What is Your Position on Abortion?

[Cinesra]

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.

The body forming into a male or a female is neither a conscious decision, nor is it even controlled by the brain. Gender is determined upon conception and the cells carry out the process that is written in the DNA.

2: Sentient in a way of it knows what it needs to do, but that is it. It isn't aware.

Being aware is the definition of sentience.

Again, if you don't want a kid, don't have sex.

If you don't want to get fat; don't eat.

 

[PokePhD]

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.

It can't support itself but by no means does that make it "dead." Think of parasites and other microorganisms that require a host. They cannot sustain life on their own yet they are very much alive. The only difference, as you mentioned, is cognitive awareness. This awareness is not a requirement for life. Whether or not it's OK to abort a being lacking self-awareness is highly controversial and another topic entirely.

 

[AdamLambert]

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.

The body forming into a male or a female is neither a conscious decision, nor is it even controlled by the brain. Gender is determined upon conception and the cells carry out the process that is written in the DNA.

2: Sentient in a way of it knows what it needs to do, but that is it. It isn't aware.

Being aware is the definition of sentience.

Again, if you don't want a kid, don't have sex.

If you don't want to get fat; don't eat.

I think you made a typo. You must've meant "If you don't want to live, don't eat." It is illogical to compare eating and sex. Eating is necessary for you to live. Sex isn't. By saying "If you don't want kids, don't have sex," my point was that if you have sex, you are at risk of having a child. I admit I worded it wrong.

 

[Pokequaza]

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.

It can't support itself but by no means does that make it "dead." Think of parasites and other microorganisms that require a host. They cannot sustain life on their own yet they are very much alive. The only difference, as you mentioned, is cognitive awareness. This awareness is not a requirement for life. Whether or not it's OK to abort a being lacking self-awareness is highly controversial and another topic entirely.

Do not forget the vast majority of larger organisms require various microorganisms in order to survive. We, humans, are full of microorganisms. Even our mitochondria are technically not a part of ''us'', and I can assure you, we wouldn't survive without them.

 

[doublenikesocks]

Im pro-life. Im not gonna argue it, you guys can flame me if you want but whatever. My opinion is my opinion.

 

[Frezgle]

Im pro-life. Im not gonna argue it, you guys can flame me if you want but whatever. My opinion is my opinion.

I don't think anyone's going to flame you for it; I actually like hearing others' reasoning when it comes to sides of topics that I'm not on. This thread has had the majority of its participants be pro-choice (myself included) so it might create more interesting discussion.

or it might create heated arguments that'll bring the thread down but hey y'know

 

[doublenikesocks]

Im pro-life. Im not gonna argue it, you guys can flame me if you want but whatever. My opinion is my opinion.

I don't think anyone's going to flame you for it; I actually like hearing others' reasoning when it comes to sides of topics that I'm not on. This thread has had the majority of its participants be pro-choice (myself included) so it might create more interesting discussion.

or it might create heated arguments that'll bring the thread down but hey y'know

The last time this arguement was brought up resulted in flaming and a thread being closed. I do not need to be pounced on for my views

 

[PokePhD]

I don't think anyone's going to flame you for it; I actually like hearing others' reasoning when it comes to sides of topics that I'm not on. This thread has had the majority of its participants be pro-choice (myself included) so it might create more interesting discussion.

or it might create heated arguments that'll bring the thread down but hey y'know

The last time this arguement was brought up resulted in flaming and a thread being closed. I do not need to be pounced on for my views

That's understandable.

Even if you are fantastic at debate and logic, it gets tiresome to defend your viewpoint when you are taking the same stance as the minority. I haven't posted my own personal opinions for that exact reason. It's much less strenuous when you don't have a lot of people to respond to with counter arguments.

 

[PDC]

If you're not willing to ague you're own position, then you basically lose by logic. It doesn't matter if you'll get "pounded on" for your views. This thread will be kept civil, but showing that you won't argue just because you're afraid you'll lose means that you never should have stated it in the first place.

 

[PokePhD]

If you're not willing to ague you're own position, then you basically lose by logic. It doesn't matter if you'll get "pounded on" for your views. This thread will be kept civil, but showing that you won't argue just because you're afraid you'll lose means that you never should have stated it in the first place.

I'm not afraid to "lose" an argument but I have no desire to defend myself against fallacious logic (e.g. read over your reply). As I said, it gets tiresome and the endeavor is generally fruitless. There are simply too many people who oppose my viewpoint for me to find any enjoyment out of sharing my thought process on the matter. I would much rather focus my attention on a debate with one or two others.

But also you may have missed:

It can't support itself but by no means does that make it "dead." Think of parasites and other microorganisms that require a host. They cannot sustain life on their own yet they are very much alive. The only difference, as you mentioned, is cognitive awareness. This awareness is not a requirement for life. Whether or not it's OK to abort a being lacking self-awareness is highly controversial and another topic entirely.

 

[PDC]

I was not referring to you, but ok?

 

[doublenikesocks]

PDC, i was stating my position but no more. I am not about to argue about my views on a pokemon internet forum, if someone wants to argue in person ill go for it.

 

[Elite Stride]

PDC is completely right gents. If you come post here just to say that you don't need/want to defend your POV on the topic, I'd consider that outright spam. If you're not supporting your position with reasoning, then you're spamming- simple as that. The only reason your posts are still here is because I think this can be a learning opportunity. Hah. Please tell us more about your thoughts if you plan to continue posting.

 

[Haunted Water]

It's kind of trolling coming in saying that you believe this and never say why. I'm all ears if you want to talk about it, but if you don't then what discussion does that create?
I mean, I'll listen, and I promise not to bash you. I've yet to se any severe bashing in this thread.

 

[le Roi-Soleil]

I find it rather absurd to just state your side, but not explain it. You will not be flamed for your outright opinion, and if you are, it will be handled accordingly. If you think that someone debating against your opinion is flaming, that is rather low of you. It implies that you "know it all" and that you cannot be told otherwise, even if you are wrong. This, however, is not a debate between who is wrong and who is right; it is an intellectual debate on the subject of abortions.

We are open to any opinions, and we will not demean you based on your opinion. What we will do, though, is analyze your opinion, and if necessary, dissect your opinion based on logic. If you cannot handle that, you have no business even posting on these forums.

[private] I appreciate your input, but next time you don't really have to say anything. I made the point clear and when more people keep posting about it, it just drags it out and creates more of a mess in the thread. Thanks though! ~ES[/private]

 

[PMJ]

Just popping in here to chime in about how stupid the labels of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are.

It's hilarious how both sides spin it to sound good.

Anyway I think if a woman wants to nuke the parasite inside of her she should be able to do so without everyone gettin all up in her grill about it.

 

[Cinesra]

I think you made a typo. You must've meant "If you don't want to live, don't eat." It is illogical to compare eating and sex. Eating is necessary for you to live. Sex isn't. By saying "If you don't want kids, don't have sex," my point was that if you have sex, you are at risk of having a child. I admit I worded it wrong.

Telling a person to not have sex is unrealistic to the point of being near impossible, just like telling a person not to eat. They are both basic human urges and it's extremely rare not to have and/or seek to satisfy them. Sure if you have sex you're at risk you're at risk of having a child, but if you're responsible about it (contraceptives) it's very unlikely to happen unless maybe the condom breaks. Eating is the same. You're at risk of getting fat, but if you're responsible (diet and excercise) it's very unlikely to happen unless you have some weird genetic disorder. You can't tell a person to ignore basic urges just because there's a possibility of unwanted pregnancy, nor can you tell a person to ignore their basic urges just because there's a possibility to getting fat.

 

[Ysmir]

Not a comparison. You're confusing over indulgence with necessity. If you don't eat eventually you will waste away. If you don't have sex worse thing to happen is you'll probably have an extreme case of sexual repression and definitely pity from me. You can overindulge on both, but you need to eat to live. Eating isn't an urge it's a requirement for humans to survive. Furthermore, the only way to truly not have children is to not have sex but again it's hard but I've seen and know people who are in their 30's and 50's still virgins. Sure, it's probably hard for them especially in today's world but they are waiting for the right reasons and I admire them for it despite the fact I don't think I could wait that long. Safe sex is smart and in most cases prevents a child but it isn't 100% guaranteed unless of course the male has a vasectomy or the female; a hysterectomy. The former of which I believe is reversible.

Edit:

I'm not saying I agree with AdamLambert, but I don't agree with you either Cinesra, just to clarify. ;-)

 

[Cinesra]

Eh, yeah it might not have been the best analogy and you certainly won't die if you don't have sex, but my point about it being a basic human urge that you can't expect a person to ignore still stands.

 

[Haunted Water]

I would just like to say that there is a drive in both eating and sexual activity. However, the drive to eat is much stronger than the other. Many great men have remained celibate for a very long time, some lasted up until their death. Two of them in the last 150 years (Tesla and Gandhi).
So, no, sexual activity isn't much of an urge.