What is Your Position on Abortion?

RE: Abortion

Tsoliades said:
However, I have to stop and think every time this issue comes up- what if I was aborted? I wouldn't be here. That potential for total cognitive life would not have developed. I wouldn't have been able to experience life.
"So what?" What do you thinks happens to the countless amount of sperm in this world that never even gets a chance? ;P

It's extremely unprobable that you would exist in this wold. But you do! Yay for you! Bad for your billions of brothers and sisters that were never born!
 
RE: Abortion

Teal said:
Tsoliades said:
However, I have to stop and think every time this issue comes up- what if I was aborted? I wouldn't be here. That potential for total cognitive life would not have developed. I wouldn't have been able to experience life.
"So what?" What do you thinks happens to the countless amount of sperm in this world that never even gets a chance? ;P

It's extremely unprobable that you would exist in this wold. But you do! Yay for you! Bad for your billions of brothers and sisters that were never born!

Never really looked at it that way. That's good, thank you for that.
 
RE: Abortion

I have kind of an awkward stance on this. I like pro-choice but at the same time I can understand the whole murder aspect to a certain extent. I think what this comes down to is the fact the humans ultimately value life itself, not whether a person (or a fetus in this case) can actually think for itself or have emotions. I think since the heart decides when someone is dead, it should also decide when life begins. I don't see any issues with abortion before the heart starts beating....nothing is actually alive yet. But once the heart starts beating and the brain starts functioning, you can't really argue that abortion isn't murder.
 
RE: Abortion

Unless it was against her will, I think that if a girl goes out and gets pregnant, she shouldn't be able to kill the baby she willingly created. If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex without protection. Or don't have sex at all. It's not that hard. Or just be gay like me. It solves a LOT of those problems. Once the baby is conceived, it is a living human being. I believe in contraception but not abortion. However, I doubt our country would take away the ability to abort, anyway.
 
RE: Abortion

Elite Stride said:
I have kind of an awkward stance on this. I like pro-choice but at the same time I can understand the whole murder aspect to a certain extent. I think what this comes down to is the fact the humans ultimately value life itself, not whether a person (or a fetus in this case) can actually think for itself or have emotions. I think since the heart decides when someone is dead, it should also decide when life begins. I don't see any issues with abortion before the heart starts beating....nothing is actually alive yet. But once the heart starts beating and the brain starts functioning, you can't really argue that abortion isn't murder.

Would that be a problem then? You seem to make the assumption that murder by definition is a wrong act. If it can prevent future problems or complications, I don't see why 'murder' can't be viewed as acceptable.
 
RE: Abortion

Pokequaza said:
Would that be a problem then? You seem to make the assumption that murder by definition is a wrong act. If it can prevent future problems or complications, I don't see why 'murder' can't be viewed as acceptable.

That is rather extreme...
I guess in the majority's head, murder is defined as a wrong act, and therefore, this topic is discussed over and over again. It doesnt push the discussion any further though, by trying to say that murder isnt necessarily a bad thing.
 
RE: Abortion

AdamLambert said:
If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex without protection. Or don't have sex at all. It's not that hard.

It is pretty hard for some people lol
I do think that contraception should be pushed as the better option and that America especially has a huge problem with bad or even absent sex education, as well as access to contraceptives (they're available, but if you want to be 100% sure, they're not cheap). However, even with all of these measures taken, there is still a slim chance for conception to happen. That's why I think the option to abort should always be available.

(It seems to be that many of the people who are very pro-life are also very anti-contraception. So that isn't helping anybody >_>)
 
RE: Abortion

Zeto said:
Pokequaza said:
Would that be a problem then? You seem to make the assumption that murder by definition is a wrong act. If it can prevent future problems or complications, I don't see why 'murder' can't be viewed as acceptable.

That is rather extreme...
I guess in the majority's head, murder is defined as a wrong act, and therefore, this topic is discussed over and over again. It doesnt push the discussion any further though, by trying to say that murder isnt necessarily a bad thing.

Murder is by default neither good nor wrong, these all are, in the end, just opinions on the act of murder. Everybody (well, a vast majority) is brought up with the notion that it is 'wrong'.

To preserve (or safe what is left of) nature, we sometimes hunt down massive amounts of a certain species, organisms that would cause otherwise major damage to the environment. Does that reason justify the murder of these animals? That is not me to judge, but I do know it will result in a more stable and safe future for that particular environment. Who will be the first to say ''But animals and humans are not the same! You cannot compare them!''?

Anyway, back to my response on the original post of Elite Stride. There are numerous situations where an abortion will prevent a child growing up in an ''unacceptable'' situation. And where it will also prevent a young teen mother (and father) from ending up home with a child to care for, without an education, and without a proper childhood. An abortion might prevent unpleasant situations (and even suffering) for both the parents and their child. Whether you see it as murder or not, the fact that it can prevent things like this is what should count.
 
RE: Abortion

Pokequaza said:
Would that be a problem then? You seem to make the assumption that murder by definition is a wrong act. If it can prevent future problems or complications, I don't see why 'murder' can't be viewed as acceptable.

That's for you to decide. But I will say that if you think killing your neighbor across the street is wrong, then by connection you should think that aborting at this stage in the development process is wrong too, otherwise you'd be contradicting your own thought process.

@Adam and all you conceptioners
How does life begin at this stage? I've never really understood this viewpoint.
 
RE: Abortion

Elite Stride said:
Pokequaza said:
Would that be a problem then? You seem to make the assumption that murder by definition is a wrong act. If it can prevent future problems or complications, I don't see why 'murder' can't be viewed as acceptable.

That's for you to decide. But I will say that if you think killing your neighbor across the street is wrong, then by connection you should think that aborting at this stage in the development process is wrong too, otherwise you'd be contradicting your own thought process.

No it doesn't. As I said, an abortion can be used to prevent future complications; randomly killing your neighbour has nothing to do with this.
 
RE: Abortion

Not to make this into a 'sex education' thread, but the sex education (or should I say the sad excuse of sex ed) in at least America doesn't help. I learned everything I know about sex on my own. I think if schools educated kids more about sex, there wouldn't be as many cases of abortion in the first place. Also they don't teach anything about gay sex ed but...

@Elite Stride, conception is the earliest stage of life. Humans go through lots of stages. Conception, Birth, Puberty, etc. The human is alive at conception because as long as the human isn't terminated, it will continue to develop. An unfertilized egg isn't alive because it will not develop unless something happens to it (fertilization) I apologize if I'm confusing everyone :/
 
RE: Abortion

Pokequaza said:
Elite Stride said:
That's for you to decide. But I will say that if you think killing your neighbor across the street is wrong, then by connection you should think that aborting at this stage in the development process is wrong too, otherwise you'd be contradicting your own thought process.

No it doesn't. As I said, an abortion can be used to prevent future complications; randomly killing your neighbour has nothing to do with this.

You've completely dodged the point of the analogy. You said that murder can be seen as acceptable depending on whether you as an individual think the end justify's the means. By that logic, it's okay for me to go kill my neighbor and Stolen his wife and children just because he has some dirt on me at work that could possibly get me fired if he tells someone. Just because I'm killing him to prevent future complications, does not make murdering him 'acceptable'.

The only time I see something like that as acceptable is if the baby is causing, or will cause the mother serious health issues/death. That's a whole different ball park however, than the quality of the upbringing of a child as you mentioned.

In any case, the original argument here was when it's considered murder. The reasons for your abortion being wrong or right is really subjective, similar to your belief that the morality of murder is opinion based.
 
I mean no offense with the following contents. Please. I've to rewrite this after spending 45 minutes writing it on my phone only to have the shitty browser at&t forces me to use derp out. A lot of baby seals will be clubbed, I can assure you.
I've thought long and hard on both sides, and I've come up with a logical standpoint on the whole 'murder' part of this using my knowledge of biology and mixed with logic and reason. They're pretty logical standpoints, and again, I mean no offense.

Pro-life:
From AL's posts, I've actually shocked myself with my analytical opinion. Here's how a pro-lifer's argument could make sense (I say could because most notable pro-lifers never use whatever brain they have). I was going to say cells are not sentient, but I realized; cells have a nucleus and endoplasmic reticulum, which act to create and send information throughout the cell. This is a blueprint for every cell, as a fetus grows through cell division. During this process, cells become designated as cells for the brain, blood, bone, muscle, skin, etc. When enough are formed, they start to actually form a human fetus [Side note 1]. This is where you can call abortion murder. This is where it can be argued that a fetus is sentient, and is 'alive.'

Pro-Choice:
At the point where the fetus is looking a lot more human, and is sentient [2], pro-choice can now argue legitimately against "abortion=murder." Even if it is sentient, the fetus is not aware of its existence. Its eyes are still shut [3], and even after birth, validating its self-awareness is extremely hard [4].
The mother is, however, living, and has (hopefully) been sentient for at least 19 years at this point. She is capable of deciding whether or not she wants to go through with having a child. The fetus, however, doesn't even know what is being thought by its host. It is too busy readying itself to become a living, eating, thinking, breathing human being.

So what it comes down to in this is what is sentient enough for you?




Side notes:
1: Technically, the fetus can be called sentient when the brain, or brain cells, decide to look to see if they have two X chromosomes or not.
2: Sentient in a way of it knows what it needs to do, but that is it. It isn't aware.
3: Newborns' eyes are shut most of the time for relatively one to two weeks after birth.
4: We don't have the technology to see if a fetus is self-aware and sentient and all as if it isn't in the womb. Simply asking a person won't work either; unless they have a memory disorder or something of the sort, they will not recall any event before the age of three, unless it was a traumatic event. Alternatively, it is ridiculous to ask a two-year-old if they remember anything before they entered the world.
 
There's no logical reason to think a fertilized egg is human. It has potential, but that's about it. It isn't a person anymore than a fertilized chicken egg is bird. There's nothing scientific about considering it human, despite what others have said.

Cells are not human life. A group of cells do not meet the standards of what is considered human life. Human life usually is said to start at 28 weeks. Also I feel that when it comes to this question, and how it affects the public sphere, then you can not invoke the word of God to try and influence public policy.

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.

The notion of human life beginning at conception is a little bit more of a religious idea than part of a reasonable scientific time line. At conception all that's there is a sperm and an egg. These two things combined are no more a human than these two things separate. There has to be a great degree of development before a human life begins to truly form.

What makes us human is not a living cell. A blastocyst has no awareness that it exists. It is a collection of cells that have the ability to differentiate into specific cell types that will later result in cognition. At the point of conception it only has potential to develop into something that has cognitive abilities. Potential to develop into a cognitively aware individual is not equivalent to being a cognitively aware individual.

There is a clinical definition of birth for a reason. It removes the biases of politics, morality and society. Once the smoke has cleared it is clear that nothing has happened except two cells have met. Whether or not that will result in a child has yet to be determined. That determination comes at the moment the fetus exits the womb. Only then does it earn the classification of human. Do not believe the right wing conservative, Christian attack. Open your mind and be reasonable.

Life, in a general sense, begins when a creature is able to think, function, and survive on its own. A conglomeration of cells cannot even be remotely classified as life. As if you couldn't already tell, I am pro-choice, and the above quotes sum up my beliefs entirely. There is nothing else to logically say, really. Sure, a fetus has the potential of life, but potential is irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with this. Having the potential and actually functioning are two entirely different subjects.



EDIT: I meant to say "pro-choice," not "pro-life." Really, though, does the fact that I want women to have a choice mean I hate life? I guess I could say that I am pro-life, but I am certainly pro-choice.
 
To sum up my position, I feel abortion should definitely be allowed. I find it funny when religious people try to say it is killing another person, when in reality it is not anything of the sort. Your religion does not mean you can be ignorant to all science. At the period when abortion is allowed, it is not a self-supportable alive human being. It has no sense of awareness and is basically "dead."

The argument of how life as small as bacteria on other planets would be classified as life, while a human to be is not, is pathetic and flawed. The bacteria is obviously self-supporting and is alive with no aid, while the fetus is technically, not due to awareness. It is not technically "alive" while a bacteria on Mars is much more self-supporting and is alive.
 
Again, if you don't want a kid, don't have sex. If you're going to have sex, you should pay the consequences. Once the egg is fertilized, it begins the process of life. Unless she was Stolen, or continuing with the pregnancy is a risk to the woman's life, I can't see ending the life process as morally right.
 
AdamLambert said:
Again, if you don't want a kid, don't have sex.

No -- that is absurd. You imply that the only purpose of having sex is to reproduce, which is false. This can be classified as hypocrisy. Take for instance, you are gay. You enjoy engaging in coitus with another male, but it is biologically impossible for a male to reproduce. From what you have stated, you should not engage in sexual intercourse if you do not want a child. You are gay, and you cannot have a child. Ergo, you should not have sex for pleasure.

AdamLambert said:
If you're going to have sex, you should pay the consequences. Once the egg is fertilized, it begins the process of life. Unless she was Stolen, or continuing with the pregnancy is a risk to the woman's life, I can't see ending the life process as morally right.

"It begins the process of life" is irrelevant, as it is not alive and WILL not be alive until it can self-sustain. The process of life is totally different than actual life. Sure, when you begin the process, you may eventually live, but in that moment, you are most certainly NOT alive.

Moreover, there is no such thing as "morally right." What seems "right" to one person could be outlandishly different than another person's beliefs.
 
PDC you seem to throw religious folk under the bus there a little. That's just a really really bad and outdated stereotype, at least in the area i've grown up in. For example, I happen to be religious and I agree completely with your statement. And this is kind of a response to AL too....I really don't think that a simple mesh of cells, conception, can really constitute as functioning human life. Without human life, you don't have murder--- at least not in the context that we're currently using it.
 
Again, it depends on your definition on what is sentient. I do not think that a semi-organized mush of cells is sentient.
 
Dustin DeVine said:
AdamLambert said:
Again, if you don't want a kid, don't have sex.

No -- that is absurd. You imply that the only purpose of having sex is to reproduce, which is false. This can be classified as hypocrisy. Take for instance, you are gay. You enjoy engaging in coitus with another male, but it is biologically impossible for a male to reproduce. From what you have stated, you should not engage in sexual intercourse if you do not want a child. You are gay, and you cannot have a child. Ergo, you should not have sex for pleasure.

AdamLambert said:
If you're going to have sex, you should pay the consequences. Once the egg is fertilized, it begins the process of life. Unless she was Stolen, or continuing with the pregnancy is a risk to the woman's life, I can't see ending the life process as morally right.

"It begins the process of life" is irrelevant, as it is not alive and WILL not be alive until it can self-sustain. The process of life is totally different than actual life. Sure, when you begin the process, you may eventually live, but in that moment, you are most certainly NOT alive.

Moreover, there is no such thing as "morally right." What seems "right" to one person could be outlandishly different than another person's beliefs.

I understand what you're saying. With gay sex, reproduction is impossible, so there's no need to worry about pregnancy, and thus an abortion. However, with straight sex there is always at least a slight risk of conception (or so I've heard). So the only way to ensure a straight couple does not produce a baby is to not have sex. I'm not saying that straight couples should only have sex for reproduction, as that is indeed absurd. I was simply stating that if a straight couple does not want to have a child, the only surefire way to prevent one is by not having sex. Gay couples don't have to worry about it because the relationship is 'naturally sterile.' I'm sorry if I confused you. I confuse myself quite often :p
 
Back
Top