Do you support abortion as

Do you support abortion as

  • a legal?

    Votes: 39 63.9%

  • an illegal?

    Votes: 22 36.1%
  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.
webexplorer said:
We buy chicken eggs at a food store. We make some scrambled eggs for a breakfast. I think that you understand this one. It could be gross, but it is our food. It's hard... but it is not a good example, however, it is the same ideal.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing chicken eggs to a fetus? I wasn't aware that you eat humans. :ugh:
 
Byrdie714 said:
Yes there is.

The 8 month old fetus is a parasite.

One month old infant that is independent from the host is a human being.


I find it interesting that people allow emotion to dictate this debate. If this is important to outlaw abortion, why don't you all that are pro-lifers--adopt these children?

Simple you can't.
Click to expand...

The answer is posted there. There is no need to keep arguing it in two different threads. Anybody wants to read the response can follow the link

http://www.alldeaf.com/topic-debates/56700-selective-abortion-9.html#post1095220

-
 
Cheri said:
Maybe to you, not to me. That's what makes our opinions different. It's a stupid question to me. We all know that a fetus doesn't have a voice, that's where Pro-lifers step in, we are the voice to the fetus.


You said a fetus isn't human yet that part I don't agree.. It's like saying a fetus is less a human being until a fetus is fully developed and I don't agree with that either. :)
Click to expand...

No, it simply means that you are projecting your own voice onto the fetus. The fetus has not asked you to speak for them, the woman who is pregnant has not asked you to speak for them, so it can't even be called "advocacy". Call it what it is. An attempt to force your moral values down the throats of all. You are simply using the fetus as an excuse in a misguided attempt to justify sticking your nose into the lives of others.
 
Cheri said:
Why would I think it's a negative term? It's part of a life changing cycle, just how we change over the years.

I think you just don't know the definition of life. Sperm and eggs makes a life of a human being. it doesn't matter if the fetus isn't fully growth, human life does begin at the moment of conception.

But, Scientists don't think so and I do not accepted the scientific consensus, because Scientist were not satisfacted how life begins even if the fetus has a DNA, a DNA of a human, just because a fetus isn't fully growth it doesn't make a fetus as being non-human. I go by biological facts, not science facts. You can go by science facts if that helps you sleep at night. :)
Click to expand...

No, dear, it is clear that you don't know the defination of life.

If life begins at the moment of conception, why don't we hold burial ceremonies for the products of a miscarraige. If life begins at the moment of conception, what about IVF?
 
jillio said:
No, dear, it is clear that you don't know the defination of life.

If life begins at the moment of conception, why don't we hold burial ceremonies for the products of a miscarraige. If life begins at the moment of conception, what about IVF?
Click to expand...

Get real-- that's where you are wrong there, they do hold ceremonies for miscarriage, it's an option for mothers.
 
A fetus does not have an informed conscious (at least there is no scientific proof) and thus it could not make a choice of death over adoption or life and thus it means nothing to ask "What choice do you think the unborn babies would make" as this is an appeal to emotion. I think there is an underlying definition inadequacy here. What pro-abortionists deem lives seems incompatible with what anti-abortionists believe in. I myself do not believe that life begins at conception, but rather at birth. That is why I cannot cede to the 'thousands of deaths'. I do not define them as deaths, but rather as a treatment for what essentially is a parasite, until birth. And just because you call this treatment by emotionally evocative names doesn't make it any less right.

And you really believe the fetus suffers? What real proof do you have? Did your mother abort you and you suffered? You are making assumptions. Granted there is a life in there and it is a cell and then more cells but to state it "suffers" is ludicrous. Well if it is a case of convenience then for all those teens, unwed mothers, crack heads, and abused women then I do believe they should have the child and give it to you to care for. Most of the time the women who are having abortions know they are not able to raise a child correctly, so you theory says we should not let them "kill" it but, force them to raise a child they know they can't raise properly then blame them for the child going down the wrong path maybe even killing your child, or family member?

You have to remember there is a variety of ways to look at a situation. There is almost no single easy answer for why things are done. This does not take away the fact that it would be unbearable for a woman to give birth to a child that was conceived when she got raped. The psychological damage would be immense!
 
Jiro said:
A fetus does not have an informed conscious (at least there is no scientific proof) and thus it could not make a choice of death over adoption or life and thus it means nothing to ask "What choice do you think the unborn babies would make" as this is an appeal to emotion. I think there is an underlying definition inadequacy here. What pro-abortionists deem lives seems incompatible with what anti-abortionists believe in. I myself do not believe that life begins at conception, but rather at birth. That is why I cannot cede to the 'thousands of deaths'. I do not define them as deaths, but rather as a treatment for what essentially is a parasite, until birth. And just because you call this treatment by emotionally evocative names doesn't make it any less right.

And you really believe the fetus suffers? What real proof do you have? Did your mother abort you and you suffered? You are making assumptions. Granted there is a life in there and it is a cell and then more cells but to state it "suffers" is ludicrous. Well if it is a case of convenience then for all those teens, unwed mothers, crack heads, and abused women then I do believe they should have the child and give it to you to care for. Most of the time the women who are having abortions know they are not able to raise a child correctly, so you theory says we should not let them "kill" it but, force them to raise a child they know they can't raise properly then blame them for the child going down the wrong path maybe even killing your child, or family member?

You have to remember there is a variety of ways to look at a situation. There is almost no single easy answer for why things are done. This does not take away the fact that it would be unbearable for a woman to give birth to a child that was conceived when she got raped. The psychological damage would be immense!
Click to expand...

Ah, but there is scientific proof of it jiro, as is evidenced through brain development. Even a neonate, or a toddler, does not have informed choice.
 
Byrdie714 said:
I think she is referring to memorial services.

Again...emotional.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We certainly don't provide the product with a miscarraige with a legal burial or a Christian funeral. There is no certificate of death. The results of the miscarraige are part of the woman's medical history, not the miscarried fetus or embryo. If it were a dead baby, it would have its own medical chart, it would have a certificate of death, and it would be legally buried. Of course, this is provided for still births, but still births have passed the point of viability.....an issue that these arguments continually ignore.
 
It's been done, people had buried their dead babies after having a miscarriages. Ever read parents magazine? or Mothering Magazine? I didn't think so.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Your own word.

Human development is an interpretation word = The human sperm and human egg are mixed and ready for implant.

If you claimed that fetus is a human being... Okay, who will custody of the fetus when the parents killed by road accident? Can the fetus inherit the parents' will? Can the fetus be adopted? and go on....

I can't believe what I read. :|

I was refered to all development from the beginning of human to death of human. So what I meant is a fetus is being human, which is why Cheri and I agreed.

If you say that both mother and fetus would have equal right to continue life... and consider abortion as a murder... Okay, Should you also consider fetus as a murder as well because the mother is unable to defend her risk life after give the birth? (life threatening) ?

That's an exactly what I am try to say that fetus is a human development BECAUSE he/she still is IN mother's womb...

Yet already-born babies were killed too. Where is the equality for that? You see, some people don't consider born babies are not persons. :|

Again, your post is not what I was talked about, but you want my answers...
I have my own different POV than common pro-lifers, so a mother wants to live, that's fine. Let it be. I actually support "life-threatening" abortions.

I just cannot beleive that some pro-lifers think the word "human development" is a negative...
Click to expand...

:winced looks: Er, I never say anything. I even don't think of a such thing like you think so. ^_^;;
 
Last edited:
Cheri said:
It's been done, people had buried their dead babies after having a miscarriages. Ever read parents magazine? or Mothering Magazine? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying but we're talking about the legal aspect of it. By recognizing miscarriage as a person.... then Supreme Court will have to revisit Roe v. Wade and argue about the legal rights and recognition (and personhood) of the fetus at its 1st trimester. I imagine that would be very messy.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Actually the fetus conveys messages to the host. It may not be, "Yo Momma, lay off the hot chili bean burrito." :lol:

Yet it does tell the host when to use the bathroom, when it's discomforted, uncomfortable, etc, etc.

The parasite can also aborted itself from the main host and vice versa in terms of miscarriage. Natural abortion.
Click to expand...

I love that one!
 
Here is an article from a MSU sophomore. She makes the same argument some people make here. Its like people's words are coming from the same text book. It seems like everybody is delivering the same lines which comes from other places. This article is from 2006. So nothing new is said in 2 years? How come a paper from 2 years ago can sound like almost exact replica of some arguments here? Are you only reading the text books and then repeat it? I am not talking about the information given is being same. I am talking about the attitude, structure of argument, the whole way of representing the case. Its like learning from the same sources which developed these arguments before and then repeating it. Please read it, (only bold parts if you dont have time, but all of it if you can) you will find whats being said in last 25 pages from pro choice point of view.

Conception — the point at which life begins. At least it is according to the fundamentalist community, anyway. The stance of Right to Life supporters is that abortion is outright murder and deprivation of life. I disagree.

How can you kill something that is not yet living? Besides, banning abortion deprives the mother of her rights to property and to the pursuit of happiness. A fetus is not a living human, and the mother has the right to decide to abort it.

During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells. A mere wad of cells doesn't equate to a fully functioning, living human being. A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions. A wad of cells doesn't have the capability to inhale or exhale with its lungs. A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment.

So why would anyone provide a wad of cells with the outrageous status of a living human being?
The point I am trying to make here is that a fetus is not a living human, and therefore, an abortion is not responsible for annihilating a human's life. Besides, in legal terms, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade concluded that human life does not begin until life can be sustained outside of the womb. Medically speaking, premature fetuses can very rarely be kept alive if they are born before the pregnancy's sixth month, or the end of the second trimester.

The mother reserves every right to make a decision to abort her fetus. The supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees Americans have the right to their property. Are pets not considered the property of a human? Humans provide pets with food, water and a habitat, just as a mother provides a fetus a habitat inside of the womb, along with food and oxygen.
And because mom houses the fetus — that not only required her X sex chromosome, but also gained half its chromosome pairs from her ovum — the fetus should be considered property of its mother. Not to mention, the wad of cells inside her doesn't have the ability to choose for itself.
Banning abortion would be a greater deprivation of basic human rights than continuing to uphold it. So why not allow the mother her innate right to decide whether or not this wad of cells will grow into a human?
If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.

Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?

Now let's compare the Right to Life stance of abortion to the tragic fate of many fertilized eggs.
Fundamentalists fiercely oppose abortion because they believe it is murder. They often recognize those who are "slaughtered" by holding vigils and other ceremonies.

Do any of these individuals realize that according to the National Institutes of Health, 25 percent of conceived embryos perish within the first six weeks due to complications such as failure to implant to the uterus wall? That's right — a quarter of all "humans" conceived end up "dying."

It would appear that the "loving" God of these fundamentalists is many more times guilty of murder than all the human race's abortionists combined.
If life begins at conception, why is it that Catholics and other fundamentalist groups don't have funerals for all these dead "babies"? Why not hold candlelit vigils for all who fail to implant themselves? Or wait, better yet, why don't we supply a birth certificate to all those embryos who died shortly after conception? Why not make them legal citizens too?

Do these last few statements seem absolutely asinine? Then some of you are in dire need of rethinking your anti-abortion stance.
Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy.

The State News: Wad of cells does not equate to human life, abortion isn't murder
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
Exactly. We certainly don't provide the product with a miscarraige with a legal burial or a Christian funeral. There is no certificate of death. The results of the miscarraige are part of the woman's medical history, not the miscarried fetus or embryo. If it were a dead baby, it would have its own medical chart, it would have a certificate of death, and it would be legally buried. Of course, this is provided for still births, but still births have passed the point of viability.....an issue that these arguments continually ignore.
Click to expand...

Exactly and the pro-lifers can't even argue on that one.

Keep abortion--safe and legal!
 
Hermes said:
Here is an article from a MSU sophomore. She makes the same argument some people make here. Its like people's words are coming from the same text book. It seems like everybody is delivering the same lines which comes from other places. This article is from 2006. So nothing new is said in 2 years? How come a paper from 2 years ago can sound like almost exact replica of some arguments here? Are you only reading the text books and then repeat it? I am not talking about the information given is being same. I am talking about the attitude, structure of argument, the whole way of representing the case. Its like learning from the same sources which developed these arguments before and then repeating it. Please read it, (only bold parts if you dont have time, but all of it if you can) you will find whats being said in last 25 pages from pro choice point of view.
Click to expand...

Trust me, sweetie...I don't need to take the words of an MSU sophomore. More than likely, she is taking them from me.

And just because she is capable of critical and creative thought, and some members of this board, after applying critical and creative thought, have reached the same conclusions, you think that there is something strange in that? Trust me, dear, your thoughts are not as original as you seem to think they are.
 
Cheri said:
It's been done, people had buried their dead babies after having a miscarriages. Ever read parents magazine? or Mothering Magazine? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

You have to wait for me to answer before you can reply, "I didn't think so.":roll: The answer is "Yes, I have read Parent's Magazine, and several other parenting magazines. I have also read numerous textbooks that would apply.

Please provide a link or a citation for a single article that supports your claim. And we're not talking still births here. We are talking first trimester spontaeous abortions. And before you get all defensive here, "spontaneous abortion" is the proper term for miscarraige.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top