) Someone is classified as being in a persistent vegetative state when that person is in a chronic state of unconscious for a minimum for 4 weeks.(Healthcare.findlaw) People in comas, much like fetuses and embryos, is not independent and must be attached to something that enables them to survive. Ironically, both of them are connected to the source of their life by tubes. A comatose patient is dependent on a machine to survive, while fetuses to embryos are dependent on the mother’s body. Additionally, a vegetative person and a fetus or embryo do not have consciousness. So, what the legal view of the treatment of both of these types of humans compared to one another? A human in a vegetative state can only be taken off of life support and left to die by a clinic if that person is confirmed to be someone who will be in that state permanently and two doctors agree with the decision to end his/her life.(Evans) Even then, if a family member, doctors, or hospitals, all being interested parties, feel otherwise, the decision can be challenged in court.(Evans) An embryo, like a vegetative human, lacks consciousness and independence but has the potential to become a fully conscious human being. However, despite the similarities of the situations, and embryo is treated in an entirely different matter from a vegetative person. The Embryo does not have a law preventing its death when it has the chance to become an intendant and conscious human being. The embryo doesn’t get a second opinion. It’s stuck entirely on whether the mother value’s its existence or not. So, why is there opposite legal rights for such similar situations? It’s most likely because, with a vegetative human, one can see what will be ended. People in general are probably more likely to have pity on a developed human being that’s ruined as opposed to one that’s developing and out of sight. This is an inconsistency in human rights. If consciousness is used as the standard for a human being, then one of two things must happen. Either an embryo must be elevated to having the same right to live as a non-permanent vegetable human, or interested parties of non-permanent vegetable humans have to have the right to terminate his or her life at a whim. If we’re not to be a hypocritical society basing our arguments on mere convenience, one of these two changes must happen. For the latter, I say good luck passing that.
If a nervous system and the ability to feel pain or forming a brain is considered a reason to not kill a fetus/embryo, then we must consider the development cycle of its development. During the fifth week of pregnancy, the fetus’s brain starts to grow.(Medicine Plus) During this time period, nerve cells and spinal cord also begin to develop.(Medicine Plus) Needless to say, this is when people looking to evaluate a human being should pay attention in the stage of a fetus. A fetus develops neural tubes that ultimately close at weeks six through seven. (Whattoexpect) The closed neural tubes begin to curve and bulge, forming the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain. (Whattoexpect) Shortly after this, they form the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem. (Whatttoexpect) What’s important to note is that the cerebrum is the biggest part of the brain that is responsible for thinking, remembering, and feeling. (Whattoexpect) By week eight, the unborn child begins wriggling his or her limbs and obtains the sense of touch. (whattoexpect) However, a total of thirteen states including Arkansas and North Dakoda have an abortion limit of twenty weeks under the basis of some research showing that a baby can feel pain as early as twenty weeks. (Johnson) I doubt the validity behind the research for the twenty week limit. It sounds incredibly farfetched that if an unborn child has spread the cells that form nerves beginning in week five, followed by the major brain structures being formed at weeks six through seven, and the sense of touch and motion abilities are gained at week seven (which includes pain), would not feel pain until week twenty despite all the body parts that could be attributed to pain are there. Additionally, one must consider if there’s that much of a difference between a human and an unborn child’s brain if the main brain structures are already formed. It’s even less likely when you consider that the rate of growth is immense from weeks five through eight, and would have to slow down development in order to fit into the criteria for not feeling pain. The sources that said that the development begins at week five were not political in nature, and had the intent of educating parents on how to protect the child’s health. The sources used for the law could have had a political slant, whereas the other two sources are instructional by nature. Needless to say, if we consider the brain and nervous system as a means of determining a human as a human being, the limit to aborting an unborn child should not, in fact, be at twenty weeks, but around eight weeks, when one can say that the child’s brain is a less developed version of the same brain, and development itself isn’t an inherently strong argument as a baby out of the womb still has brain development, but qualifies as a human being.(Babycenter)
If a fetus or embryo is considered human, then abortion is murder. If a fetus is not considered human, then it’s more acceptable, as, at best, a fetus would then be considered an animal. Although, ultimately, we don’t know if they can count as humans or not, why risk it? Yes, it could be that the fetus is not a human, and there’s really nothing wrong with abortion. However, conversely, the fetus could be considered a human, and you would be killing a human being. I feel that we should be cautious rather than risky. We don’t want to kill human beings even if it’s accidental.
Fetuses and embryos should not be aborted for recreational reasons. Pregnancy is avoidable by means other than abortion, and is an active choice. We need to consider the lives of fetuses more, and focus more one responsibility than constant convenience.
Last edited:
Adam Driver
Active member
Awards
It is human life, at fertilization the egg has a mixture of both the egg and sperm's human chromosomes that makes up the child's genetic code. The child's life begins at fertilization.
Try to become pregnant while being on the pill and with a condom. Good luck with that. Or, if that happens give the baby for adoption. Abortion is solution for weak-ass people who cant live with consequences of their actions. In Poland where I live abortion is only allowed when:
1. Mother was the victim of rape
2. Mothers life is in danger
3. Fetus is very ill
I think thats good consensus. I dont want my country to become second UK, where stupid, young girls f*cks with no thoughts, with no protection becuase hey! - if they become pregnant they can always abort the baby.
I don't get why giving your baby away is not seen as weak when you could just stop the baby from living in the first place. What is your reasoning for wanting this baby to come to life so much?
CornyRainbow
Active member
The problem with abortion is so many people doing the deed then want to cry about it.... How can you seriously be upset or even think about abortion when you did exactly what *** was for which is to create children. If you and your partner end up pregnant why is that the first people think of is "Well, I better abort it" instead of "Hey... we are responsible for this and the least we can do for this child is to give it up for adoption since we arent ready to become parents". I see a lot of arguments saying
"THEY COULD END UP IN FOSTER CARE" but people fail to realize that newborn babies is exactly what desperate infertile couples want these days and especially homosexual couples who don't want to going through the process of having a surrogate mother or carrying them theirself or they just want adopt period. Hell, so many mothers who thought about abortion and never went through with it end up loving their child more than they love anything in the world. My mother got raped and TRIED to raise my little brother but she couldn't get the image out her head and instead of treating him like crap she went through an open adoption and CHOSE the family he got adopted by. Now I am not saying because my mother managed to do this that others mothers should automatically be able to as well.
Another thing I have with abortion which follows my earlier statement is that people want to loose their sh-t when they end up pregnant but were doing what causes and is meant for pregnancy. If you are so desperate for sexual intercourse then you better do some googling and figure out some alternatives other than vaginal *** because once you end up pregnant then you just dont have the right to complain anymore in my opinion. Hell, if you arent ready to be parent then don't have *** and I don't know why that is so hard for people to understand especially when they can avoid putting themselves in the situation to even begin with.
I'm pro-choice and pro-life inbetween. I say legalize it because it's their choice but Im also pro-life because once you're pregnant it's not just about you anymore. Also, if we took a time machine and we met up when your mother first found out she was pregnant but instead of keeping she decides to abort you instead cause she isn't ready. Would a lot of you still be like pro-choice then? This isn't really relevant to the topic but I'm just curious.
"THEY COULD END UP IN FOSTER CARE" but people fail to realize that newborn babies is exactly what desperate infertile couples want these days and especially homosexual couples who don't want to going through the process of having a surrogate mother or carrying them theirself or they just want adopt period. Hell, so many mothers who thought about abortion and never went through with it end up loving their child more than they love anything in the world. My mother got raped and TRIED to raise my little brother but she couldn't get the image out her head and instead of treating him like crap she went through an open adoption and CHOSE the family he got adopted by. Now I am not saying because my mother managed to do this that others mothers should automatically be able to as well.
Another thing I have with abortion which follows my earlier statement is that people want to loose their sh-t when they end up pregnant but were doing what causes and is meant for pregnancy. If you are so desperate for sexual intercourse then you better do some googling and figure out some alternatives other than vaginal *** because once you end up pregnant then you just dont have the right to complain anymore in my opinion. Hell, if you arent ready to be parent then don't have *** and I don't know why that is so hard for people to understand especially when they can avoid putting themselves in the situation to even begin with.
I'm pro-choice and pro-life inbetween. I say legalize it because it's their choice but Im also pro-life because once you're pregnant it's not just about you anymore. Also, if we took a time machine and we met up when your mother first found out she was pregnant but instead of keeping she decides to abort you instead cause she isn't ready. Would a lot of you still be like pro-choice then? This isn't really relevant to the topic but I'm just curious.
Last edited: