What is Your Position on Abortion?

[MuhFugginMoose]

In your opinion yes and in my opinion no. Lefty and Righty Scientists have been arguing this topic for years and still haven't come to a conclusion, if they did then there wouldn't be such a big debate about this right now. Also you can't just write off everything I say as biased, that in and of itself is a closed minded mentality. xD

Also if no one likes the process of an abortion like you're all saying then why do you support it, certainly not because the mother had an "accident" and doesn't feel like being responsible right?

That's what biased means. . . xD Biased means it was written to support you. A website against abortion is obviously going to support you. And I love how you called me closed minded in that same paragraph. xD
Arrogance. (It rears its ugly head once again)
Also, the reason there's such a big debate about it is Morality. Nothing more. Just as fancy said, it's potentially killing a human being. However, it's NOT.
Either way, that IS the BOOK definition of Living thing. Which is understood across the board. Which an undeveloped fetus does not fit into.

War isn't pretty either. But guess what, sometimes it just has to be done. For someones well being.

 

[bacon]

That is besides the point though, the basic functions needed for something to live are:

1: It's composed of cells (we were just talking about cells)
2: Requires Energy (an intake of food, given)
3: Ability to Reproduce (already explained by you guys)
4: Display Heredity (DNA, genes, etc.)
5: Respond to Stimuli (there are studies that show a human fetus can respond to stimuli)
6: Adaptation (the ability to adapt to your environment, they can do that too)
7: Maintain Homeostasis (circulatory system, need I say more?)

I grabbed those conditions randomly on the basic things needed for something to sustain life and made sure to avoid the words Human, Fetus, or Abortion in my search so the result can be as unbiased as possible. Here's the link to the article:

This does not answer your question as the definition can be spread to organisms that humans have no qualms about destroying, such as bacteria and insects. Whether or not a foetus can be considered a form of life is therefore beside the point, right? Clearly, what matters is the level of cognition and self-awareness a foetus is capable of experiencing during the time of termination. No other factors are relevant.

As a matter of interest, you may prefer this alternative definition of life that functions as a rather nice "catch all" term, including alien species (If we find them!):

“A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

Oh yay, more senseless arguing on a point neither of us it going to move on. What a great way to start a day.

In your opinion yes and in my opinion no. Lefty and Righty Scientists have been arguing this topic for years and still haven't come to a conclusion, if they did then there wouldn't be such a big debate about this right now. Also you can't just write off everything I say as biased, that in and of itself is a closed minded mentality. xD

Also if no one likes the process of an abortion like you're all saying then why do you support it, certainly not because the mother had an "accident" and doesn't feel like being responsible right?

That's what biased means. . . xD Biased means it was written to support you. A website against abortion is obviously going to support you. And I love how you called me closed minded in that same paragraph. xD
Arrogance. (It rears its ugly head once again)
Also, the reason there's such a big debate about it is Morality. Nothing more. Just as fancy said, it's potentially killing a human being. However, it's NOT.
Either way, that IS the BOOK definition of Living thing. Which is understood across the board. Which an undeveloped fetus does not fit into.

War isn't pretty either. But guess what, sometimes it just has to be done. For someones well being.

Biased: Verb

"Showing prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: 'the tests were biased against women'; 'a biased view of the world'."

How does posting an article that happens to come to the same conclusion as me because make me biased? I'm bringing up articles related to the matter to defend my point, certainly I can't use an article the supports abortion to defend pro-life, that would just be insane.

Close Minded: Adjective

"Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas."

Isn't the fact that you guys have call nearly every post I made "unintelligent" "arrogant" "biased" etc. and the fact that you're not even willing to entertain the idea that you are supporting the murder of people make you close minded? That's the definition after all, you guys certainly don't seem to be tolerating my beliefs well. (this is honestly a face palm to basic logic, but keep it up and deny it if you want, I'm getting a pretty good laugh)

Also who are you to say that you're not killing people? If you had the choice to go back in time and get aborted would you? Didn't think so, and I don't think that several years from now babies who are about to die would think any differently if they had the chance at life.

That is besides the point though, the basic functions needed for something to live are:

1: It's composed of cells (we were just talking about cells)
2: Requires Energy (an intake of food, given)
3: Ability to Reproduce (already explained by you guys)
4: Display Heredity (DNA, genes, etc.)
5: Respond to Stimuli (there are studies that show a human fetus can respond to stimuli)
6: Adaptation (the ability to adapt to your environment, they can do that too)
7: Maintain Homeostasis (circulatory system, need I say more?)

I grabbed those conditions randomly on the basic things needed for something to sustain life and made sure to avoid the words Human, Fetus, or Abortion in my search so the result can be as unbiased as possible. Here's the link to the article:

This does not answer your question as the definition can be spread to organisms that humans have no qualms about destroying, such as bacteria and insects. Whether or not a foetus can be considered a form of life is therefore beside the point, right? Clearly, what matters is the level of cognition and self-awareness a foetus is capable of experiencing during the time of termination. No other factors are relevant.

As a matter of interest, you may prefer this alternative definition of life that functions as a rather nice "catch all" term, including alien species (If we find them!):

“A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”

That is the definition of life which a Human fetus meets, so they are alive. There is absolutely no reason why that statement needs to be changed and you have yet to bring up one good reason why it should, even if that puts a Human Fetus in the same category as Bacteria or an Insect it is still alive; and if it is alive with human DNA and human cells inside of a human body than it is indeed a human. There is a big difference in killing a human and a wasp as I'm sure you know. Or are you now denying that Bacteria and other organisms are living as well?

@everyone: I am pro-life, that doesn't make me "ignorant" and it is just my opinion. I don't expect any of you to agree with my views but I do ask that you respect them at the very least.

 

[Haunted Water]

Please remember that you too were once just a cluster of cells, were you human then?

No, as I have had no recollection, nor can I relive those moments through pictures, as my brain has never remembered such moments.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

Fair enough, but then what about those with amnesia or those who are unconscious? They can't recollect certain events that happened in parts of their life either so in a way that's sort of the same thing...

 

[bacon]

That is the definition of life which a Human fetus meets, so they are alive. There is absolutely no reason why that statement needs to be changed and you have yet to bring up one good reason why it should, even if that puts a Human Fetus in the same category as Bacteria or an Insect it is still alive...

Well, I merely mentioned the alternative as it encapsulates the meaning of the first definition in fewer words. As I think you expressed an interest in biology a few pages back, I thought you might have found it useful. I certainly have! But no, it doesn't change the argument, and I didn't intend it to. : )

...and if it is alive with human DNA and human cells inside of a human body than it is indeed a human.

Hmm, is it?

I have many cells in my body. I'm full of them. And I could take away a cluster if I really wanted to (like an abnormal growth that's only going to do me harm, say). I am sure you see nothing wrong with that, so I think we can both cut to the chase and assume that things go deeper than just DNA in human bodies!

This is why we should debate things in terms of cognition and ability to feel emotions, like I explained in my previous post. : )

There is a big difference in killing a human and a wasp as I'm sure you know. Or are you now denying that Bacteria and other organisms are living as well?

I think the conflict here is that we're debating whether an unconscious fetus is equivalent to a human being? Again, we should treat it as a matter of cognition. There's a big difference between, say, pulling the plug on a brain dead patient and murdering a normal citizen, despite both being human.

@everyone: I am pro-life, that doesn't make me "ignorant" and it is just my opinion. I don't expect any of you to agree with my views but I do ask that you respect them at the very least.

Opinions can be ignorant though!

 

[MuhFugginMoose]

Biased: Verb

"Showing prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: 'the tests were biased against women'; 'a biased view of the world'."

Ho does posting an article that happens to come to the same as me because make me biased? I'm bringing up articles related to the matter to defend my point, certainly I can't use an article the supports abortion to defend pro-life, that would just be insane.

Close Minded: Adjective

"Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas."

Isn't the fact that you guy have call nearly every post I made "unintelligent" "arrogant" "biased" etc. and the fact that you're not even willing to entertain the idea that you are supporting the murder of people make you close minded? That's the definition after all, you guys certainly don't seem to be tolerating my beliefs well. (this is honestly a face palm to basic logic, but keep it up and deny it if you want, I'm getting a pretty good laugh)

Also who are you to say that you're not killing people? If you had the choice to go back in time and get aborted would you? Didn't think so, and I don't think that several years from now babies who are about to die would think any differently if they had the chance at life.

This does not answer your question as the definition can be spread to organisms that humans have no qualms about destroying, such as bacteria and insects. Whether or not a foetus can be considered a form of life is therefore beside the point, right? Clearly, what matters is the level of cognition and self-awareness a foetus is capable of experiencing during the time of termination. No other factors are relevant.

As a matter of interest, you may prefer this alternative definition of life that functions as a rather nice "catch all" term, including alien species (If we find them!):

“A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”

That is the definition of life which a Human fetus meets, so they are alive. There is absolutely no reason why that statement needs to be changed and you have yet to bring up one good reason why it should, even if that puts a Human Fetus in the same category as Bacteria or an Insect it is still alive; and if it is alive with human DNA and human cells inside of a human body than it is indeed a human. There is a big difference in killing a human and a wasp as I'm sure you know. Or are you now denying that Bacteria and other organisms are living as well?

@everyone: I am pro-life, that doesn't make me "ignorant" and it is just my opinion. I don't expect any of you to agree with my views but I do ask that you respect them at the very least.

xD you can't be serious right now. . . That is exactly what biased is. . . If it is for your cause initially and you use it to support your idea, it's biased.
This literally made me LOL. "Ho does posting an article that happens to come to the same as me because make me biased?" If it supports your idea, is it fair to those that disagree with you? I mean it is in the definition. "Showing prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly". Haha ya gotta break these things down man.

And I never insulted your intelligence. I'm not one to do that. However, I did call you arrogant, because you made uncalled for blanket statements about those that don't support you. I never said you were wrong, because quite frankly I see where you're coming from. However I disagree because I see that it isn't a living organism, by the book definition. However, your narcissistic and prideful comments make me think there is no reason to have this debate as there is no way what we say will make it through your thick skull. Pride is one of those deadly seven. . .

So on my behalf, at least between the two of us, this over.

 

[le Roi-Soleil]

I will not respect a view that has no factual evidence; I will, however, acknowledge its existence. Please, before I see anymore posts, read the entire thread. We have addressed every issue stated in the first few pages.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

@bacon: You do raise some good points, although I'm still standing by my beliefs that a human fetus is a human, underdeveloped yes, but also undoubtedly alive. So then, what were we before we were human according to you guys? (I know I've brought this up before, but I'm looking for a better answer than "just a group of cells" ) You are right that opinions can be ignorant and I am prone to having an ignorant opinion on many things, but I don't believe that my opinion is ignorant in this case since I have put just as much research into this topic as everyone else...

@MuhFugginMoose: I already told you that the "blank statements" wasn't said with any of you in mind, at all. I was thinking more along the lines of someone you might see in the media and I think we can all agree that their opinions are very biased. I wasn't trying to describe anyone here nor was I trying to insult anyone on here. Anyways the article I posted was not biased because I was trying to give you guys a better understanding of my ideology by referencing someone else on the internet instead of trying to be unfair and non accepting of other ideas. If you feel like it then you can post all the Pro-Choice articles you want and in fact I would prefer you to so I can read more information from both sides of the spectrum. I can't express my feelings very well on the internet or at all for that matter, especially when I feel strongly about something. So I was referencing someone who can word an argument better... I don't see anything inherently wrong or unfair about that. Also just thought I'd point out that most of you seem to have a skull as thick as mine so yes, this is why internet debates normally don't end well. :/

Also no offense, but narcissistic isn't a very good word to describe who I am... I suppose I do come across as prideful when I get fired up about stuff, but once again I don't express my emotions well at all on the internet... So yeah...

Edit: It has occurred to me just now that we do not need to be getting so mad/offensive at each other. We can have a nice discussion without any feelings getting hurt or insults being made. So with that in mind I would like to start fresh if you don't mind:

I am Pro-life for the beliefs I have and the research I've done. I mean no harm or offense to anyone but I view a Human Fetus as a living human and so aborting one doesn't sit well with me.

 

[le Roi-Soleil]

That is all it is -- a cluster of cells -- nothing more, nothing less. Now read the first few pages, so I don't have to repost the argument I presented.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

Via your request I reread the first few pages, and honestly although your argument has merit it is not entirely complete or correct, for example when you said "It's not a life until the infant is separated physically from its host, its mother. It's that simple. Until that physical separation, it's two lives, not one. Decisions on those lives are up to the mother, as she is the only one of the two that can make decisions." Physical separation can be as early as contraception since the child then has it's own unique DNA and begins to grow and develop. With the proper resources he or she could be physically separated from the mother at that time and grown in an artificial lab, so then would that be considered Human life or still just a cluster of cells? Genuine curiosity here.

 

[MuhFugginMoose]

Also just thought I'd point out that most of you seem to have a skull as thick as mine so yes, this is why internet debates normally don't end well. :/

Also no offense, but narcissistic isn't a very good word to describe who I am... I suppose I do come across as prideful when I get fired up about stuff, but once again I don't express my emotions well at all on the internet... So yeah...

Heh, well, as I said, I see your point of view, and the reason behind it. So my skull must not be too thick.
BTW, Unbiased: not biased or prejudiced; fair; impartial
Impartial: not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party
Something which your source does not fit. Thus making it. . . Biased.

And uhm, http://thesaurus.com/browse/narcissistic Wanna know a synonym for Narcissistic? Proud. Being proud is prideful. Just saying.

And so I bid you, without further ado, farewell.

 

[le Roi-Soleil]

Via your request I reread the first few pages, and honestly although your argument has merit it is not entirely complete or correct, for example when you said "It's not a life until the infant is separated physically from its host, its mother. It's that simple. Until that physical separation, it's two lives, not one. Decisions on those lives are up to the mother, as she is the only one of the two that can make decisions." Physical separation can be as early as contraception since the child then has it's own unique DNA and begins to grow and develop. With the proper resources he or she could be physically separated from the mother at that time and grown in an artificial lab, so then would that be considered Human life or still just a cluster of cells? Genuine curiosity here.

It is not alive until it is cognitively aware. Is a cell cluster cognizant? Of course not; it has no brain. Does its heart beat? No; it has no heart. Is it alive? No.

 

[Rusty Sticks]

Pro-choice yaaay. I'd prefer that the drunk and stupid weren't producing offspring before they were mature enough to handle it. Genuinely made a mistake? It's quite upsetting when it happens, but it's okay to get an abortion. Was Stolen? Anyone who doesn't allow you to rid yourself of the constant reminder of your ideal shouldn't have a say in what goes on in your life.

It's up to the woman to make the decision. It can be a tough choice, and most women prefer to deal with it, but both she and her child suffer in the long-run.

BUT, I can't do anything about it. So, whatever.

 

[professorlight]

How does posting an article that happens to come to the same conclusion as me because make me biased? I'm bringing up articles related to the matter to defend my point, certainly I can't use an article the supports abortion to defend pro-life, that would just be insane.

In this you are half-right, you are not necessarily biased for producing that article to review, BUT, the people who made that article ARE clearly biased, since they have an obvious agenda and they clearly expose their intentions.
You have every right to get stuff and data to inform us of your stance on the subject, as we are to find the flaws in it, like the aforementioned biased source, and that brings me to the second point: you SHOULD use pro-choice articles to make your point, by pointing the flaws in OUR beliefs. You say abortion is murder, despite scientific evidence, common sense (no, too subjective), semantic arguments, law and the fact that by all accounts, a woman should have control over her own body saying it's not.
The pro-choice "side" (let's call it that) has all that to support it, what does the pro-life "side" has?
Really asking. And don't use religious arguments, please; not everyone shares those beliefs and it would be utterly unfair to those who don't if a serious and general matter like this was clouded by religion.

This does not answer your question as the definition can be spread to organisms that humans have no qualms about destroying, such as bacteria and insects. Whether or not a foetus can be considered a form of life is therefore beside the point, right? Clearly, what matters is the level of cognition and self-awareness a foetus is capable of experiencing during the time of termination. No other factors are relevant.

As a matter of interest, you may prefer this alternative definition of life that functions as a rather nice "catch all" term, including alien species (If we find them!):

“A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”

That is the definition of life which a Human fetus meets, so they are alive. There is absolutely no reason why that statement needs to be changed and you have yet to bring up one good reason why it should, even if that puts a Human Fetus in the same category as Bacteria or an Insect it is still alive; and if it is alive with human DNA and human cells inside of a human body than it is indeed a human. There is a big difference in killing a human and a wasp as I'm sure you know. Or are you now denying that Bacteria and other organisms are living as well?

A human fetus doesn't fulfill the requirements according to that definition; it's not self sustaining; you rip the fetus off the womb and see how long it lasts. The best proof of the non-life status of an unborn kid is given by premature babies, which couldn't survive without machines to replace the mother's functions, it's even in the name: pre-mature, not mature enough for something. In this case, to live.

@everyone: I am pro-life, that doesn't make me "ignorant" and it is just my opinion. I don't expect any of you to agree with my views but I do ask that you respect them at the very least.

We respect you and your opinions, otherwise, we wouldn't be here discussing them, Believe me, If we wouldn't respect you, you probably couldn't even open the thread without being covered in insults.

 

[bacon]

@bacon: You do raise some good points, although I'm still standing by my beliefs that a human fetus is a human, underdeveloped yes, but also undoubtedly alive. So then, what were we before we were human according to you guys? (I know I've brought this up before, but I'm looking for a better answer than "just a group of cells" ) You are right that opinions can be ignorant and I am prone to having an ignorant opinion on many things, but I don't believe that my opinion is ignorant in this case since I have put just as much research into this topic as everyone else...

Well... I think a mix-up occurs here when we focus being biologically "human" as being an important part about how we reach a decision. If we go by DNA, there's not much difference between a benign tumor and a newly formed fetus. Both contain human DNA, both are non-sentient, etc.

If a woman was 7 months pregnant with a hyper intelligent baby chimpanzee, you'd have to consider the rights of the chimp because it's at the stage where it can think and feel pain. It has different DNA to a human, but it's really how conscious the chimp is that matters. If you feel the chimp's DNA is too closely matched to a human, we can always try for a hyper intelligent banana instead...

So to break it down, we really don't even need to concern ourselves with whether or not we should consider a fetus "human"! We just need to know at what threshold the fetus develops a consciousness that we agree not to perform abortions at. : )

It's that mental threshold which should be the focus of any abortion debate, because that is a gray area, but no other factors should play a role in reaching a consensus. Rather than dilly dally with trivial biological definitions of what it means to be human, the question we should be asking is how we define consciousness, response to pain, emotion, etc in terms of a fetus.

Regarding the ignorance comment, that was poorly phrased on my part, and I probably caused undue offense. So my apologies. What I tried to get across is that just because someone has an opinion, that does not by definition make it indefensible and does not make it OK to have. I mentioned it because quite frequently as of late, I've seen people treating opinions like holy shields that they can just hide behind, rather than defending their views with well reasoned arguments (like they should be).

But nah, no offense intended. The purpose of any debate is ultimately to bring the opposing side over to your side via polite discourse, and if I threw out petty insults it would do nothing but drive you further away. :B