The Abortion debate: are you pro-life or pro-choice?

[DeletedUser]

So if you cannot live on your own that is criteria to take away your right to life? I guess the elderly and infirm do not have the right to life, and that goes for all children and disabled by that logic.

There's a difference between not being able to live on your own and depending on another's body for food, oxygen, water, temperature control, and everything else. If a 2 month old baby is taken from it's mother, someone else can care for it without a problem. If a 2 month old fetus is taken from it's mother, it will die no matter how much care is given (with the possible exception of implanting it into another woman, but I've never heard of it being done with a fetus - only an embryo.)

 

[DeletedUser]

There's a difference between not being able to live on your own and depending on another's body for food, oxygen, water, temperature control, and everything else. If a 2 month old baby is taken from it's mother, someone else can care for it without a problem. If a 2 month old fetus is taken from it's mother, it will die no matter how much care is given (with the possible exception of implanting it into another woman, but I've never heard of it being done with a fetus - only an embryo.)

Okay so the question still is what about "not being able to live on your own" denies the rights of the unborn? And exactly how does the unborn's rights differ than that of someone in a comma for instance? Do you think you would be charged for murder if you walked up to a coma victim and shoved a coat hanger down their throat till death occurred, and how does that differ in morality than an unborn child?

"Zygotes and fetus are incapable of surviving out of a woman's womb and are, effectively, parasitical. They are not nicknames, but scientific definitions for the state of development."-HS So what is developing exactly? If you did a DNA test on him/her what would it prove him/her as? If that HUMAN alive, even if parasitical?

 

[DeletedUser]

Okay so the question still is what about "not being able to live on your own" denies the rights of the unborn? And exactly how does the unborn's rights differ than that of someone in a comma for instance? Do you think you would be charged for murder if you walked up to a coma victim and shoved a coat hanger down their throat till death occurred, and how does that differ in morality than an unborn child?

"Zygotes and fetus are incapable of surviving out of a woman's womb and are, effectively, parasitical. They are not nicknames, but scientific definitions for the state of development."-HS So what is developing exactly? If you did a DNA test on him/her what would it prove him/her as? If that HUMAN alive, even if parasitical?

When was the last time you saw a coma victim attatched to another person and using that person's blood, lungs, digestive system, etc. for life support? The biggest difference is that murder is "illegal" homocide. Since abortion is not illegal, it doesn't matter if the fetus is considered a "baby" or not; it isn't murder.

If you do a DNA test on your fingernails and hair, the results would show that they were "human" too. Does that mean it should be illegal to cut them?

 

[DeletedUser34315]

We wouldn't be here having this debate if our mothers had decided it was inconvenient to keep us.
I can understand abortion IF the mother is at risk by keeping the pregnancy, and i don't mean general risk, a specific, acknowledged risk.
"Pro-choice" sounds good in a rhetorical sense, but what about the baby's choice?

 

[DeletedUser]

When was the last time you saw a coma victim attatched to another person and using that person's blood, lungs, digestive system, etc. for life support?

Well thankfully that does not have to be the case but what if it was? Would it be okay to kill that person in the manner I described?

The biggest difference is that murder is "illegal" homocide. Since abortion is not illegal, it doesn't matter if the fetus is considered a "baby" or not; it isn't murder.

That would depend on where you are. Different places have different laws. If you are talking about it being legal in the US one could argue that the abortion law is unconstitutional therefore not a legitimate law. Besides that fact the legal term may not cover the moral aspect of the act. For instance if you kill some one out to sea where there is now law or in space does that mean it is moral?

If you do a DNA test on your fingernails and hair, the results would show that they were "human" too. Does that mean it should be illegal to cut them?

Last I checked fingernails are not the complete package nor could they be construed as a human life.

 

[DeletedUser]

actually, if you were able to reattach your hair follicle or nail clippings to a woman's uterus... zygote! yep yep yep...

Let me ask you a simple question. How do you think they were able to produce a clone? Yep yep yep .... whoa!

As to gandalf's argument. You do realize just how many maternal deaths occur each year? I posted it earlier but it seems you completely ignored it. Unbeknownst to you, and it seems so many others, women die during pregnancy largely for risks that were NOT DETECTED and/or posed sudden death. The simple fact is, pregnancy IS VERY RISKY. In the U.S. alone, it is over THREE TIMES MORE RISKY than driving, and driving carries with it a lot of risks, but NOBODY FORCES YOU TO DRIVE, it's a friggin' choice to risk your life behind the wheel (note that in many countries it is over 100 times more dangerous to undergo pregnancy than it is to drive).

So truly, it amazes me when someone says, "I don't mean general risk, I mean specific, acknowledged risk." It merely demonstrates a myopic, male perception of the issue. A total disconnect, a complete failure to recognize just how dangerous prenancy is, how unpredictable, and just how wrong it is to "force" a woman to take such risks against her will, particularly when a man undergoes no risk and will, statistically, not likely take responsibility either.

And, once again, Gandalf, you are arguing only the first trimester. For the second and third trimesters, you have to demonstrate acknowledged risk.


No really, I'm out, hehe

 

[DeletedUser34315]

.00011 % of women die from pregnancy(wikipedia).
That's not a very high risk.
I say again, what about the baby? You really think he'd(she'd)choose to die?
You have to choose, in almost all cases, to get pregnant.
"NOBODY FORCES YOU TO DRIVE"
Nobody forces you to get pregnant. Abstinence is really not that difficult. ( I realize rape's the exception.)
Abortion is nothing more than murder cloaked in fancy rhetoric.

 

[DeletedUser]

actually, if you were able to reattach your hair follicle or nail clippings to a woman's uterus... zygote! yep yep yep...

Let me ask you a simple question. How do you think they were able to produce a clone? Yep yep yep .... whoa!

As to gandalf's argument. You do realize just how many maternal deaths occur each year? I posted it earlier but it seems you completely ignored it. Unbeknownst to you, and it seems so many others, women die during pregnancy largely for risks that were NOT DETECTED and/or posed sudden death. The simple fact is, pregnancy IS VERY RISKY. In the U.S. alone, it is over THREE TIMES MORE RISKY than driving, and driving carries with it a lot of risks, but NOBODY FORCES YOU TO DRIVE, it's a friggin' choice to risk your life behind the wheel (note that in many countries it is over 100 times more dangerous to undergo pregnancy than it is to drive).

So truly, it amazes me when someone says, "I don't mean general risk, I mean specific, acknowledged risk." It merely demonstrates a myopic, male perception of the issue. A total disconnect, a complete failure to recognize just how dangerous prenancy is, how unpredictable, and just how wrong it is to "force" a woman to take such risks against her will, particularly when a man undergoes no risk and will, statistically, not likely take responsibility either.

And, once again, Gandalf, you are arguing only the first trimester. For the second and third trimesters, you have to demonstrate acknowledged risk.


No really, I'm out, hehe

It takes much more than a fingernail to make a clone.

 

[DeletedUser]

If the unborn has the right to live (I believe they do) the possible consequences of respecting those right are irrelevant.

 

[DeletedUser]

.00011 % of women die from pregnancy(wikipedia).

Wherever you pulled that number (not from wikipedia), it is very wrong. http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html

You have to choose, in almost all cases, to get pregnant. "NOBODY FORCES YOU TO DRIVE"

And thus nobody should force you to undergo the process of pregnancy.

Nobody forces you to get pregnant. Abstinence is really not that difficult. ( I realize rape's the exception.)

You are incorrect. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that efforts to encourage abstinence has failed miserably precisely because we are hardwired to seek sexual intercourse.

Abortion is nothing more than murder cloaked in fancy rhetoric.

Pro life is nothing but chauvinist hypocrisy cloaked in fancy rhetoric.

It takes much more than a fingernail to make a clone.

Oh ye of little knowledge --> http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html

If the unborn has the right to live (I believe they do) the possible consequences of respecting those right are irrelevant.

I see, so the possible consequence of causing someone else to die is irrelevant. Seems rather obvious you place women on a lower "right to life" status.


Bah, this is it. Not participating further in this thread, hehe. Now stop tempting me, I have work to do.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

From wikipedia:
Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR)

Maternal Mortality Ratio is the ratio of the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The MMR is used as a measure of the quality of a health care system. Sierra Leone has the highest maternal death rate at 2,000, and Afghanistan has the second highest maternal death rate at 1900 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, reported by the UN based on 2000 figures. According to the Central Asia Health Review, Afghanistan's maternal mortality rate was 1,600 in 2007.[10] Lowest rates included Ireland at 0 per 100,000[citation needed] and Austria at 4 per 100,000. In the United States, the maternal death rate was 11 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2005.[11] This rose to 13.3 per 100,000 in 2006.[12] "Lifetime risk of maternal death" accounts for number of pregnancies and risk. In sub-Saharan Africa the lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 16, for developed nations only 1 in 2,800.
In 2003, the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA produced a report with statistics gathered from 2000. The world average per 100,000 was 400, the average for developed regions was 20, and for developing regions 440. Countries with highest maternal mortality were: Sierra Leone (2,000), Afghanistan (1,900), Malawi (1,800), Angola (1,700), Niger (1,600), Tanzania (1,500), Rwanda (1,400), Mali (1,200), Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Central African Republic, Guinea Bissau (1,100 each), Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Burundi, and Mauritania (1,000 each).


Do the math. 11 deaths of the mother out of 100,000 live births=.011 %.

Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html)
Number of women who die from pregnancy issues per year:
529,000(http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html )

(Your site doesn't mention what percentage of pregnant women die from pregnancy complications, but http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_get_pregnant_each_day suggests 220,000,000 get pregnant every year.).

Also, 68,770(13%) of those deaths are caused by botched abortions. (http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html )
_
This gives a percentage of .24045.



So, whenever you get pregnant, you have a .2 percent change of dying because of it.
Abortion has an almost 100% kill rate of babies.

How can you justify killing 42,000,000 people a year to try to save 529,000?

Murder:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.(dictionary.com)
Abortion is murder.(Technically, it is legal, but it was also legal for a long time to kill "Inferior races". Legal law vs. Moral law.)

Chauvinist hypocrisy?
(wikipedia.com)
Chauvinism

A contemporary use of the term in English is in the phrase male chauvinism. Because "chauvinism" is most often heard in this context, it is often mistakenly believed to refer exclusively to "male chauvinism" such as anti-feminism.

How is that chauvinistic? Half of all babies are female.... And I am arguing for all of their lives.

 

[WanderingStranger]

Do the math. 11 deaths of the mother out of 100,000 live births=.00011 %.

Just a math correction and I didnt bother to check the rest but I assume they are suspect also.

Should be .011 %

*added this so it is easy to follow*

100% is 100k
10% is 10k
1% is 1k
0.1% is 100
0.01% is 10
0.001% is 1

11 is 0.01% + 0.001% = 0.011%

 

[DeletedUser34315]

Thanks, i must have typo'd my calculator.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hi Gandalf, the 13% was referring to "unsafe" abortions (i.e., illegal abortions, and these numbers would be significantly higher if abortions were designated as unlawful). Legal abortions constitute about 8 deaths a year (according to CDC). Compare this to 529,000 women who die every year for attempting pregnancy. Let's see 8 vs 529,000.

And let's not ignore that this rage against abortion is a suspected co-conspirator in the tripling of maternal deaths in the United States in just 15 years ~ http://www.who.int/pmnch/topics/maternal/20100402_ihmearticle.pdf

And then, well we have the part you completely ignored, which is that every year the health of 1.7 million women in the United States suffer a pregnancy complication that has an adverse and usually permanent effect on their health (i.e., diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, etc).

Enjoy your debate, but check your facts.

 

[DeletedUser]

I was going to go back to the sidelines, but I did want to mention one thing about the .011% calculation. That ratio is per 100,000 live births, but many more women die due to complications with pregnancies that result in the death of the fetus too. Those women aren't included in your figures.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

Thanks hellstromm, I didn't realize the article was speaking of unsafe ones.
I didn't include the 1.7 million because they are still alive, as opposed to being dead, IE aborted babies.
It stands to reason, if less abortions are performed, that slightly more women would die of pregnancy complications.
However, more babies die from abortions, (far, far more) than women do from pregnancies.
Artemis, i included the figure of .2 chance of dying from pregnancy, no matter the end result of the pregnancy on the child.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh ye of little knowledge --> http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html


I see, so the possible consequence of causing someone else to die is irrelevant. Seems rather obvious you place women on a lower "right to life" status.


Bah, this is it. Not participating further in this thread, hehe. Now stop tempting me, I have work to do.

Your link has zero relevance to cloning and is still appealing to consequences. I'm not exactly sure on the statistics but I think I remember more girls are born in general than boys so how exactly am I not considering their rights?

 

[DeletedUser]

Slightly more? I encourage you to look at the figures prior to roe vs wade (and do realize, even prior to roe vs wade, abortions weren't universally criminalized, just very hard to obtain). Criminalizing abortions will have a significant impact. Illegal abortions will replace legal abortions and those that do not seek an abortion will substantially increase the MMR in in the U.S., as the majority seeking abortions presently are those at higher risk (family history, teen, or above prime age).

It would really help your arguments if you researched the information before making your assertions. Enjoy the debate.



Oi, sorry Willy. I provided the wrong link. Guess you'll have to chase the information down on your own.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oi, sorry Willy. I provided the wrong link. Guess you'll have to chase the information down on your own.

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5432450_human-cloning-process.html
At the moment, animals are cloned through a process called nuclear transplantation. When an egg is fertilized normally, it will begin to divide and grow into a baby. The process of nuclear transplantation is when the nucleus of a fertilized egg, the part that contains the DNA and instructions for growth, is replaced by a nucleus from the parent. This means that the egg will divide and grow, but that it will grow into an exact, genetic copy of the parent whose nucleus was put into the egg. This method works well for simple animals, but since primates, and especially humans, are more complex, it's nearly impossible to switch the nucleus without damaging vital, genetic material.


As of 2009, human cloning was still in its theoretical stage. However, there is a suggested technique that may solve the issue of damaging the genetic material in the switch of the nucleus. Instead of switching out the entire nucleus, small sections of the existing genome, the DNA, inside of the egg need to be altered in order to produce a clone. There is currently a ban on human cloning in the United States, but this technique could make cloning of a complicated organism such as a human quite feasible.

Read more: Human Cloning Process | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5432450_human-cloning-process.html#ixzz1zLjbBRQh

You see you cannot clone from DNA alone you need the egg. Cloning is just a different process for providing fertilization or the genetic material.

 

[DeletedUser]

Do the math. 11 deaths of the mother out of 100,000 live births=.011 %.

Except you didn't do the "math", and quoted 0.00011% in your prior post and, having repeated the error, had to edit it to the correct figure. But nvm.

Presumably those who feel that a fertilised egg has a "right" to life do not believe that rights entail responsibilities.

And if they see abortion as murder, then the 20,000 or so avoidable infant mortalities each year that occur because of unavailability of the best medical care and facilities in the US must count as homicides for them. Since this is clearly a moral issue to them and not a pragmatic one of finances they presumably enthusiastically support government initiatives to provide universal medical insurance. After all, if a foetus has the right to life, then its life-support system (the mother) must have the right to the best medical care possibly available.

And as a former foetus myself, I feel entitled to speak on behalf of all of us.