Abortion

[DeletedUser]

I'm going to jump in for a second, because i'm watching a lot of people falling for the abortion traps.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO OR WHAT THAT CHILD MAY GROW UP TO BE, IT MATTERS THAT IT'S NOT A CHILD YET, AND AS SUCH IT IS THE WOMAN'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ALLOW THE FETUS TO BECOME A CHILD, OR TO TERMINATE THE FETUS.

This is not a right to life argument, nor is it a right to choice argument, it is an issue of determining when life is stated to begin. At present, the laws (based on scientific evidence regarding life signs, organ development, and brain activity), state a fetus does not become a living child until after three months of gestation.

If you want to argue the beginning of life, we can argue all the way to a sperm lost during masturbation, or an egg lost for lack of fertilization. Basically, what most of you are arguing about is WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND.

The line has already been drawn and if you argue it one way or another, the line will again be debated. AS LONG AS THERE ARE IDIOTS UNWILLING TO EXAMINE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, there are going to be people arguing about where the line should be drawn.

 

[DeletedUser]

At present, the laws (based on scientific evidence regarding life signs, organ development, and brain activity), state a fetus does not become a living child until after three months of gestation.

If you and law say fetus are non-living things until they reach 3 months, then I would considerate abortion as it is a non-living thing.

I just don't feel good with the sensation that some cool dude (or woman) could be born and wasn't.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm going to jump in for a second, because i'm watching a lot of people falling for the abortion traps.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO OR WHAT THAT CHILD MAY GROW UP TO BE, IT MATTERS THAT IT'S NOT A CHILD YET, AND AS SUCH IT IS THE WOMAN'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ALLOW THE FETUS TO BECOME A CHILD, OR TO TERMINATE THE FETUS.

This is not a right to life argument, nor is it a right to choice argument, it is an issue of determining when life is stated to begin. At present, the laws (based on scientific evidence regarding life signs, organ development, and brain activity), state a fetus does not become a living child until after three months of gestation.

Please clarify. You state that"AND AS SUCH IT IS THE WOMAN'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE..." That sounds like it is the woman's right to "choose", of which I agree with. In my opinion, it is a matter of choice for the woman.

 

[DeletedUser]

The right to choice argument is presently off-point, as is the right to life argument. Both are debating the point from the "life" standpoint, when the real issue here is the biologically-based legal standpoint. Therefore it is not a woman's right to choose, it is a biologically-based legal determination that within the first 3 months of gestation, life has not yet begun and therefore does not fall within the law to govern action or inaction.

You see, the error in viewing this whole thing is thinking it's a tug of war between right to life and women's right to choose what they do to their body. The real issue, the real debate, should be (and for all intensive purposes, actually is) about the scientific evidence, the data, available and what that data indicates as the point at which life begins.

So far nobody in this debate thread has provided any scientific evidence. The closest anyone has provided is an outdated video from an old guy claiming to be a doctor, who does not present anything even remotely reminiscent of data and is instead going for an emotional appeal.

That's the big problem with this whole debate here. It's a mass of emotional appeals, almost totally lacking in concrete evidence and not once touching upon the legal cases that have set precedence on these issues. The legal, almost universal position presently stands that life begins after 3 months gestation, and that in cases whereby the life or welfare of the mother is threatened, abortion may be granted from 3+ to 6 months because it is very unlikely the unborn child will survive outside of the mother. It is, therefore, a medically viable decision to save the life of the mother over the far less likely long-term survival of the unborn child.

 

[DeletedUser]

This debate is then useless because it is NOT agreed upon scientifically or otherwise when life begins. That is precisely why the issue of abortion is argued. People turn to ideals and beliefs to form their stance on abortion. There are legal cases that cause some states in the U.S. to ban partial birth abortions and other cases that show cause to have no ban on abortion at all. So there you have it. In the U.S. anyway, there are no legal cases or scientific evidence that makes this "debate" cut and dried as you prefer.

Hopefully I am missing your point because the only way to debate this issue is from the stance of one's personal beliefs in which if I understand you right, you are not willing to discuss. Therefore I will move on and leave this discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

You are missing the point, completely. I also got into the trap of using the word "life" in my arguments. I'll discuss this later, as this entire discussion is annoying and requires me to focus in order to provide a "viable" argument.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe we should preserve life by destroying it. Sounds odd and objective to the point, yes, but if families deep in poverty are forced to continue having unwanted babies, then eventually the region would be prone to overpopulation, crime, and other inhabitiablities. Im not saying there is anything wrong with being poor, but in poverty stricken areas, Crime is likley to be higher than it would in a suburban area. The reason is that people in poverty have to either earn a living harder than everyone else, or take what they need to survive. Sometimes they become greedy, and they take more than they would need and end up stealing a multitude of things. The more criminals that there are, the worse off the region will be. There are few solutions to the problem.

#1 is deal out welfare checks to all of the poverty families and pay for it with tax dollars, charging the highest class the most, who would then not be able to keep up after a time span, which would ultimately lead to the death of the upper class, leaving nobody to pick up the tab except the people who work hard in the middle class to earn a living. When they are gone, there really is no point to it unless everyone is made into middle class citizens, thus the process resets and the population continues to grow.

#2 is open up low cost abortion clinics so that poverty sticken families and unready couples do not have to support the needs of a child, the needs being food, clothing, shelter, ect.

#3 is none of the above, which could only escalate the severity of the issue.

As we all can tell, #2 is the best answer of the three. it has little cost to upkeep and it doesn't have any negatives except for dead babies/fetuses/whatever.

I think both sides should take this into account, pro and anti abortion. It may sound harsh at first to some, but you must understand the logic in this.

 

[DeletedUser8950]

I know that much I'm not quite that ******ed

Simply a case of would you want you child to have to live like that? Could you live with looking after a child like that?

I was more talking to David, but heh. I agree with you.
And no David, I wasn't just calling you a ******, just ignorant:nowink:
But yeah, the world is overcrowded as it is. If it keeps growing, where are we going?(that ryhme was intentional)

 

[DeletedUser14029]

just one question: regarding the issue of raising the armor-skin-disease child, do you have an abortion on behalf of the baby's good (e.g. serious discrimination, extremely uncomfortable while alive, a lot of pain) or to save yourself the pain and trouble of raising such a difficult child?

plainly curious. no other intentions.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe we should preserve life by destroying it. Sounds odd and objective to the point, yes, but if families deep in poverty are forced to continue having unwanted babies, then eventually the region would be prone to overpopulation, crime, and other inhabitiablities. Im not saying there is anything wrong with being poor, but in poverty stricken areas, Crime is likley to be higher than it would in a suburban area. The reason is that people in poverty have to either earn a living harder than everyone else, or take what they need to survive. Sometimes they become greedy, and they take more than they would need and end up stealing a multitude of things. The more criminals that there are, the worse off the region will be. There are few solutions to the problem.

#1 is deal out welfare checks to all of the poverty families and pay for it with tax dollars, charging the highest class the most, who would then not be able to keep up after a time span, which would ultimately lead to the death of the upper class, leaving nobody to pick up the tab except the people who work hard in the middle class to earn a living. When they are gone, there really is no point to it unless everyone is made into middle class citizens, thus the process resets and the population continues to grow.

#2 is open up low cost abortion clinics so that poverty sticken families and unready couples do not have to support the needs of a child, the needs being food, clothing, shelter, ect.

#3 is none of the above, which could only escalate the severity of the issue.

As we all can tell, #2 is the best answer of the three. it has little cost to upkeep and it doesn't have any negatives except for dead babies/fetuses/whatever.

your #1 doesn't make sense your belief that you could somehow tax the upper class out of existence and that that will destroy the world is insane.plenty of countries give out welfare and this doesn't destroy the fabric of society.
#2 there is the cost of the abortion the check ups afterwards to make sure there were no complications and the emotional counciling that isn't cheep and if see a dead baby as "just a negative" thats pretty sick.

the arguement put forward that poor people should have the right to abortion because they can't afford to have a child how about they stop having kids like everyone else does

 

[DeletedUser]

your #1 doesn't make sense your belief that you could somehow tax the upper class out of existence and that that will destroy the world is insane.plenty of countries give out welfare and this doesn't destroy the fabric of society.
#2 there is the cost of the abortion the check ups afterwards to make sure there were no complications and the emotional counciling that isn't cheep and if see a dead baby as "just a negative" thats pretty sick.

the arguement put forward that poor people should have the right to abortion because they can't afford to have a child how about they stop having kids like everyone else does

So how's that work then? Perform mandatory vasectomies and the female equivalent?

Contraception is not 100% effective as I have personal knowledge of.

What counciling / check ups afterwards? we never received any of that, in fact my partner was in the hospital for less then a day, a very unpleasant day, but that was it, there were a number of consultations beforehand, but again they were all on the one day.

 

[DeletedUser]

And no David, I wasn't just calling you a ******, just ignorant:nowink:

Ay Im on your side mate!!!

your #1 doesn't make sense your belief that you could somehow tax the upper class out of existence and that that will destroy the world is insane.plenty of countries give out welfare and this doesn't destroy the fabric of society.

#2 there is the cost of the abortion the check ups afterwards to make sure there were no complications and the emotional counciling that isn't cheep and if see a dead baby as "just a negative" thats pretty sick.

the arguement put forward that poor people should have the right to abortion because they can't afford to have a child how about they stop having kids like everyone else does

RE-#1 It is simple mathematics. If you take plants away from a garden faster than they can grow then they will run out of plants. At the current debt level across the world, taxes on the upper classes would need to be hiked in order for the governments, take for example America's, to be in the safe for debt relief. However, poor people sometimes need financial assistance, WELFARE, so they recieve a sum to support their families. Sometimes they have kids, and have no alternatives but to ask for more from the government. Not everyone wants to, but they do. Sadly some get pregnant on purpose but that is a different story. The moral is, however, we all rely upon the upper class for taxes. They also have more money than necessary sometimes, like musicians, actors, RAPPERS, ect. so it is right to take away from the ones who don't earn it. Sadly, upper middle class farmers, meat processers, and others are forced to pay high levels of money as well, and we then lose farms. What California did with making limits on Animals per containment facility makes things for them even harder, while also picking up the tab.

As furry ice cubes said, there is no need for emotional counciling. Abortion clinics could be cheap as well, with tax funding there instead of things like researching ******ed field mice, funding "good causes" that are no different from PETa, traveling to the "Old World" to help people that hate your guts and don't need help in the first place only to get thousands of people killed, The Federal Communications Commission, that sort of thing. With the upcomming universal healthcare program, Abortion prices would be no big deal.

In conclusion, Cheep cheep cheep!

 

[DeletedUser]

So how's that work then? Perform mandatory vasectomies and the female equivalent?

Contraception is not 100% effective as I have personal knowledge of.

What counciling / check ups afterwards? we never received any of that, in fact my partner was in the hospital for less then a day, a very unpleasant day, but that was it, there were a number of consultations beforehand, but again they were all on the one day.

to vesectomies if you don't want to have kids go for it. but y do poor people have more kids than better off financially people.as for the counciling my country was/is in a court case against 3 women who claim that having a ban on abortion infringes their human rights because they had an abortion in another country there were complications and no help for them or counselling.
@david plants and money are not the same money is created by banks it doesn't really exist.the highest earners are not famous rappers.the highest earners could probably buy and sell the third world never mind contributing to social welfare

 

[DeletedUser]

to vesectomies if you don't want to have kids go for it. but y do poor people have more kids than better off financially people.as for the counciling my country was/is in a court case against 3 women who claim that having a ban on abortion infringes their human rights because they had an abortion in another country there were complications and no help for them or counselling.
@david plants and money are not the same money is created by banks it doesn't really exist.the highest earners are not famous rappers.the highest earners could probably buy and sell the third world never mind contributing to social welfare

No you simply said that poor people should stop having kids, I asked how you propose to do this since no contraception is 100% effective and you cannot force people not to have sex.

Poor people may have more children for a variety of reasons - however the sad truth is that some people have more children to get more benefits.

Well I imagine they are after cash, if they chose to have an abortion then they should be ready to deal with the after issues, ofc they should have access to health care, but the counselling I don't see a need for, myself and my partner coped after she had one.

But why should the biggest earners be penalised and forced to provide for those that don't want to work?

 

[DeletedUser]

Abortion is "wrong" because the RIGHT TO LIFE OUTWEIGH'S THE MOTHER'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND LIBERTY! And this is not "creating a right", it is protecting one of the "self-evident" ones.

As for children growing up to become thieves and degenerates, it is the parent's fault if they can't raise their children to not break the law. They must at least try.

 

[DeletedUser]

Abortion is "wrong" because the RIGHT TO LIFE OUTWEIGH'S THE MOTHER'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND LIBERTY! And this is not "creating a right", it is protecting one of the "self-evident" ones.

As for children growing up to become thieves and degenerates, it is the parent's fault if they can't raise their children to not break the law. They must at least try.

So when does the fetus have a right to live? in the country I live in I believe the accepted definition is at 24 weeks (not entirely sure).

Why do yo think the point you say and before? or after?

 

[DeletedUser14029]

well, perhaps based on the Biological viewpoint that the zygote at first undergoes mitotic cell division, then undergoes rapid meiotic cell division and begin to evolve as something more than just gametes or any other cells (hence, sperm and egg lost isn't really counted as life), since the whole process of a zygote--->fetus--->baby is unique and continuous, unlike other cell divisions
just my viewpoint, again it might not be correct >.<

 

[DeletedUser]

That's pretty much it (we happen to be studying this in my Science class right now).

I guess that the fetus could be considered life upon the discovery of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

well, perhaps based on the Biological viewpoint that the zygote at first undergoes mitotic cell division, then undergoes rapid meiotic cell division and begin to evolve as something more than just gametes or any other cells (hence, sperm and egg lost isn't really counted as life), since the whole process of a zygote--->fetus--->baby is unique and continuous, unlike other cell divisions
just my viewpoint, again it might not be correct >.<

Up until the fetus is viable it is effectively a parasite. Therefore up until the baby is classed as viable then it is still only potential life therefore cannot be classed as human life until it is able physically to survive on its own?

 

[DeletedUser14029]

Well, about 'physically able to survive on its own' - to be frank, a baby can't live outside care for long. and until its born, it is still a parasite, isn't it - still requires nutrients and gaseous exchange from the mother to develop. if that's how you define it, why bother setting a 'mature' date at all >.<

It should be considered life because in due time it WILL develop into an individual, whereas other cell divisions can only result in gametes or daughter cells, but never an INDIVIDUAL. That's why it's different ^^